Disertacija Selickaite 2019

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/338833737
Doctoral Dissertation: DEVELOPING PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHERS’

SELF-EFFICACY FOR CREATING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT
Thesis · June 2019
CITATIONS READS
0 96
1 author:
Dovile Selickaite
Lithuanian Sports University
12 PUBLICATIONS 6 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Self-efficacy of physical education teachers toward the inclusion of students with special education needs in regular physical education. View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Dovile Selickaite on 29 December 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
DOVILĖ SELICKAITĖ
DEVELOPING
XXX XXX
XXX XXX PHYSICAL
XXX XXX
XXX XXX
XXX XXX
XXX XXX
XXX XXX
XXX
EDUCATION
XXX XXX
XXX XXX TEACHERS’
XXX XXX
XXX XXX
XXX XXX
XXX XXX
XXX XXX
XXX
XXX XXX
XXX XXX
XXX XXX
XXXFOR
SELF-EFFICACY XXX
XXXCREATING
XXX
XXX XXX
XXX XXX
XXX
XXX XXX
XXX XXX
XXXEDUCATION
INCLUSIVE XXX
XXX XXX
XXX
ENVIRONMENT
Doctoral Dissertation
Doctoral
Dissertation
Biomedical
Biomedical
Social Sciences,
Sciences,
Sciences, Biology
Biology
Education (01
(01 B),
(07S) B),
Physiology
Physiology (B
(B 470)
470)
Kaunas
Kaunas
2019
2016
LITHUANIAN SPORTS UNIVERSITY
Dovilė Selickaitė
DEVELOPING PHYSICAL EDUCATION

TEACHERS’ SELF-EFFICACY FOR
CREATING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
ENVIRONMENT
Social Sciences, Education (07S)
Kaunas 2019
The Doctoral Dissertation was prepared at the Department of Applied Biology and
Rehabilitation of the Lithuanian Sports University in 2014–2018 in accordance
with the Regulation of the Joint Doctoral Studies of Lithuanian University of
Educational Sciences, Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuanian Sports
University and Šiauliai University.
The study was supported by Research Council of Lithuania in 2016–2018.
Scientific supervisor
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Diana RĖKLAITIENĖ
Lithuanian Sports University (Social Sciences, Education – 07S)
Scientific advisors:
Prof. Dr. Habil. Kazimieras PUKĖNAS
Lithuanian Sports University (Technology Sciences, Electrical and Electronics
Engineering – 01T)
Prof. Dr. Yeshayahu HUTZLER

Academic College at Wingate Institute (Behavioral Sciences)
© Dovilė Selickaitė, 2019

PADĖKA
Nuoširdžiai dėkoju Jums, kurie žengėte drauge šiuo prasmingu, iššūkių

kupinu mokslo keliu. Kiekvieno iš Jūsų skirto laiko, pasidalintų žinių ir suteiktos
paramos dėka šis darbas taps atspirtimi tiems, kurie sieks plėtoti mokslinius
tyrimus, susijusius su įtraukiu ugdymu Lietuvoje.
Pirmiausiai norėčiau padėkoti darbo vadovei doc. dr. Dianai Rėklaitienei už
skirtą laiką, pasitikėjimą, skatinimą siekti aukštesnių tikslų ir atvertas mokslinio
kelio duris. Visa tai skatino intensyviai mokytis, tobulėti ir pažinti mokslo aplinką.
Esu dėkinga profesoriui Kazimierui Pukėnui už nuoširdžiai, operatyviai,
suprantamai ir aiškiai perteiktas žinias. Profesoriui Yeshayahu Hutzler dėkingumą
reiškiu už perteiktą patirtį rengiant disertacinius tyrimus ir straipsnius. Profesoriui
Martin Block ir dr. Andrea Taliaferro tariu nuoširdų ačiū už leidimą naudotis
tyrimo instrumentais.
Ypatingą padėką skiriu profesoriui Romualdui Malinauskui už skleistą
romumą kritiniais disertacijos rengimo momentais, pasitikėjimą ir galimybę
stažuotis Stokholmo universiteto Specialiojo ugdymo katedroje (Švedija) – tai
sudarė sąlygas gerokai ugtelėti ne tik kaip mokslininkei, bet ir kaip asmenybei.
Esu labai dėkinga Jude K. Tah už nuoširdžią pagalbą stažuotės Stokholmo
universitete metu, pasidalintą patirtį ir žinias, sudarytas palankias sąlygas pažinti
šalies kultūrą ir švietimo sistemą.
Šie tyrimai neturėtų prasmės, jei ne švietimo skyrių vadovų, pedagogų
kvalifikacijos centrų, švietimo pagalbos tarnybų ir švietimo centrų specialistų,
kūno kultūros mokytojų metodinių būrelių pirmininkų ir mokyklų vadovų noras
dalintis patirtimi ir siekis tobulėti dalyvaujant tyrimuose. Ypatingą padėką skiriu
Daivai Liumparienei už nuoširdumą, reikiamu laiku ištartus palaikančius ir
įkvepiančius žodžius.
Nuoširdžią padėką skiriu kūno kultūros mokytojams ir mokiniams už skirtą
laiką ir išsakytą nuomonę. Jūsų minčių galia ir palaikymas šioms naujųjų laikų
„erezijoms“ apie įtraukujį ugdymą kūno kultūros pamokoje suteikia realias
galimybes tapti įgyvendintoms greičiau nei XXIII amžiuje.
Specialią padėką skiriu Emai Batutytei ir Ilonai Stankevičiūtei už pagalbą
vykdant apklausas ir suvedant gausų duomenų kiekį. Mokslinei grupei „Specialiųjų
poreikių asmenų įgalinimas“ dėkoju už skirtą laiką, pasidalintą patirtį ir žinias
įgyvendinant eksperimentą. Ypač dėkoju Aušrinei Packevičiūtei už visuomet
3
randamą laiką išklausyti ir padrąsinti.
Nuoširdų dėkingumą jaučiu recenzentams už patarimus, siūlymus ir
vertingas mokslines įžvalgas, padėjusias patobulinti šį darbą. Dr. Mindaugui
Kavaliauskui dėkoju už geranoriškas konsultacijas, atskleistas matematinių
skaičiavimų subtilybes ir pritaikomumo galimybes.
Nuoširdžią padėką skiriu dr. Daivai Majauskienei, dr. Daliai Mickevičienei
ir dr. Kristinai Borkienei už geranoriškumą, supratingumą, patarimus ir operatyvią
pagalbą reikiamais momentais.
Ypatinga padėka artimiesiems, ypač Tomui Selickui, ir draugams, kurie
manimi tikėjo sunkiausiomis akimirkomis ir drąsino siekti užsibrėžtų tikslų.
Taip pat esu dėkinga visiems tiems, kurių neįvardijau tiesiogiai, tačiau kurie,
man žinant ir nežinant, vienaip ar kitaip prisidėjo prie šio darbo tikslų
įgyvendinimo.
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am sincerely grateful to those who have accompanied me in this

meaningful and challenging path of science. Due to the time, shared knowledge
and support provided by each of you, this work will become a cornerstone for those
who will seek to develop research related to inclusive education in Lithuania.
First of all, I would like to thank Assoc. Prof. Dr. Diana Rėklaitienė, the
supervisor of my doctoral dissertation, for her time, confidence, encouragement to
seek higher goals and the opened door to the scientific pathway. All this stimulated
my intensive learning, improvement and knowledge of the environment of science.
I am grateful to Professor Kazimieras Pukėnas for his sincere, expeditious,
comprehensible and clear provision of knowledge. I express my gratitude to
Professor Yeshayahu Hutzler for the experience I have gained in preparing my
dissertation research and articles. I say sincere thank you to Professor Martin Block
and Dr. Andrea Taliaferro for permission to use research tools.
I am especially grateful to Professor Romualdas Malinauskas for his
gentleness at the critical moments of the dissertation preparation, his confidence
and the provided opportunity for me to have an internship at the Department of
Special Education at Stockholm University (Sweden), which has made it possible
for me to grow not only as a researcher but also as a personality.
I am very grateful to Jude K. Tah for sincere help during the internship at
Stockholm University, shared experience and knowledge, facilitating acquaintance
with the country’s culture and education system.
These studies would not make sense if there was no desire of the heads of
education departments, professionals at teacher training centres, education
helpdesks and education centres, chairpersons of methodological groups of
physical education teachers and school administrators to share experiences and
aspire to excellence while participating in research. Special thanks to Daiva
Liumparienė for her sincere, timely and supportive as well as inspiring words.
I express my sincere thanks to the teachers of physical education and
students for their time and the communicated opinions. The power of your thoughts
and your expressed support for these new “heresies” of inclusive education in
physical education have real chances to become implemented faster than in the
XXIII century.
Special thanks go to Ema Batutytė and Ilona Stankevičiūtė for helping me
5
with the surveys and the input of plenty of data. Appreciations to the researcher
team “Empowerment of People with Special Needs” to the devoted time, the
shared experiences and knowledge during the implementation of the experiment. I
am especially grateful to Aušrinė Packevičiūtė for always having time to listen to
and to encourage me.
I feel sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their advice, suggestions and
valuable scientific insights which helped to improve this work. I am grateful to
Dr. Mindaugas Kavaliauskas for the benevolent consultations during which he
revealed the subtleties and the applicability of mathematical calculations.
I sincerely thank Dr. Daiva Majauskienė, Dr. Dalia Mickevičienė, and
Dr. Kristina Borkienė for their kindness, thoughtfulness, advice, and prompt help
in the right moments.
I am especially grateful to my nearest and dearest, especially Tomas
Selickas, and my friends who believed me in the toughest moments and
encouraged me to achieve my goals.
I am also grateful to all those who were not named directly, but who,
knowingly and not knowingly, contributed in one way or another to the
implementation of the objectives of this work.
6
GLOSSARY
Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s conviction (or confidence) about his or

her abilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action
needed to successfully execute a specific task within a given context (Bandura,
1977; 1986)
Attitude is defined as individual’s positive or negative feeling associated
with performing a specific behavior (Ajzen, 1991).
Special educational needs are defined as the need for help and service in
the process of education arising from exceptional personality abilities, congenital
or acquired disorders, adverse environmental factors (Parliament of the Republic of
Lithuania, 1991).
Inclusive education is a process that takes into account the social, cultural
and educational diversity and is based on factors that identify and eliminate
obstacles to learning and participation in education (UNESCO, 2001).
Adapted physical education is a diverse program of developmental
activities, exercises, games, rhythms, and sports designed to meet the unique
physical education needs of individuals (Winnick & Porretta, 2017).
Inclusive learning environment is an education institution, class or other
learning-related environment, in which persons of different abilities study in the
same place and there are purposefully organized physical, social, and informative
sets of circumstances, in which favourable conditions for people with different
abilities are created in order to form and implement their experience: knowledge,
skills, and attitudes towards themselves and the surrounding world (Rozenfelde,
2016)
7
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ADHD – attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

APE – adapted physical education
ASD – autism spectrum disorder
BEH – behavior
CAIPE-LT – Lithuanian version of the Children’s Attitudes Towards
Integrated Physical Education – Rivised
CAIPE-R – Childrenʼs Attitudes Towards Integrated Physical Education –
Rivised
CFA – Confirmatory Factor Analysis
CFI – comparative fit index
EASIE – European Agency Statistics on Inclusive Education
EFA – Exploratory Factor Analysis
F – Fisher criterion
f2 – Cohen’s of effect size
g – Hedges’ effect size
ID – intellectual disability
KMO – Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index
M – average
ME – mastery experience
N – number
NFI – normal fit index
p – value of statistical significance
PCA – principal component analysis
PCH – perceived challenges
PD – physical disability
PE – physical education
PESEISD-A – Physical Educators’ Self-Efficacy towards Including Students
with Disabilities – Autism
PESEISD- – Lithuanian version of Physical Educators’ Self-Efficacy towards
A-LT Including Students with Disabilities – Autism
PI – peers’ instructing
PS – physiological states
PSD – paralympic school days
r – correlation coefficient
R2 – coefficient of determination
8
RMSEA – root mean square error of approximation
S – safety
SA – specific adaptation
SD – standard deviation
SE – self-efficacy
SEM – Structural Equation Modelling
SEN – special education needs
SE-PETE-D – Self-Efficacy Scale for Physical Education Teacher Education
Majors towards Children with Disabilities
SE-PETE- – Lithuanian version of Self-Efficacy Scale for Physical
D-LT Education Teacher Education Majors towards Children with
Disabilities
SP – social persuasion
ST – staying on task
UNESCO – United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization
VE – vicarious experience
VI – visual impairment
x2 – chi square
α – Cronbach's alpha coeficient
η2 – Eta-squared; measure of effect size
9
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 17
1. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................ 30
1.1. Inclusive education of children with special education needs
in Lithuania ............................................................................................. 30
1.2. Conceptions of inclusive education and inclusive special education ...... 39
1.3. Inclusive learning environment ............................................................... 41
1.4. Theoretical substantiation of the development of physical education
teachers’ self-efficacy for creating an inclusive educational
environment............................................................................................. 45
1.4.1. Theoretical assumptions of the self-efficacy concept ................... 45
1.4.2. Conception of teacher’s self-efficacy in the class context ............ 49
1.5. Physical education teachers’ self-efficacy for including students with
special educational needs to the regular physical education classes ....... 53
1.6. Attitudes of students towards the participation of peers with special
educational needs in a common physical education class ....................... 59
1.7. The ways for development of the self-efficacy of physical education
teachers to create an inclusive educational environment for students
with special educational needs in a regular physical education class...... 64
1.8. Construction assumptions of the Theoretical model of developing
physical education teachers’ self-efficacy to create an inclusive
educational environment ......................................................................... 69
2. METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 75
2.1. Research design ....................................................................................... 75
2.2. Research organization ............................................................................. 77
2.3. Participants .............................................................................................. 81
2.4. Intervention.............................................................................................. 83
2.5. Research instruments ............................................................................... 85
2.5.1. SE-PETE-D ................................................................................... 86
2.5.2. PESEISD-A ................................................................................... 87
2.5.3. CAIPE-R ....................................................................................... 90
2.6. Data analysis............................................................................................ 91
2.6.1. Validation of research instruments ................................................ 91
10
2.6.2. Situation research of physical education teachers’ self-efficacy
and children’s attitudes towards inclusion of children with
disabilities into physical education classes ....................................93
2.6.3. The natural experiment ..................................................................94
3. RESULTS.........................................................................................................96
3.1. Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used
in the research ..........................................................................................96
3.1.1. Analysis of structure, validity and reliability of Self-Efficacy
Scale for Physical Education Teacher Education Majors
towards Children with Disabilities ................................................96
3.1.1.1. Study I (Pilot study) ..........................................................96
3.1.1.2. Study II .............................................................................97
3.1.2. Analysis of structure, validity and reliability of physical
education teachers’ self-efficacy towards including students
with disabilities – autism ...............................................................104
3.1.2.2. Study II .............................................................................105
3.1.3. Analysis of structure, validity and reliability of the children’s
attitudes towards integrated physical education-revised................108
3.1.3.2. Study II .............................................................................110
3.2. Situation studies of physical education teachers’ self-efficacy
and children’s attitudes towards inclusive physical education.................118
3.2.1. The situation study of physical education teachers’ self-efficacy
towards including students with intellectual, physical and visual
disabilities in the general physical education classes ....................118
3.2.2. The situation study about physical education teachers’
self-efficacy towards including students with autism spectrum
disorders in the general physical education classes .......................123
3.2.3. The situation study about students’ attitudes towards including
peers with disabilities into general physical education classes ......132
3.3. The educational experiment: effectiveness of two educational
strategies for the development of physical education teachers’
self-efficacy creating inclusive learning environment .............................138
11
4. DISCUSSION.................................................................................................. 144
4.1. Analysis of instrument structure, validity and reliability of
Self-Efficacy Scale for Physical Education Teacher Education
Majors towards Children with Disabilities.............................................. 144
4.2. Analysis of structure, validity and reliability of physical education
teachers’ self-efficacy towards including students with disabilities –
autism instrument .................................................................................... 149
4.3. Analysis of structure, validity and reliability of the children’s attitudes
towards integrated physical education-revised instrument...................... 152
4.4. The situation study of physical education teachers self-efficacy
disabilities in the general physical education classes .............................. 157
4.5. The situation study about physical education teachers’ self-efficacy
towards including students with autism spectrum disorders in the
general physical education classes .......................................................... 161
4.6. The situation study about students’ attitudes towards including peers
with disabilities into general physical education classes......................... 166
4.7. The educational experiment: the effectiveness of two educational
strategies for the development of physical education teachers’
self-efficacy creating inclusive learning environment ............................ 170
4.8. Generalization.......................................................................................... 178
CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................. 181
RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................... 184
LIMITATION...................................................................................................... 185
REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 186
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... 208
INFORMATION ABOUT THE AUTHOR ........................................................ 258
12
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Sample sizes of physical education teachers for each stage

of research .......................................................................................... 81
Table 2. Stage of study and sample size of students........................................... 82
Table 3. Structure of physical disability scale factors after the application
of Varimax rotation method ............................................................... 97
Table 4. Comparison analysis between PE teachers’ SE with and without
APE course or seminar in each scales................................................ 98
Table 5. Descriptive statistics, communalities before and after extraction,
the eigenvalues, and percentage of one extracted factor (n = 171) .... 100
Table 6. EFA comparison of results of PE teachers’ in separate groups
with results obtained by Block et al. (2013) EFA .............................. 101
Table 7. Scale data for the test-retest reliability (n = 22).................................... 104
Table 8. Information of physical education teachers (n = 346) .......................... 106
Table 9. Cronbach’s Alpha values of PESEISD-A-LT instrument
scales (n = 346) .................................................................................. 107
Table 10. The PESEISD-A-LT instrument scales of the test-retest
reliability (n = 22) .............................................................................. 107
Table 11. Inter-correlations of PESEISD-A scales ............................................. 108
Table 12. Factor loadings of principal components for CAIPE-LT
of VI scales items (n = 106) ............................................................... 109
Table 13. The statistical information about the students (n = 1008) .................. 110
Table 14. Factor structures of the CAIPE-LT on ID, PD, VI scales
by Exploratory Factor Analysis (n = 1008) ....................................... 113
Table 15. Descriptive statistics of scale items and Cronbach’s
reliability (n = 1008) .......................................................................... 115
Table 16. The indicators of subscale stability of students’ attitudes towards
inclusion and attitudes to game changes in the case of
re-examination (n = 196) ................................................................... 117
Table 17. The statistical data of physical education teachers participating
in the study ......................................................................................... 118
Table 18. The results of physical education teachers’ self-efficacy level .......... 120
Table 19. The results of correlation relations between self-efficacy level
scales and demographic indicators..................................................... 122
13
Table 20. PE teachers’ self-efficacy level by demographic factors,
other personal attributes, and mastery, vicarious and social
persuasion experiences ....................................................................... 124
Table 21. Means, standard deviations and correlations of scales by different
groups of sample size ......................................................................... 126
Table 22. Results of stepwise regression on the prediction of PE teachers’
self-efficacy and behaviour in regard to the inclusion of students
with ASD in PE classes ...................................................................... 128
Table 23. Percentage distribution of responses to perceived challenges scale
statements by PE teachers’ experience of including students
with ASD in regular PE classes ......................................................... 131
Table 24. The statistical demographic data of the sample .................................. 132
Table 25. Statistical data of CAIPE – LT instrument scales and subscales. ....... 133
Table 26. The comparison of the students’ attitudes by personal attributes
according to CAIPE-LT ..................................................................... 134
Table 27. Spearman’s rank correlation between attitude scores and personal
attributes ............................................................................................. 136
Table 28. Demographic data of the PE teachers’ groups .................................... 138
Table 29. Demographic data of the students’ groups.......................................... 139
Table 30. Spearman’s rank correlation between PE teachers’ self-efficacy
level and student’s attitudes before and after the intervention ........... 143
Table 31. Comparison of reliability and construct validity results of studies ..... 146
Table 32. Comparison of reliability and construct validity results of studies ..... 154
14
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Distribution of students with SEN by SEN group, form of education

and school year (Source: Official Statistics Portal, 2018) ................. 32
Figure 2. 9–15 year-old students with an official decision of SEN
(data for 2014–2015) ......................................................................... 37
Figure 3. The distribution of 9–15-year-old students with SEN according to
their place of study: regular education classes, special classes,
special schools and non-formal education institutions
(data for 2014–2015) ......................................................................... 38
Figure 4. The difference between efficacy expectations and outcome
expectations (Source: Bandura, 1977)............................................... 46
Figure 5. Major sources of self-efficacy information and the principal
sources through which different modes of treatment operate
(Source: Bandura, 1977).................................................................... 47
Figure 6. Learning processes in terms of triadic, dynamic and reciprocal
interactions among personal factors, environment and behaviours
(Source: Bandura, 1986).................................................................... 48
Figure 7. Triadic model in a class context (Source: Bembenutty et al., 2016) ... 49
Figure 8. Theoretical model of developing physical education teachers’ self-
efficacy to create an inclusive educational environment ................... 74
Figure 9. Logical sequence of empirical research .............................................. 76
Figure 10. Stages of empirical research.............................................................. 77
Figure 11. The content of online 18-hour and contact 40-hour APE courses .... 84
Figure 12. Path diagram of the ID – Intellectual disability scale, PD – Physical
disability scale, and VI – Visual impairment scale (n = 69) ............. 103
Figure 13. Path diagram of the Intellectual disability scale, Physical disability
scale, and Visual impairment scale ................................................... 114
Figure 14. Path model fitted (n=124). ................................................................ 130
Figure 15. Changes in ID, PD, VI, and ASD scales of PE teacher’s
self-efficacy before and after the intervention................................... 140
Figure 16. Changes in attitudes of students’ groups by ID, PD and VI scales
before and after the intervention ....................................................... 142
Figure 17. Strategic model for developing inclusive educational environment
in a physical education class ............................................................. 179
15
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Results of Pre-test analysis of Physical EducationTeachers

and Groups of Students Participating in Educational
Experiment by personal Attributes ................................................ 209
Appendix 2. Comparison of Educational Experiment Groups According
to the self-efficacy of the Physical Education Teachers and
the Attitudes of the Students .......................................................... 210
Appendix 3. Self-Efficacy Scale for Physical Education Teacher Education
Majors towards Children with Disabilities (SE-PETE-D) ............. 211
Appendix 4. Physical Educators’ Self-Efficacy Toward Including Students
with Disabilities-Autism (PESEISD-A) ......................................... 219
Appendix 5. The Children's Attitudes Toward lntegrated Physical
Education-Revised (CAIPE-R) ...................................................... 228
Appendix 6. Lithuanian version of Self-Efficacy Scale for Physical Education
Teacher Education Majors towards Children with Disabilities
(SE-PETE-D-LT) ........................................................................... 231
Appendix 7. Lithuanian version of Physical Educators’ Self-Efficacy
Toward Including Students with Disabilities-Autism
(PESEISD-A-LT) ........................................................................... 240
Appendix 8. Lithuanian version of The Children's Attitudes Towards
lntegrated Physical Education-Revised (CAIPE - LT) .................. 249
16
INTRODUCTION
Relevance of the research. Inclusive education is a process that takes into

account the social, cultural and educational diversity and is based on factors that
identify and eliminate obstacles to learning and participation in education
(UNESCO, 2001). According to the position of the European Agency for the
Development of Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2017), the key to the
inclusive education systems is to ensure that students with special education needs
of all ages get meaningful and high quality education together with the same-age
peers in the local community. International documents1 encompass attitudes for
students with special educational needs, an inclusive education system geared
towards ensuring the provision of adequate education at all levels and support in
order to facilitate their effective education. The United Nations Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities (The United Nations, 2006) and the Strategic
Objectives for the Implementation of Justice in Education in the Council of Europe
up to the year 2020 encourage the introduction of inclusive education policies in all
countries (Council of Europe, 2009). Another important process that is gaining its
increasing prominence as a result of the development of inclusion is
deinstitutionalization. Deinstitutionalisation of children with SEN in the context of
inclusion is understood as a reduction in the number of segregated-type institutions
and students in them. In line with the provisions of the model of social education
for the disabled, established in the United Nations Convention for the rights of
people with disabilities (2006) alongside with the deinstitutionalization, inclusion
of children with special educational needs in regular community schools must
become a strategic direction of the educational policies.
The European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, as the
main European Union organization aiming at improving the education policy and
educational practices of students with SEN, recommends that systematic collection
and analysis of data is needed for the implementation of international policy
directives, evidence that would guide the implementation of the relevant Integrated
1
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Convention against Discrimination in
Education (1960), Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), World Declaration on
Education for All (1990), World Plan of Action on Education for Human Rights and
Democracy (The Montreal Declaration) (1993), Salamanca Declaration and Framework for
Action (1994), United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2009),
Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action (2015).
17
Development Education provisions and tasks (European Agency for Development
in Special Needs Education, 2011).
Documents2 and strategies3 adopted In Lithuania in the last 25 years since
signing the Salamanca Declaration (UNESCO, 1994) have legally created
favourable conditions for the development of each student according to their needs
and opportunities in general education schools, providing educational assistance
and access to education. Two forms of participation of children with special
educational needs (SEN) were introduced: inclusion, where the child is educated in
the regular class with other children, and partial integration, where a small group of
children with SEN are educated as a separate group within a general education
school. Special schools or special education centres for children with physical
disabilities and neurological impairments, intellectual disabilities, visual
impairment, hearing impairment, behavioural and emotional disorders, or other
health problems continued to operate. In Lithuanian general education schools,
11.92% of children aged 6–21 have SEN; 10.46% attend regular classes in
mainstream schools, .34% of the children attend special education classes, and
1.12% of the children are educated in special schools or special education centres
(Official Statistics Portal, 2018). Although the percentage of students with SEN in
special schools or special education centres is not high, the education of students
with SEN in segregated educational institutions regulated by national legal
instruments is not in line with the provisions of the International Documents
(Centre for Special Education and Psychology, 2016). In order to reduce the still-
prevailing dualism in Lithuania’s education system, first steps towards
deinstitutionalization were made in 2014. The Order of the Minister of Social
Security and Labour approved the Action Plan 2014–2020 for the Transition from
Institutional Care to Family and Community Services for the Disabled and
Children left Without Parental Care.
Despite the fact that Lithuanian laws, normative documents and statistics
show the ongoing process of inclusive education, it is not possible to judge the
2
Concept for Bilingual Education of the Deaf (2007), ratified the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2010), The Law on Education of the Republic of
Lithuania (2011), The List of the Common Criteria for Admission to the State-Run and
Municipalities General Education School or Vocational Education Institution (2011), 2014–
2016 Action Plan of the Strengthening the General Education Schools implementing Primary
and Lower-Secondary Education Programmes and the Inclusive Education (2014),The Good
School Concept (2015); The Guidelines for the Change of General Education Schools (2017).
3
The National Education Strategy for 2013–2022 (2013).
18
quality of this ongoing process from these indications. While analysing the current
research, it is observed that teachers of general education schools face a number of
challenges implementing the principles of inclusive education (Baloun, Kudláček,
Sklenaříková, Ješina, & Migdauová, 2016; Block, Hutzler, Barak, & Klavina,
2013; Block, Kwon, & Healy, 2016; Griggs & Medcalf, 2015; Jeong & Block,
2011; Jerlinder, Danermark, & Gill, 2010; Ko & Boswell, 2013; Kwon & Block,
2017, Hutzler & Barak, 2017; Li, Wang, Block, Sum, & Wu, 2018; Tindall,
Culhane, & Foley, 2016). Developing the support system in educational
institutions, increasing the effectiveness of assistance, ensuring the training of
teachers for working with children with different educational needs and ensuring
continuous improvement of qualifications and competences, adapting the process
of educational organization and the environment, proper financing, increasing the
number of specialists and developing services – these are the challenges that the
education system is still facing not only in Lithuania, but in other countries as well
(de Boer, Pijl, & Minnaert, 2010; Fisher, 2017; Galkienė, 2016; Hutzler & Barak,
2017; Kwon & Block, 2017; Li et al., 2018; Umhoefer, Vargas, & Beyer, 2015).
The Inclusive Education Teacher Profile defines four key values that teachers
based on inclusive education should rely on (European Agency for Development in
Special Needs Education, 2012). It is respect for students’ diversity, considering
diversity as the opportunities and resources that are basic for every student’s
education; helping each student with high expectations for their achievements;
cooperation and teamwork; and personal professional development, assuming
responsibility for lifelong learning, based on the principle that teaching means
studying.
Teachers need a range of skills, expertise, knowledge, pedagogical
approaches, adequate teaching methods and materials as well as time if they are to
address diversity effectively within their classrooms (European Agency for Special
Needs and Inclusive Education, 2014; Florian, 2015). This leads the researchers to
believe that staff development is the key to the success of inclusion, and an
attitudinal change is probably a prerequisite for ensuring teachers’ readiness,
confidence, and sense of personal responsibility in the process of inclusion
(Alquraini & Gut, 2012; European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive
Education, 2014; Fisher, 2017).
Inclusive Education and Classroom Practice Summary Report (European
Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2003) states that the process
19
of inclusive education is greatly influenced by the way teachers work in the
classroom. While implementing the principles of inclusive education in the
classroom, it is necessary to pay attention to teacher-related factors, such as
teacher’s working methods, teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion, and teachers’
professional self-efficacy (SE). In recent years, the concept of teachers’
professional SE has been identified as one of the most significant factors affecting
the teaching occupation, as it influences not only the teachers’ abilities, motivation,
and satisfaction, but also students’ achievements (Al-Alwan & Mahasneh, 2014;
Ashton & Webb, 1986; Friedman & Kass, 2002). Teacher SE refers to teachers’
beliefs that they can bring about desirable changes in students’ behaviours and
achievements (Bandura, 1997; Guo, Justice, Sawyer, & Tompkins, 2011). The
teacher who shows positive attitudes towards the achievement component of
teacher attitudes towards inclusion is inevitably a teacher with high levels of
pedagogical SE (Fisher, 2017). The current situation of inclusive education
indicates that the teacher plays one of the most responsible and difficult roles
(Navarro, Zervas, Gesa, & Sampson, 2016). The teacher not only has to transfer the
knowledge, but also to adapt it to students who have different levels of skills
(Block, Taliaferro, Harris, & Krause, 2010; Griggs & Medcalf, 2015; Qi & Ha,
2012). Teachers accepting diversity of students are able to make flexible decisions,
and to transfer ideas about natural differences between people with equal values
(Galkienė, 2016; Griggs & Medcalf, 2015; Klavina, Jerlinder, Kristén, Hammar, &
Soulie, 2014; Ko & Boswell, 2013). In an inclusive class the teacher has to create a
learning environment where every student will feel that he/she is a wholesome
participant of the teaching and learning process (Block et al., 2010; Griggs &
Medcalf, 2015; Karani & Skordilis, 2016). The teacher has to create the
environment for all, where personal weaknesses and disadvantages are not
highlighted, where a student feels safe and an equally important member of the
community, and where measures are found to turn personal weaknesses and
disadvantages into benefits and advantages in certain situations (Booth & Ainscow,
2011; Ko & Boswell, 2013). This all can be achieved only by a teacher who is
confident and who relies on the knowledge and its practical application at work
(Block et al., 2010; Griggs & Medcalf, 2015). In order to create such an
environment, the teacher must have knowledge and confidence in her/his skills and
in the capability to apply this knowledge in various specific situations (Block et al.,
2013; Block et al., 2010; Griggs & Medcalf, 2015). The way the teacher adapts the
20
task, modifies the goal, applies educational methods and handles difficult situations
depends on his or her level of situation and task-specific confidence. SE refers to
an individual’s conviction (or confidence) about his or her abilities to mobilize the
motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to successfully
execute a specific task within a given context (Bandura 1977, 1997; Stajkovic &
Luthans, 1998). Teachers’ SE is their confidence and belief in being able to cater
for the varied needs of all students in an inclusive school setting (Block et al.,
2010; Karani & Skordilis, 2016; Klassen & Tze, 2014). Therefore, SE beliefs
determine how environmental opportunities and impediments are perceived and
affect the choice of activities, how much effort is expended on an activity, and how
long people will persevere when confronting obstacles (Bandura, 2006). SE theory,
applied in the educational context, has sparked a rich line of research into how
teachers’ SE beliefs are related to their actions and to the outcomes they achieve
(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007). Furthermore, individual studies have
found that teachers’ SE is one of the strongest predictors of their attitudes towards
inclusion (Block et al., 2010; Ilić-Stošović, Nikolić, & Popadić, 2015; Karani &
Skordilis, 2016). SE and goals are widely touted as two of the more important
constructs in psychology and management (Vancouver, Thompson, & Williams,
2001). Stajkovic and Luthan’s (1998) meta-analytical findings support a highly
significant positive correlation between such SE and work-related performance.
This makes it obvious how important SE is to the professional learning and
development since research has shown that it is related to human performance in
the workplace (Ozyilmaz, Erdogan, & Karaminogullari, 2018; van Daal, Donche,
& De Maeyer, 2014). SE is a future-oriented belief about the level of competence a
person expects he or she will display in a given situation (Tschannen-Moran &
Mcmaster, 2009).
Research problem. In Lithuania, as in other countries, most of the students
with SEN (87.74%) are educated in regular education classes (Official Statistics
Portal, 2018). It shows that when including these children into general education
class activities, the inclusive environment should be created, and every participant
in this environment must receive a quality service and feel equally included in the
education process. Teacher quality has been shown to be the most important
school-related factor that impacts student achievements, therefore as a
consequence, since the early 1990s, many international governments have
prioritised the improvement and evaluation of effective teachers and effective
21
teaching (Deppeler, Loreman, & Smith, 2015).
Increasingly, studies highlight the benefits of physical activity while
developing positive attitudes towards inclusive education for students with SEN
(Klavina et al., 2014). Thus, inevitably the physical education (PE) class plays an
important role for developing the inclusive education process. Research confirms
that the PE class is one of the most favorable environments in which students’
positive attitudes towards the inclusion of students with SEN into common class
activities can be formed (Hutzler & Levi, 2008; Kudláček, Ješina, & Wittmannová,
2011; Campos, Ferreira, & Block, 2013). The PE class is an environment where
students with different skills should be able to experience and realize themselves
through movement, and it also provides excellent conditions to observe and
evaluate each other, recognize limits of each other’s abilities and feelings,
understand expectations and participate in the educational process actively (Bailey,
2006; Galkienė, 2016; Grenier, Dyson, & Yeaton, 2005; Griggs, & Medcalf, 2015;
Klavina et al., 2014; Ko & Boswell, 2013) and to recognise that PE is one of the
most favourable disciplines capable of developing and maintaining values
necessary for the effective development of inclusive education (André, Deneuve, &
Louvet, 2011; Grenier et al., 2005; Hutzler, 2003; Hutzler, 2007; Klavina et al.,
2014; Polvi & Telama, 2000; Qi, Wang, & Ha, 2016; Tubić & Đorđić, 2012). A
positive environment should be created in order to develop students’ positive
attitudes towards colleagues with SEN. PE teacher plays an important role in the
process of creation of this environment (Block et al., 2013). Research also shows
that many PE teachers believe that they are not well trained to include students
with SEN in a regular PE class (Baloun et al., 2016; Eden & Hutzler, 2015;
Jovanović, Kudláček, Block, & Djordjević, 2014; Kudláček, Baloun, & Ješina,
2018; Reina, Hemmelmayr, & Sierra-Marroquin, 2016; Taliaferro, Hammond, &
Wyant, 2015; Tekidou, Evaggelinou, Papaioannou, & Block, 2015; Tindall et al.,
2016). These studies indicate that teachers lack confidence in their own abilities to
create an inclusive learning environment in a class. Based on social cognitive
theory (Bandura, 1986), such a teachers’ disposition often determines the attitudes
of students towards their peers with SEN. Ensuring inclusive environment in the
PE class requires the knowledge about adapted physical education (APE). Usually
the course of APE is not included in PE teacher training or the number of credits of
this course of study is small.
According to the actual situation in Lithuania, the modules covering the
22
inclusion of students with special needs into the regular PE class were introduced
in Physical Education study programmes delivered in Lithuanian universities only
in 2007, i.e. later than the integration/inclusion process started in Lithuania. The
first PE teachers who studied courses covering the inclusion of students with
special needs into regular PE classes graduated from the university in 2012. The
statistical data shows that Lithuanian PE teachers working in general education
schools are 45–65 years old and older, PE teachers of this age make up 68.5 %
(Education Management Information System, 2018). Based on these data it can be
assumed that a large proportion of employed PE teachers’ have not studied courses
related to inclusive education; also no monitoring is provided about how PE
teachers are prepared to work in inclusive environments and whether they have an
opportunity to acquire knowledge about the development of inclusive
environments in the class such as APE. Although specialists in Adapted physical
activity have been trained in Lithuanian Sport University in Lithuania since 1999,
the support of these specialists for teachers has not been legalized and recognized
so far.
Currently there is still a lack of equal opportunities for children with
disabilities to participate or successfully study in physical education classes and
sport or other physical activity clubs (Kennedy, 2014). The research field of
inclusive physical education classes is gaining interest as it is still one of the
primary and most important physical education environments in which children
with disabilities can develop physical abilities, play team games, develop social
skills, and broaden self-knowledge. Sport or other physical activity is a great
opportunity to promote social integration of children with disabilities, and that
would develop physically active generation engaged in sports in the future, reduce
exclusion and discrimination, and inevitably promote deinstitutionalisation.
Therefore, it is necessary to develop this field of research by studying teachers’
confidence in their knowledge to create an inclusive learning environment and to
search for the best ways to develop it. This highlights the relevance of the
dissertation research and the research problem: how knowledge and ways of
transferring it influence the self-efficacy of physical education teachers in creating
an inclusive learning environment for students with disabilities?
Research questions raised made it possible to formulate the following
research hypothesis: knowledge and ways of transferring it have a different but
positive effect on the self-efficacy of physical education teachers to create an
23
inclusive learning environment for students with disabilities.
The main object of this dissertation was the development of physical
education teachers’ self-efficacy in order to create an inclusive educational
environment.
The aim was to reveal the possibilities of developing the self-efficacy of
physical education teachers to create an inclusive education environment. To
achieve the aim, the following research objectives were set:
1. To substantiate the theoretical preconditions for the development of self-
efficacy of physical education teachers to create an inclusive education
environment.
2. To create a theoretically grounded self-efficacy education model for
physical education teachers to develop an inclusive education environment and to
carry out an educational experiment following the created model.
3. To validate the relevant instruments and use them to identify the self-
efficacy of physical education teachers and attitudes of peers towards inclusion of
children with disabilities into physical education class activities.
4. To evaluate the self-efficacy of physical education teachers and attitudes
of peers towards inclusion of children with disabilities into physical education class
activities before and after the educational experiment.
Statements presented for defence:
1. SE-PETE-D-LT and PESEISD-A-LT are reliable and valid tools for
investigating the self-efficacy of physical education teachers towards inclusion of
students with disabilities into PE classes.
2. CAIPE-LT is a reliable and valid tool for investigating children’s attitudes
towards inclusion of peers with disabilities.
3. Physical education teachers’ self-efficacy depends on the type of
disability, personal attributes, sources of self-efficacy (mastery experience,
vicarious experience, social persuasion, and physiological states), behaviours, and
perceived challenges.
4. The attitudes of students towards inclusion of their peers with disability
into general physical education class activities depend on the type of disability and
personal attributes.
5. The model of development of physical education teachers’ self-efficacy
towards the development of inclusive educational environment is based on the
ideas of self-efficacy and social learning theories and has a positive impact on
24
physical education teachers’ self-efficacy towards the development of inclusive
educational environment.
The following research methods were applied in the dissertation:
1. Analysis of statistical data, legal documents and scientific literature of
Lithuania and other countries.
2. Questionnaire survey was used to determine the self-efficacy of physical
education teachers to create an inclusive educational environment for students with
disabilities (intellectual, physical, visual and autistic spectrum disorders) and
students’ attitudes to their peers’ with disabilities (intellectual, physical, visual)
participation in physical education, and to assess the direct impact of applied
education programs on the self-efficacy of physical education teachers creating an
inclusive educational environment, and the indirect impact of curricula on the
attitudes of children towards the participation of peers with disabilities in physical
education classes.
3. The educational experiment was used to test how the self-efficacy of
physical education teachers was naturally affected when developing inclusive
educational environments.
4. The statistical data were processed using SPSS 22.0 software and AMOS
23.0. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Student’s t-Test, Mann-Whitney U test,
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, Spearman-Brown’s correlation coefficient, Pearson’s
correlation coefficient, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, Hedges’ coefficient
of effect size, Cohen’s coefficient of effect size, Chi square test, General Linear
Modelling repeated measures, Stepwise multiple regression analysis, Exploratory
factor analysis and Confirmatory factor analysis were used for data analysis.
The methodology of the dissertation was based on the following
theoretical approaches: the ideas of humanistic philosophy – Self-efficacy
Theory and the Social Cognitive Theory.
The theory of self-interest was used to understand the concept of physical
education teachers’ self-efficacy towards working in an inclusive educational
environment and, based on the conceptual basis of this theory, to change the
inactive and non-innocent behaviour of physical education teachers working in
general education schools, who are not enough self-confident to create an inclusive
educational environment for students with disabilities in physical education classes.
The programs developing self-efficacy of physical education teachers were formed
on the basis of this theory.
25
Based on the three-dimensional model of determinism of the three
components of the Social Cognitive Theory, where human behaviour is determined
by the constant interaction of cognitive, behavioural, and environmental factors,
one can understand human nature and its potential. It is the person’s ability to
operate knowledge, plan, anticipate the consequences of their behaviour, learn by
observing the actions of others. On the basis of this theory, the mechanism of the
operation of the educational experiment was based. It was assumed that self-
efficacy of physical education teachers would be positively influenced by the
teachers who had a higher sense of self-efficacy. As a result of this interaction, the
increased sense of self-efficacy in physical education teachers would shape the
positive attitudes of students towards the inclusion of peers with disabilities in
general physical activity. Positive changes in psychological indicators during
interactions between a teacher and a student would create preconditions for a
favourable psychological climate in physical education classes and facilitate the
inclusion of disabled students in the overall class activity.
Novelty of the work. Theoretical model of self-efficacy of physical
education teachers to create an inclusive education environment in a classroom for
students with disabilities was developed and grounded.
Trends revealing the ability of physical education teachers to develop self-
efficacy for creating inclusive learning environment for students with disabilities in
regular class were revealed.
In the study, the effectiveness of strategies was first assessed not only by
changes in the physical education teachers’ self-efficacy, but also by changes in the
attitudes of students towards the inclusion of peers with disabilities into the general
education class activity, which were affected by their physical education teachers’
self-efficacy.
This is the first study in Lithuania where instruments to evaluate physical
education teachers’ self-efficacy and the attitudes of children towards inclusion of
their peers with disabilities into general physical education class activities were used.
The original instrument for evaluating children’s attitudes was improved,
which allowed evaluating the attitudes of students not only towards their peers with
physical disabilities, but also intellectual disabilities and visual impairments.
Practical significance of the doctoral dissertation. Validation of these
instruments (Self-Efficacy Scale for Physical Education Teacher Education Majors
towards Children with Disabilities, Physical Educators’ Self-Efficacy towards
26
Including Students with Disabilities – Autism, Children’s Attitudes towards
Integrated Physical Education – Revised) in Lithuania strengthens the reliability
and validity of these instruments. It opens up the possibility for Lithuanian
scientists to develop a field of research related to the development of an inclusive
environment for students with special educational needs in physical education
classes, to carry out international level research and to evaluate the effectiveness of
developed strategies for increasing physical education teachers’ self-efficacy in
developing an inclusive environment in the class.
The impact of changes of the attitudes of students toward including their
peers with disabilities into physical education classes because of self-efficacy
changes of physical education teachers assessed in this study revealed not only the
direct impact of applied educational programs on the self-efficacy of physical
education teachers, but also the indirect impact of these programs on the attitudes
of students towards participation of their peers with disabilities in regular physical
education classes.
Research of this kind reinforces Self-efficacy and Social Cognitive Theories
and helps to reveal the mechanisms of prevailing links between the changes in a
person’s SE and the impact of these changes on others.
Eighteen-hour APE online implementation strategy course opens up the
opportunity to create an APE portal in Lithuania that constantly updates and stores
information about creating an inclusive environment in PE classes and provides PE
teachers with remote access to APE courses. The development and maintenance of
this website in Lithuania would be beneficial for the development of PE teachers’
SE by strengthening cooperation between Lithuanian PE teachers and other
professionals. Also, this website would provide a forum for cooperation with PE
teachers, APE specialists and scientists from different countries. Based on the
implementation strategy of the 40-contact-hour APE course, education centres
could develop compulsory upgrade courses for PE teachers and other professionals.
Results of instrument validation, situation and the experimental research are
of scientific and practical significance not only for Lithuanian scientists, physical
education teachers, educational specialists, but also for research projects carried out
by scientists from other countries.
Structure and scope of the dissertation. The dissertation consists of a
glossary of terms, a list of abbreviations, an introduction, four parts, conclusions,
recommendations, research limitations, references and 8 appendices. The volume
27
of the dissertation without appendices is 207 pages. The study contains 32 tables
and 17 figures and refers to 215 literature sources.
List of publications on the dissertation topic:

Publications in the scientific journals (ISI WEB of science)
1. Dovilė Selickaitė, Yeshayahu Hutzler, Kazimieras Pukėnas, Martin
Block, & Diana Rėklaitienė (2019). The analysis of the structure, validity and
reliability of an inclusive physical education self-efficacy instrument for
Lithuanian physical education teachers, SAGE Open (Minor Revision – no
additional reviews required)
2. Dovilė Selickaitė, Yeshayahu Hutzler, Kazimieras Pukėnas, & Diana
Rėklaitienė (2019). Physical educators’ self-efficacy towards including students
with autism spectrum disorder: Lithuanian perspective. Social Behavior and
Personality: an International Journal (Accepted)
Publications in international scientific database journals

1. Selickaitė, Dovilė, Hutzler, Yeshayahu, Pukėnas, Kazimieras, Block,
Martin E., & Rėklaitienė, Diana (2018). Validity and reliability of a Lithuanian
physical education teachers’ self-efficacy scale towards inclusion of students with
autism spectrum disorders. Baltic Journal of Sport & Health Sciences, 3(110), 38–49.
2. Dovilė Selickaitė, Diana Rėklaitienė, Martin Block, Kazimieras Pukėnas,
& Mindaugas Kavaliauskas (2018). Validation of the children’s attitudes towards
integrated physical education – revised inventory in Lithuanian. Pedagogy, 132(4),
211–227.
Articles in other peer-reviewed scientific publications
1. Selickaitė, Dovilė, & Rėklaitienė, Diana (2015). Kūno kultūros mokytojų
savaveiksmiškumas dirbant inkliuzinėse kūno kultūros pamokose: pilotinis tyrimas.
Sportinį darbingumą lemiantys veiksniai (VIII) [Elektroninis išteklius]: mokslinių
straipsnių rinkinys, p. 111–121.
Presentations in Scientific conferences
1. Rėklaitienė, Diana, Selickaitė, Dovilė, & Požėrienė, Jūratė (2015).
Moving away from special education towards inclusive education: What is
successful practice of organizing physical education for children with intellectual
disabilities in Lithuania? Adapted physical activity: integration and diversification:
the 20th International Symposium on Adapted Physical Activity: book of abstracts:
11–15 June, Netanya, Israel p. 78–78.
28
2. Selickaitė, Dovilė, & Rėklaitienė, Diana (2015). Kūno kultūros mokytojų
saviveiksmingumas dirbant inkliuzinėse kūno kultūros pamokose (Bandomasis
tyrimas). Sportininkų rengimo valdymas ir sportininkų darbingumą lemiantys
veiksniai: respublikinė mokslinė konferencija, gruodžio 17 d., p. 57–60.
3. Selickaitė, Dovilė, & Rėklaitienė, Diana (2016). Olimpinės dienos
programos poveikis Kauno šv. Kazimiero pagrindinės mokyklos mokinių požiūriui
į negalią turinčius bendraklasius. Respublikinė mokytojų ir mokinių kūrybinių bei
tiriamųjų darbų konferencija „Mano Olimpas“, balandžio 7 d.
4. Selickaitė, Dovilė, Block, M. E., Hutzler, Y., Požėrienė, Jūratė, &
Rėklaitienė, Diana (2016). Validation of the Self-Efficacy Scale for physical
education teachers towards inclusion in Lithuania. European Congress of Adapted
Physical Activity, Olomouc, Czech Republic, June 15–17th: book of abstracts,
p. 57–57.
5. Selickaitė, Dovilė, Kaunietė, Ema, & Rėklaitienė, Diana (2017). The
impact of paralympic day on the students’ attitude to inclusive physical education
class. Multiplicity of Sports Science in Practice: Abstracts of the 10th Conference
of the Baltic Sport Science Society, Riga, Latvia, 26–28 April, p. 25–26.
6. Selickaitė, Dovilė (2017). The effectiveness of educational strategies for
the development of physical education teachers’ self-efficacy creating inclusive
learning environment. I-oji Tarptautinė edukologijos doktorantų konferencija,
spalio 13–14 d. Klaipėdos universitetas, Klaipėda, Lietuva.
7. Selickaitė, Dovilė, Hutzler, Yeshayahu, Pukėnas, Kazimieras, Block,
Martin E., & Rėklaitienė, Diana (2018). The effectiveness of educational strategies
for the development of physical education teachers’ self-efficacy creating inclusive
learning environment. European Congress of Adapted Physical Activity, University
of Worcester, Worcester, United Kingdom, June 3–5th.
8. Rėklaitienė, Diana, Selickaitė, Dovilė, Hutzler, Yeshayahu, Pukėnas,
Kazimieras, & Block, Martin (2019). Adapted physical education knowledge
impact to physical educators’ self-efficacy towards inclusion students with autism
spectrum disorder. The 22th International Symposium on Adapted Physical
Activity, 14–18 June, Charlottesville, VA, USA
During the preparation of the dissertation I have participated in the
Erasmus + program for higher education. Scientific Internship Practice was
completed at the Department of Special Education, Stockholm University, Sweden
(April–June 2016).
29
1. LITERATURE REVIEW
The main aim of this research was to develop and evaluate the efficiency of
two educational strategies for the development of physical education teachers’ self-
efficacy for creating inclusive learning environment. Based on this, an overview of
the relevant literature is presented in eight sections: (1) Inclusive education of
children with special education needs in Lithuania; (2) Conceptions of inclusive
education and inclusive special education; (3) Inclusive learning environment;
(4) Theoretical substantiation of the development of physical education teachers’
self-efficacy for creating an inclusive educational environment; (5) Physical
education teachers’ self-efficacy for including students with special educational
needs to the regular physical education classes; (6) Attitudes of students towards
the participation of peers with special educational needs in a common physical
education class; (7) The ways to develop self-efficacy of physical education
teachers to create an inclusive educational environment for students with special
educational needs in a regular physical education class; (8) Construction
assumptions of the theoretical model of developing physical education teachers’
self-efficacy to create an inclusive educational environment.
1.1. Inclusive education of children with special education needs

in Lithuania
In the Law on Education of the Republic of Lithuania, special educational

needs are defined as the need for help and service in the process of education arising
from exceptional personal abilities, congenital or acquired disorders, adverse
environmental factors (Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania, 1991). Students
with SEN are divided into three main groups: students with disabilities, students with
difficulties, and students with disadvantages in learning. Students with disabilities is
a group of students with developmental, sensory, physical functioning and other
health disorders the biological origin of which cannot be eliminated by pedagogical
means (Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Lithuania, 2013).
Students with difficulties is a group of students with learning (two or more subjects –
reading, writing, mathematics and other subjects), as well as behavioural and
emotional, language and speech disorders that occur while studying the compulsory
30
school program (Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Lithuania,
2013). Students with disadvantages in learning is a group of students who, due to
the unfavourable (cultural/linguistic, pedagogical, socio-economic) environment or
prevailing circumstances, restrict the possibilities to realize their abilities for
studying general education programs (Ministry of Education and Science of the
Republic of Lithuania, 2013). Groups of students with SEN are identified and their
special educational needs are divided into small, medium, significant and profound,
according to the order of the Minister of Education and Science, the Minister of
Health, the Minister of Social Security and Labour. According to the data of the
Lithuanian Department of Statistics, in the 2017–2018 academic year, 11.93% of
students with special educational needs were educated in general education schools;
87.75% of these students with SEN, were educated in regular classes (full
integration), 2.85% were in special and educational classes (partial integration), and
9.40% were taught at special schools and educational centres (Official Statistics
Portal, 2018). The analysis of students with SEN statistics in Lithuania showed that
most of the students (77.50%) had disabilities such as learning disorders, general
learning disorders, specific learning disorders, reading disorder, writing disorder,
disorder of learning mathematics, non-verbal learning disorders, behavioural or/and
emotional disorders, hyperactivity or/and attention deficit disorders, behavioural
disorders, emotional disorder, speech and language impairments. Other 21.47% of
students with SEN had disabilities such as intellectual, visual impairment, hearing
impairment, physical disabilities and neurological impairments, deaf-blind, multiple
developmental disorders, pervasive developmental and other disabilities, and 1.03%
of students with SEN were disadvantaged in learning.
When analysing the statistics by the academic year, we see that the number
of students with disabilities in regular classes is decreasing each year, and the
number of students with disabilities in special classes and special schools/special
centres is increasing (Figure 1). Also the Committee of United Nations on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2016) noted that in Lithuania, the special
education system or home education is still too often a choice for disabled children,
and many students with disabilities, especially those with visual, hearing,
psychosocial and/or intellectual disabilities, from preparatory, primary and
secondary schools, are redirected and forced to attend special schools due to the
lack of well-adapted premises and accessibility in the general education system
(Center for Special Education and Psychology, 2016).
31
Students with disabilities
4689
4407 4284 4145 3983
3321 3390 3433 3446 3396
1008 915 929 909 964
2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018
Students with difficulties
29950 29785 29388 29567 29714

in regular classes
in special
education classes
in special schools
or at centers
45 273 43 271 53 205 112 231 145 255
2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018

Students with disadvantages in learning
431
399 404 396
360
2 3 1 2 4 2 3 1 5
0
2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018
Academic school year
Figure 1. Distribution of students with SEN by SEN group, form of education and school
year (Source: Official Statistics Portal, 2018)
32
In such SEN groups as students with difficulties and students with
disadvantages in learning, this tendency has not been found (Figure 1). Based on
this data, we can assume that inclusion of students with disabilities in regular
education classes is problematic. This may be due to reasons such as not adapted
environment, unprepared teachers to include students with disabilities into the
general class activities, the lack of support for teacher and student, the attitude of
the school community (administration, teachers, classmates and parents) towards
the inclusion of students with disabilities (Campos, Ferreira, & Block, 2015;
Hernandez, Hueck, & Charley, 2016). All of this creates a negative psychological
climate in the classroom or even in the school community, which leads to solutions
such as transferring students to special classes or even special schools/education
centres.
In the last 30 years, there has been a global agreement that all children have
the right to be formally educated individually and/or together, including children
who have special educational needs. It is enshrined in the Convention on the Rights
of the Child (The United Nations, 1989), as well as the Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities (The United Nations, 2006). Inclusive education for
children with SEN is also addressed in several significant international
declarations, including the World Declaration for Education for All (1990), the
UNESCO Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action (UNESCO, 1994), and
the Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action (UNESCO, 2015).
Analysing adopted legal documents and changes in statistical indexes in
Lithuania over the last 28 years after the restoration of independence, significant
steps have been taken in relation to inclusive education of students with special
educational needs. When discussing the steps taken in the Lithuanian education
system towards inclusive education, the concepts of “integration” and “inclusion”
will be used. The concept of “integration” will be used in relation to the place of
special needs education when students are taught together with their peers in the
general education institutions (Meijer, 1998). The concept of “inclusion” is
understood when individuals with special education needs are not only educated
with their peers, but also on the basis of general education programs, qualitatively
individualized and adapted to their special needs.
The first step towards inclusive education (integration) was taken in 1991
when The Law on Education of the Republic of Lithuania (1991) was adopted and
it states that “all children of pre-school and school age with physical or mental
33
deficiencies are educated at home, at pre-school institutions in general or
correctional groups, at special pre-school institutions, in general or correctional
schools of general education schools, in special schools as close as possible to
parents’ place of residence”. Another important step was taken in Lithuania in co-
operation with other governments of 91 countries of the world and the Salamanca
Declaration (1994) signed by the representatives of 25 international organizations
on the education for students with SEN reform principles, policies and practices of
dimensions for its development, on the basis of the principles of integration. Based
on this step, in 1998, the Republic of Lithuania Law on Special Education (1998)
was adopted, which follows the principles which are closer to inclusive education:
equal opportunities – people with special needs receive the same education and
education conditions as other members of the local community; integration –
education of people with special needs, together with other members of the local
community, and equal participation in community life; decentralization -
involvement of the family, community and local self-government institutions in the
education of persons with special needs; universality – the development of all
persons with special needs; continuity – education and lifelong education for
people with special needs; transparency and flexibility – co-ordinated activities of
general education and special education institutions ensuring the continuity of
education and training of people with special needs; educational functionality – the
development of the autonomy of individuals with special needs and the ability to
live in the community.
Persons with special needs are educated in general or special classes of all
types of general education schools, in special schools or other special educational
institutions, at vocational schools in the relevant basic vocational training stage. On
the basis of this law, the following forms of special needs education were formed:
full integration; partial integration; education at a special education institution;
teaching at home. This law provides information on the adaptation of curricula in
response to the students’ SEN: special programs for the development of special
needs of people with SEN, individual curricula, and adapted general education
programs. Educational institutions are adapted for people with special needs and
students with SEN are provided with compensatory techniques for education.
Adomaitienė (2001) revealed that it is difficult to find an integrated interconnection
between the two general and special education policy (Education and Special
Education) regulations. General and special education systems are separated from
34
other educational institutions, because they have different sources of funding,
different dependencies and controls, distinct educational tools, the specialists of
both systems do not interact with each other. Under such a dualistic system of
education management, the option of integrated general education for students with
special needs in the general education, vocational education and higher education
seems to become a legal declaration only (Adomaitienė, 2001). Trying to eliminate
the dualism in the educational system in 2011, the Law on Special Education
(1998) was no longer in force and in the same year the Law on the change of the
Law on Education of the Republic of Lithuania (2011) was adopted. This Law
states that learning is a natural right of every human being. The Law on the
Amendment of the Law on Education (2011) defines the special educational needs
as the need for the process of development of assistance and services, arising from
exceptional personality abilities, congenital or acquired disadvantages, and adverse
environmental factors. Also in this law, a separate article (Article 14) describes the
education of students with special educational needs, the purpose of which is to
help the students to learn in accordance with their abilities, to acquire education
and qualifications, recognizing and developing their abilities and powers. Since
2003, Lithuania’s education system has been introducing ideas of inclusive
education, that is, adaptation, support and individual education planning for the
inclusion of people with special needs. The Ministry of Science and Education of
the Republic of Lithuania prepared a strategic plan for 2014–2016, where one of
the main aims was to develop measures of inclusion for children with SEN.
According to the consolidated version of the current Lithuanian Law on Education
(2018), the development of students with SEN is being implemented by all schools
that provide compulsory and general education, other educational institutions, and,
in some cases, schools (classes) for the education of students with SEN; students
with SEN can complete formal education programs at a shorter or longer than a
commonly set time, they can study intermittently, these programs can be completed
by separate modules; students with very large and large special educational needs
may study for up to 21 years in general schools (classes) for students with SEN;
access to education is ensured by adapting the school environment, providing
psychological, special pedagogical, special and social pedagogical assistance,
providing technical support means for education in the school and special
educational tools, other methods prescribed by law; appropriate adaptation of
assessment of learning outcomes. The consolidated edition of the Law on
35
Education (2018) states that the teacher must educate on the basis of students’
abilities and inclinations, strengthen the motivation of learning and confidence in
their abilities, provide assistance to students with learning difficulties and special
educational needs, adapt their subject program, content, methods.
Following the development of inclusive education in educational institutions,
the Child Welfare Commission has been established in Lithuania, which is
committed to create a safe and supportive environment for students. This
commission organizes and co-ordinates the adaptation of educational programs to
students with SEN, provision of education assistance, taking into account the needs
of an educational institution, and performs other functions related to child welfare.
There is also legal support for school and teacher. The purpose of this support is to
provide information, expert, counselling, psychological and refresher assistance,
which increases the efficiency of education and promotes improvement of school
management and professional development of the teacher.
So in today’s general education system in Lithuania, two forms of
participation of children with SEN were introduced: inclusion, where the child is
educated in the regular class with other children, and partial integration, where a
small group of children with SEN are educated as a separate group within a general
education school. Special schools for children with severe specific disabilities such
as intellectual, visual, auditory, movement disorders or multiple developmental
disorders continued to operate. In Lithuania, in the 2016-2017 academic years,
there were 1067 municipal schools of general education, 999 of which were
general educational schools and 68 schools had students with SEN (Education
Management Information System, 2018).
According to the data provided by the European Agency Statistics on
Inclusive Education (EASIE, 2018), the comparative analysis between the 28
reporting countries in Europe was carried out on the inclusion of students with
SEN into the education system in the various European countries. The EASIE
quantitative data collection involved country experts providing statistics in six
data tables: “population and enrolment”, “age samples of 9 (ISCED level 1) and
15 years (ISCED level 2)”, “students with an official decision of SEN”, “gender
breakdown of students with an official decision of SEN”, “age breakdown for
ISCED level 1 of students with an official decision of SEN”, “age breakdown
for ISCED level 2 of students with an official decision of SEN”. In order to put
the quantitative data supplied by countries into a clear context, all countries
36
provided four areas of descriptive, qualitative background information: “A
description of how the official decision of SEN used in the country relates to
the agreed EASIE operational definition”, “The proxy indicator for the 80%
benchmark used for data collection”, “A detailed description of what is meant
by out of formal education within the country”, and “How data on private
sector education has been covered in the country information”.
The comparative analysis of statistical data revealed that Lithuania was one
of the leading European countries with the highest number of students with SEN
(13.47%) (Figure 2).
Figure 2. 9–15 year-old students with an official decision of SEN (data for 2014–2015)
37
The analysis of statistical data by the form of inclusion of students with
special educational needs (students included in the regular education class in
special classes, special schools and non-formal education institutions) revealed that
Lithuania was among five countries which had the largest number of students with
SEN included into regular education classes (87.98%), (Figure 3). Comparing the
statistics of the first five countries (Italy, Malta, Iceland, Norway, and Lithuania)
by the forms of education of students with SEN, it was determined that in
Lithuania, the majority of students with SEN were educated in special schools
(8.27%) compared to Italy, Malta, Iceland, and Norway (Figure 3).
Figure 3. The distribution of 9–15-year-old students with SEN according to their place of
study: regular education classes, special classes, special schools and non-formal education
institutions (data for 2014-2015)
Yet despite international consensus on the rights of students with SEN,

development of support systems in educational institutions, improvement of the
support effectiveness, adequate training of teachers for working with children with
different educational needs and ensuring continuous improvement of qualifications
and competences, adaptation of educational organization process and environment,
proper financing, increase of the number of specialists and development of services
still remain the challenges to be solved for the educational systems of many
countries (de Boer et al., 2010; Fisher, 2017; Galkienė, 2016; Hutzler & Barak,
2017; Kwon & Block, 2017; Li et al., 2018; Umhoefer et al., 2015).
38
The Lithuanian situation in the implementation of inclusive education
provisions reviewed in this chapter revealed that Lithuania is one of the leading
countries in the number of integrated students with special educational needs in
mainstream schools. A more detailed analysis revealed that the Lithuanian
education system faces challenges of involving students with special educational
needs caused by disability. The Law on Education in Lithuania still does not define
the concepts of integrated education and inclusive education, tolerates dualism in
the education system, and there is still no control over the implementation of the
provisions of inclusive education. Thus, further development of the literature
review raises the need for the concept of inclusive education when it comes to the
inclusion of children with special educational needs and how this concept is
understood in other countries.
1.2. Conceptions of inclusive education and inclusive special education
Hornby (2014) suggests that inclusive education is a multidimensional

concept that includes the celebration and valuing of difference and diversity and
consideration of human rights, social justice and equity issues, as well as the social
model of disability and a socio-political model of education. Inclusive education is
a process that involves the transformation of schools and other centres of learning
so as to cater for all children, including boys and girls, students from ethnic
minorities, those affected by HIV and AIDS, and those with disabilities and
learning difficulties (UNESCO, 2008). Education in postmodern society highlights
the need for achievement whenever an educational process is based on non-
discrimination and equal opportunities, the uniqueness and dignity of every child to
quality education for all (Angel & Dogaru, 2018). Inclusive education is described
in the context of considering the paradigm of education for all, characterized by
inclusive learning environment and quality education for all children. The aim of
inclusive education is to eliminate social exclusion resulting from attitudes and
responses to diversity in race, social class, ethnicity, religion, gender and ability.
Inclusive education is central to the achievement of high-quality education for all
learners and the development of more inclusive societies. The most controversial
issue currently regarding the education of children with special educational needs
is widely acknowledged to be that of inclusion or inclusive education (Hornby,
39
2014). Inclusive education is a continuous process, the development path of which
has been different in each country since the Salamanca Declaration was signed in
1994.
With reference to the definition of inclusion, Armstrong et al. (2010) and
Kiuppis (2018) pointed out that the term of inclusion is used in so many different
ways that it can mean different things to different persons, or all things to all
persons, therefore, it is important to clarify the meaning and implications of
inclusion for the education of children with SEN. It is widely recognized that the
policy of “full inclusion,” with its vision of all children being educated in
mainstream classrooms for all of their time at school, is theoretically unsound and
practically impossible to achieve (Hornby, 2014). This is influenced by the fact that
in many countries, there is insufficient input on teaching children with SEN in
initial teacher education courses and limited in-service training on SEN that is
available to teachers (Angel & Dogaru, 2018; Deppeler et al., 2015; Ko & Boswell,
2013). This shows that many teachers do not have the relevant attitudes,
knowledge, and skills necessary for including children with a wide range of SEN in
their classes and are also concerned that there will be insufficient material and
financial resources, and in particular support staff, to effectively implement the
policy of full inclusion (Campos et al., 2015; Hofman & Kilimo, 2014; Humphrey
& Symes, 2013; Marimuthu & Cheong, 2015). Professor Hornby (2014) offers to
form a new more realistic vision for the education of children with SEN to replace
both inclusive education and special education. It is proposed that this will best be
achieved by developing a theory of inclusive special education which synthesizes
philosophies, policies, and practices from both special education and inclusive
education in order to present a clear vision of effective education for all children
with SEN. Professor Hornby (2014) made the analysis of each of the confusions
about inclusive education and clarified the key values and components of inclusive
special education: “inclusive special education requires a commitment to provide
the best possible education for all children with SEN in the most appropriate
setting, throughout all stages of a child’s education, with a focus on effectively
including as many children as possible in mainstream schools, along with the
availability of a continuum of placement options from mainstream classes to special
schools, implementing best practices from inclusive education, and involving close
collaboration between mainstream and special schools and classes”.
40
For both Lithuania and other countries, the concept of inclusive education,
when it comes to children with special educational needs, poses great challenges
for teachers. Most teachers do not have the required approach, knowledge and
skills, and are not sure that including students with special educational needs they
will receive the necessary support from other professionals, will be adequately
equipped with material and financial resources. This situation shows that not all
countries’ education systems are financially capable of providing decent working
conditions for teachers to work in inclusive settings, especially when it comes to
involving pupils with disabilities. The next section will look at the concept of
inclusive education and what role the teacher plays in creating this environment.
1.3. Inclusive learning environment
In inclusive education, it is important to create an inclusive learning

environment in schools and classrooms, which is defined as a purposefully
organized physical, social, and informative set of circumstances, in which a child
forms and implements his/her experience: knowledge, skills, and attitudes towards
himself/herself and the surrounding world (Šūmane, 2012). Creating an inclusive
environment in both school and classroom contexts plays an important role as the
creation of this environment leads to the development of inclusive education
(Loreman, Forlin, & Sharma, 2014).
Grimes (2010) offers 17 indicators which reflect inclusive education in
school and classroom. Those indicators are in the range from social and emotional,
to peer support and parent involvement, along with academic indicators relating to
student access and achievement. Grimes’(2010) indicators include that:
1. all children feel welcome in the school;
2. all students support each other in their learning;
3. all students are well supported by school staff;
4. teachers and parents cooperate well;
5. all students are treated equally as valued members of the school;
6. all students feel that their opinions and views are valued;
7. all students can access learning in all classes;
8. all students can access all parts of the school building;
9. all students attend school every day;
41
10. all students enjoy classes;
11. all students are engaged in all class activities;
12. all students achieve their learning in all subjects according to their
individual ability;
13. all students learn together;
14. all students have access to appropriate health services as necessary;
15. school ensure that the all students enter the school;
16. all vulnerable children are successful in their learning;
17. school creates a school environment which supports all students’ learning.
The analysis of the research results showed (Lancaster, 2014; Rozenfelde,
2016; Šūmane, 2012) that not only the adaptation of the curricula and the physical
environment, but also the prevailing psychological climate in school and classroom
play an important role in creating an inclusive educational environment.
Rozenfelde (2016) revealed that the positive environment is formed by the
following components: loyalty – to promote a sense of belonging, to accept each
person, and to be confident of a group’s ability to think and learn; trust – to involve
group members in the decision-making process and to entrust each person certain
responsibility by agreeing on learning outcomes; support – to provide assistance
and encouragement in the learning process, committing to promote individual’s
growth and learning; dynamic tension – to strive for objectives energetically and
enthusiastically and to preserve moral principles when confronted with learning
difficulties; expectations – to set goals, to be clear about assumptions, opinions,
and learning outcomes; communication – to exchange information about successes
and failures and to create joint commitments within a group when sharing
knowledge. McGhie-Richmond, Irvine, Loreman, Cizman, & Lupart (2013) found
that teacher-related variables have been shown to influence the implementation of
inclusion in the classroom. Attitudes, beliefs and self-efficacy of teachers are most
important indicators which make the greatest influence on creating the
psychological climate in the inclusive environment (Lancaster, 2014). Also the
studies showed that positive teacher-parent communication and collaboration,
ensured support from other specialist or school staff, teachers’ training towards
inclusion are important for creating an inclusive learning environment (Horn,
Parks, & An, 2019; McGhie-Richmond et al., 2013). The surrounding environment
and its influence has a very important role in the successful development of
children’s attitudes towards inclusion of peers with SEN and students’ with SEN
42
self-esteem. Attitudes of bystanders and peers help children with special needs to
be aware of themselves in the environment (Rozenfelde, 2016).
Teachers who teach elective courses expressed more positive attitudes
towards inclusion than teachers who teach core subjects (McGhie-Richmond et al.,
2013). For example, incorporating the arts or sport/physical activity among the
academic subjects could improve the engagement, achievement, and retention of
students who have special needs.
Universal design was described as creation of the environment and products
that are available for anyone’s use without adjustments and special assistance.
Universal design is recognized as a new way of thinking, a conceptual and practical
model that makes review an institution’s and a teacher’s work in a classroom:
objectives, methods, materials, and evaluation in order to satisfy various students’
needs, reduce barriers that exist in the inclusive education system, and create
physical, informative, accessible and inclusive service environment (Rozenfelde,
2016).
The discussed survey results are summarized by Alberta Education on the
website provided information and resources on establishing an inclusive learning
environment:
● instructional supports – planning instruction that acknowledges and
honours diversity means thoughtfully selecting instructional supports that
maximize student achievement;
● differentiation – differentiated instruction is a philosophy and an approach
to teaching in which teachers and school communities actively work to support the
learning of all students through strategic assessment, thoughtful planning and
targeted, flexible instruction;
● individualized program plan – students are at the center of the
Individualized Program Plan and Individual Student Profile (IPP/ISP) process.
When the focus is on students’ individual strengths, needs and participation, the
IPP/ISP process can provide many benefits for all partners;
● transitions – transitions are any events that result in changes to
relationships, routines, expectations or roles. Although they are a normal part of
life, these changes can be difficult for students;
● positive behaviour supports – positive behaviour supports is a school-wide
effort to promote positive social and communication skills, while reducing and
preventing problem behaviours;
43
● assistive technology for learning – assistive technology for learning is a
subset of a broad range of technologies that enhance students’ learning;
● welcoming, caring, respective and safe schools – students, parents and
school authorities have responsibilities for ensuring welcoming, caring, respectful
and safe learning environments that respect diversity and nurture a sense of
belonging and a positive sense of self;
● medical conditions – teachers may need to access information about
specific medical conditions and/or disabilities to better understand the learning
needs of some students;
● gifted and talented – school-aged children who are gifted may have
different strengths and needs, and may be very different from one another. Each
student who is gifted has an individual profile of abilities, needs, interests and
learning preferences;
● mental health – just like physical health, everyone has mental health. It
begins at birth and continues throughout life. Good mental health is not merely the
absence of mental health problems;
● childhood development – the first six years of a child’s life are important
to their development and future education. Children who are cared for and have
positive experiences during the early years are more likely to develop and learn in
ways that help them meet their full potential.
This chapter reveals that not only the financial effort to create the necessary
material wealth in inclusive school/classroom, but also the teacher’s personal
qualities and psychological readiness, knowledge and skills play an important role
in creating an inclusive educational environment at school/class. In an inclusive
classroom, the teacher must be able to convey knowledge not only to use and adapt
material resources to the needs and abilities of each child, but also to create a
positive climate for it. The teacher must be able to uphold a sense of community
among children with different abilities. One of the most favourable environments
for fostering a sense of community amongst peers is lessons related to arts and
sports/physical activity. The following section of the Literature Review will seek to
reveal the theoretical attitudes and concepts that can be used to develop the
teacher’s personal qualities and their competence to create an inclusive learning
environment for the child with special educational needs.
44
1.4. Theoretical substantiation of the development of physical education
teachers’ self-efficacy for creating an inclusive educational
environment
The research in this paper is based on the Bandura Self-Efficacy Theory

(1977) and the Theory of Social Cognition (1986). Based on these humanistic
philosophy theories, the topics will be discussed: the role of SE in the teacher’s
professional activities, how the level of SE affects the environment and how the SE
could be developed. Based on the theories discussed and the literature analysis, the
theoretical model affecting the experiment will be presented at the end of the
literature review section.
1.4.1. Theoretical assumptions of the self-efficacy concept
Self-Efficacy Theory (1977) constitutes the conceptual basis for changing

the behaviour of those persons who are not confident and often weak-skilled,
inactive and non-instigating (Adomaitienė et al., 2003). “One of the first
psychological theories proposed to explain the method in which individuals might
develop positive expectancies for the future is the theory of Self-efficacy (1977)
developed” by Bandura (Lopez, 2009, p 419). Gallagher (2009) asserts that self-
efficacy a powerful indicator allowing predicting the person’s behavior, and
academic, work, health and other outcomes. Self-efficacy has a powerful effect on
the behavior and positive results (Gallagher, 2009). This theory of Self-efficacy
states that psychological procedures, whatever their form, alter the level and
strength of SE (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy is the person’s trust in their abilities
to achieve the desired results performing certain actions (Bandura, 1977). This trust
is one of the most important determinants influencing personal behavior, especially
when the person wants to carry out some actions for a long time and/or comes
across with difficulties and challenges (Maddux, 2009). Self-efficacy beliefs refer
to “people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of
action required attaining designated types of performances” (Bandura, 1986, p. 391).
SE perceived by a person is a specific self-confidence form, manifested in the
assessment of his or her own capabilities in a particular situation (Bandura, 1997).
In the paper “Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavior Change”
Bandura (1977) formalized the term “perceived competence” as a synonym of self-
45
efficacy and in the Self-efficacy theory, he explained how this concept develops
and influences the person’s behaviour (Maddux, 2009).
Bandura (1977) described the influence of efficacy and outcome
expectations on behaviour and outcome, and this mechanism of operation is
presented as a diagram (Figure 4).
Figure 4. The difference between efficacy expectations and outcome expectations

(Source: Bandura, 1977)
The term Outcome expectance was defined as personal self-assessment, when

a particular behaviour will predetermine certain results (Bandura, 1977). The term
Efficacy expectation is a belief that certain behaviour will be successful, when the
person wants to perform a particular activity to achieve the results (Bandura, 1977).
Outcome and efficacy expectations are differentiated, since the person can believe
that certain activity will produce expected results, but if the person has strong
doubts about that activity, whether he/she can or cannot take certain actions, it can
negatively affect the person’s behaviour and the expected results (Bandura, 1977).
According to Bandura (1997), “People take action when they hold efficacy beliefs
and outcome expectations that make the effort seem worthwhile. They expect that
given actions can produce desired outcomes and believe that they can perform
those actions” (p. 24). If the person wants to achieve the desired result, he/she must
have necessary skills and sense of self-efficacy, that he/she will be able to control
certain factors appearing under specific circumstances (Bandura, 1989).
The sense of self-efficacy is considered as a most important and
comprehensive creative factor of personal agency, which helps to reveal how the
certain behaviour, endeavour, persistence when encountering with difficulties,
thinking models (intentions) and emotional reactions affect the final activity result
(Lent & Hackett, 2009). Bandura (1997) suggested that individuals with high levels
of SE beliefs are more likely to engage in an activity and more likely to attempt
46
difficult tasks, and as a result, those with high SE should perceive fewer
challenges, as they feel they have the ability to confront obstacles and succeed if
given appropriate effort. The Self-efficacy is a dynamic set of beliefs related with
the person ability to perform a certain task or activity and also how these beliefs
supplement personal skills when the person develops and uses own skills (Lent &
Hackett, 2009). Bandura (1977, 1986) identified a number of factors influencing
the cognitive processing of efficacy information arising from performance
accomplishments, mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal/social
persuasion, and emotional arousal (physiological states) sources (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Major sources of self-efficacy information and the principal sources through
which different modes of treatment operate (Source: Bandura, 1977)
The other theory, which this work will be based on, is Bandura’s Social
Cognitive Theory (1986). The previous Bandura’s expanded Social Learning
(1971) and Self-Efficacy (1977) theories are included into the Social Cognitive
Theory. Social Cognitive Theory explains and reveals the principles of human
thinking, motivation, influence and behavioural development (Bandura, 1986).
This theory emphasizes the role of cognitive processes in justifying human
behaviour and the interaction of this behaviour with the environment (Figure 6).
47
The interaction between these causal factors is considered to be essential in
understanding the dynamics of human behaviour and the ways in which the
activities of a person and the surrounding environment are influenced. Analysing
these causal relationships in the causal system, social cognitive theory emphasizes
various cognitive abilities that enable individuals to manage their behaviour.
Personal
Behaviour Environment
Figure 6. Learning processes in terms of triadic, dynamic and reciprocal interactions

among personal factors, environment and behaviours (Source: Bandura, 1986)
The theory involves factors that influence people’s behaviour and behaviour,
combining them into a coherent integrated system that emphasizes people’s self-
regulation abilities (Bandura, 1986). This theory is applied to substantiate the
themes of positive psychology such as health promotion, academic motivation and
performance, career development and adaptation at work, adaptation to various
physical and psychological problems (Lopez, 2009). Research on Social Cognitive
Theory has examined person variables that derive from the aforementioned basic
cognitive capabilities, in particular, self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, and
personal goals (Bandura, 2006; Bembenutty, While, & DiBenedetto, 2016; Heslin
& Klehe, 2006; Klassen & Tze, 2014; Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy,
1998). This theory discloses relationships between people and their environment
(physical, social, and cultural) much more than the classic behaviourism theory
allows. This theory creates new and advantageous conditions to promote research
in psychology and discover huge perspectives in this science (Bandura, 2006).
“Core social cognitive and social learning constructs that are believed to influence
career goals include career-related self-efficacy and outcome expectations and role
modelling” (Gomez, 2009, p. 123). It is likely that the people with strong self-
48
efficacy will continue their activity and seek their aims even when they encounter
with difficulties and (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Such people more often feel
satisfied with the quality of their life and have the courage to try new things
(Gomez, 2009).
1.4.2. Conception of teacher’s self-efficacy in the class context
The teachers’ psychological characteristic such as self-efficacy to teaching

effectiveness is increasingly emphasized in the scientific papers (Bembenutty et al.,
2016; Block et al., 2010; Eroglu & Unlu, 2015; Fisher, 2017; Jeong & Block, 2011;
Martin & Kulinna, 2004; Klassen & Tze, 2014; Tschannen-Moran & McMaster,
2009; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Bandura (2007) emphasizes the social aspect
of the environment such as the classroom environment, teacher, and peers.
Bembenutty et al. (2016) presented a model that depicts how students are
influenced by their peers and their teachers through observational learning as well
as social persuasions (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Triadic model in a class context (Source: Bembenutty et al., 2016)
49
The concept of self-efficacy in the organizational psychology is termed as
professional self-efficacy and perceived as trust in managing events and behaviour
related to professional activity and life (Fisher, 2017). In his research, Fisher
(2017) presents two aspects of the self-efficacy term – self-efficacy of the
profession and self-efficacy of the professional – which explain that individual
teachers perceive themselves as good professionals when they believe in their
individual ability to make a difference and influence their students’ future. Based
on these two aspects of self-efficacy, SE as an indicator can predict not only how
the teacher believes in his/her knowledge and ability in the working environment,
but also how SE beliefs can affect his/her environment, for example, students. This
is particularly important in creating an inclusive environment in the classroom,
where it is important not only to influence students’ academic achievements,
motivation, attitudes towards the school (Bembenutty et al., 2016; Klassen & Tze,
2014), but also to develop positive attitudes towards the peers with different level
skills. This means that a teacher with a high level of self-efficacy who will rely on
his/her ability to convey knowledge to students with different abilities so that each
one can develop and feel as an equal participant in the educational process. In this
way, the educational environment of the school would create favourable conditions
for the development of tolerance, respect, understanding, and other qualities that
would form an environment based on inclusion. In the Social Cognitive Theory by
Bandura (1986), “paragon” is described as the one who is used to changing
attitudes and behaviours, as people not only learn by classical or operant
conditioning processes, but also by models (Osswald, Frey, & Greitemeyer, 2009).
Thus, the teacher, as a “paragon”, plays an important role in developing the
psychological climate in the classroom. Social Cognitive Theory can be used as a
theoretical system that reveals the process of observational learning method. The
observable learning is perceived as the fact that “observers can acquire cognitive
skills and new patterns of behaviour by observing the performance of others”
(Bandura, 1986, p. 49). Aiming that observed models (teachers) had a positive
influence on children or students, the models must not only have authority, be
reputable, influential and competent, but also be similar to children or students that
observe them (Osswald et al., 2009). If the teacher is too demanding and a very
perfect personality, the students who will try to model him/her will have too many
difficulties to follow him/her and observe his/her behaviour and it is likely that
those children will be frustrated (Osswald et al., 2009). Therefore according to
50
Bandura (1986) “special type of observational learning” is useful when it are seen
as “abstract modelling”, on the basis of which the skills and general rules are
assimilated through direct or symbolic observation of the teachers. It is also
possible to learn abstract moral rules and ethical norms from “paragons” teachers
(Osswald et al., 2009). Therefore the “paragon” teacher can be described as a
directly strongly affecting, informative and motivating model and also as a subtle
model who can significantly affect the students’ cognition and behavioural processes.
At the beginning of the section it was observed that Bandura (1977, 1986)
suggested SE beliefs to be acquired and modified through four primary sources of
information: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal/social persuasion,
and physiological states. The impact that these informational sources have on SE
depends on a variety of factors, such as how the teacher/student attends to,
interprets, and recalls them (Bandura, 1986). However, personal accomplishments
such as successes or failure also have the potential to exert the great influence on
SE (Lent & Hackett, 2009). “The success of psychological interventions can be
enhanced by arranging experiences designed to strengthen SE beliefs for specific
behaviours in specific problematic and challenging situations (Maddux, 2009,
p. 878). When the teachers/students see themselves coping effectively with difficult
situations, their sense of mastery is likely to be heightened (Maddux, 2009). The
most powerful source of self-efficacy is mastery experience, defined as one’s
interpretations of one’s own previous authentic experiences performing a particular
task (Klassen & Tze, 2014). Developing a sense of efficacy through mastery
experiences involves acquiring the cognitive, behavioural, and self-regulatory tools
for creating and executing appropriate courses of action to manage ever-changing
life circumstances (Bandura, 1995). Tschannnen-Moran and McMaster (2009)
found that the professional development form that supported mastery experiences
through follow-up coaching had the strongest effect on self-efficacy beliefs for
reading instruction as well for implementation of the new strategy. The second
source of SE is that of observing another person successfully performing the action
that one is contemplating vicarious experience. As teaching lacks absolute
measures of adequacy, teachers must appraise their capabilities in relation to the
performance of others (Tschannen-Moran & Mcmaster, 2009). Based on Bandura
(1997), the impact of modelling on beliefs in personal efficacy is strongly
influenced by perceived similarity to the models, for example, if teachers see the
models as very different from themselves, their beliefs of personal efficacy are not
51
much influenced by the models’ behaviour and the results it produces. Effective
role models approach challenging activities as an opportunity to learn and develop
their knowledge, skills and effectiveness, this is a good role models to demonstrate
the development of skills, persistence and learning rather than the defensiveness
and blaming that cause mistakes to recur and subsequent performance to decline
(Heslin & Klehe, 2006). The verbal persuasion is the third way to educate personal
self-efficacy, when the purpose is that the student successfully completed or
continued the chosen activity. People who are persuaded verbally that they possess
the capabilities to master given activities are likely to mobilize greater effort and
sustain it than if they harbour self-doubts and dwell on personal deficiencies when
problems arise (Bandura, 1995). For example, to the extent that persuasive boosts
in perceived SE lead teachers to try hard enough to succeed, self-affirming beliefs
promote development of skills and a sense of personal efficacy (Tschannen-Moran
& Mcmaster, 2009). Successful efficacy builders structure situations for teachers in
ways that bring success and avoid placing teachers in situations prematurely where
they are likely to fail often, and they encourage teachers to measure their success in
terms of self-improvement rather than by triumphs over others (Block et al., 2016;
Hutzler & Barak, 2017; Kwon & Block, 2017; Taliaferro et al., 2015; Taliaferro &
Pilkington Harris, 2014). Heslin and Klehe (2006) claim that if we want verbal
encouragement to create a higher sense of self-efficacy, it is necessary that this
verbal encouragement was followed by experience-based practice (direct or
indirect experience). The fourth way of altering efficacy beliefs is to enhance
physical status, reduce stress and negative emotional proclivities, and correct
misinterpretations of bodily states (physiological states) (Bandura, 2006). Strong
emotional reaction can provide cues to expected success or failure (Bandura,
1997). For example, the teachers interpret their stress reactions and tension as signs
of vulnerability to poor performance (Bandura, 1995). “Strategies for controlling
and reducing emotional arousal (specifically anxiety) while attempting new
behaviours should enhance SE beliefs and increase the likelihood of successful
implementation” (Maddux, 2009, p. 879). Social interaction and positive
interactions with others are thought to promote better mental and physical health by
fostering the development of meaningful social roles, self-worth and self-efficacy
(Maddux, 2009). Each mode of influence (mastery experience, vicarious
experience, verbal persuasion, physiological states) is associated with a particular
set of factors that have diagnostic significance in the self-appraisal of personal
52
efficacy. For example, the extent to which performance attainments alter perceived
efficacy will depend on teachers’ preconceptions of their capabilities, the perceived
difficulty of the tasks, the amount of effort they expended, their physical and
emotional state at the time, the amount of external aid they received, and the
situational circumstances under which they performed (Bandura, 1995).
Based on the Self-Efficacy Theory and the Social Cognitive Theory, the
concept of self-efficacy plays an important role in achieving not only better
personal development, but also better professional development. The level of self-
efficacy is affected by such sources as practical experience, indirect experience,
social promotion and perception of physiological - emotional state. Although
practical experience has one of the strongest effects in shaping a person’s self-
efficacy, the effective development of a teacher’s self-efficacy requires the
inclusion of as many of these sources as possible. This chapter has revealed that
self-efficacy is one of the most significant indicators that reveals teachers’
perceived competence in educating students and has a significant impact on the
psychological climate in the classroom. The next chapter will aim to reveal the
benefits of physical education lessons in upholding inclusion values, the self-
efficacy of a physical education teacher to include pupils with disabilities in a
regular physical education class, and discuss the means to explore this indicator.
1.5. Physical education teachers’ self-efficacy for including students

with special educational needs to the regular physical education
classes
Physical education is considered an important vehicle for the promotion of

physical activity, psychosocial development, and teaching dance, games, and sports
skills. Unfortunately, children with SEN are often inactive and socially isolated
during PE despite laws requiring children with SEN to be included in general
educational schools, PE not excepted (Martin, 2014).
MacAllister’s (2013) analysis of Andrew Reid, Richard Peters and
Aristotle’s Philosophy on Physical Education revealed that curricular physical
activity is a meaningful activity, which has a significant influence on the formation
of a person’s and society’s culture. Reid (1997) states that physical education
includes various activities that develop moral, aesthetic, life, political, religious and
53
cognitive values. Values usually help a person not only to orient themselves in life,
but also to choose what is really meaningful to them. The foundation of value
education is morality; it is the highest humanity criterion and the basic form of
sociability education (Aramavičiūtė, 2010). The system of moral values is closely
linked to sociability, including values such as honesty, justice, legitimacy,
tolerance and homeland love, as it combines the prerequisites for the development
of a person that promotes empathy, solidarity, as a condition of peace and freedom,
which manifests through the goodness and the understanding of others, mercy,
forgiveness, love to the beloved ones, dignity, and self-esteem (Aramavičiūtė &
Martišauskienė, 2009). In educating these values, the school plays a special role -
the teachers who shape people’s democratic thinking, consciousness, and lifestyle
(Berns, 2009). MacAllister (2013) referring to Aristotle’s philosophy predicate,
that PE is one of the main four disciplines (reading and writing, physical training,
music, and drawing) that makes a significant contribution to the development of a
healthy and dirigible personality. Therefore, it is stated that one of the most
conducive environments for implementing inclusive attitude is physical education
class (André et al., 2011; Grenier et al., 2005; Hutzler, 2003; Hutzler, 2007;
Klavina et al., 2014; Polvi & Telama, 2000; Qi et al., 2016; Tubić & Đorđić, 2012)
and physical education teacher plays the key role in educating the values needed to
create an inclusive environment (Navarro et al., 2016).
In the analysis of studies related to the field of inclusive education, it has
been found that in creating an inclusive environment for students with SEN in a
regular class, psychological indicators such as teacher’s attitude and self-efficacy
play a significant role (Dukmak, 2013; Engstrand Zakirova & Roll-Pettersson,
2012; Hofman & Kilimo, 2014; Humphrey & Symes, 2013; Sarı, Çeliköz, & Seçer,
2009; Sharma, Shaukat, & Furlonger, 2014; Shaukat, Sharma, & Furlonger, 2013;
Urton, Wilbert, & Hennemann, 2014; Vaz, Wilson, Falkmer, Sim, Scott, Cordier,
& Falkmer, 2015; Hernandez et al., 2016). There are also a lot of studies made to
find out the attitudes of PE teachers (Campos, Ferreira, & Block, 2014; Hutzler,
2003; Jerlinder et al., 2010; Karani & Skordilis, 2016; Kudláček, 2007; Mauerberg-
deCastro et al., 2013;) and SE belief (Baloun et al., 2016; Beamer & Yun, 2014;
Block et al., 2010; Block et al., 2013; Block et al., 2016; Eden & Hutzler, 2015;
Hutzler & Barak, 2017; Hutzler, Zacha, & Gafni, 2005; Jovanović et al., 2014;
Kudláček et al., 2018; Kwon & Block, 2017; Li et al., 2018; Morgan, 2013; Reina
et al., 2016; Taliaferro & Pilkington Harris, 2014; Taliaferro et al., 2015;
54
Taliaferro, 2010; Tekidou, et al., 2015; Tindall et al., 2016) towards inclusion of
students with SEN in regular physical education classes.
Analysis of literature revealed that self-efficacy of PE teachers towards
inclusion of students with SEN is gaining more importance than attitudes in
creating an inclusive learning environment in PE classes. Individual studies have
found that teachers’ SE is one of the strongest predictors of their attitudes towards
inclusion (Ilić-Stošović et al., 2015; Karani & Skordilis, 2016; Vaz et al., 2015).
Stajkovic and Luthans’ (1998) meta-analytical findings support a highly significant
positive correlation between SE and work-related performance. Yada and Savolainen
(2017) conclude that one way of changing teachers’ attitudes is to improve their SE
for inclusive practices and the results of their study indicate that more attention
should be paid to teachers’ lack of confidence regarding the inclusive practice.
Fisher’s (2017) study confirms the theoretical model’s relationship between teacher
perceptions of SE and teacher attitudes towards inclusion.
Creating inclusive environment in PE classes, PE teachers not only have to
transfer knowledge, but also to adapt it to students who have skills of different
levels (Block et al., 2010; Griggs & Medcalf, 2015; Qi & Ha, 2012). Teachers
accepting the diversity of students are able to make flexible decisions and to
transfer ideas about natural differences between people possessing the same values
(Galkienė, 2016; Griggs & Medcalf, 2015; Klavina et al., 2014; Ko & Boswell,
2013). In an inclusive PE class the PE teacher has to create a learning environment
where every student feels that he/she is a full participant in the teaching and
learning process (Block et al., 2010; Griggs & Medcalf, 2015; Karani & Skordilis,
2016). The PE teacher has to create an environment for all, where personal
weaknesses and disadvantages are not highlighted, where a student feels safe and
as an equally important member of the community, and where in certain situations
measures are taken to turn personal weaknesses and disadvantages into benefits
and advantages (Booth & Ainscow, 2011; Ko & Boswell, 2013). This all can be
achieved only by a PE teacher who is confident and who relies on the knowledge
and its practical application at work (Block et al., 2010; Griggs & Medcalf, 2015).
In order to create such an environment, the PE teacher must both have knowledge
and also the confidence in her or his skills and in the capability to apply this
knowledge in various specific situations (Block et al., 2010; Block et al., 2013;
Griggs & Medcalf, 2015). The way the teacher adapts the task, modifies the goal,
applies educational methods and handles difficult situations depends on his or her
55
level of situation and task-specific confidence. The teachers’ SE is their confidence
and beliefs in being able to cater to the varied needs of all students in an inclusive
school setting (Block et al., 2010; Karani & Skordilis, 2016). Based on the teacher
self-efficacy strength, it is possible to identify how the teacher will understand the
possibilities of the surrounding environment and how they will create an education
environment in a lesson and how long and persistently they will continue their
activities when they encounter with challenges (Bandura, 2006). A meta-analysis
by Klassen and Tze (2014), consisting of 43 studies representing 9216 participants,
demonstrated that teachers’ perceived SE was related to increased persistence in
working with challenging students; SE was shown to influence teachers’
instructional practices, enthusiasm, commitment and teaching behaviours.
The studies reveal that such factors like support from others (APE specialist,
teacher assistant), knowledge in adapted physical education, and teacher training in
inclusive practices has a positive influence on creating PE teachers’ self-efficacy
while creating inclusive environment for students with SEN (Baloun et al., 2016;
Beamer & Yun, 2014; Block et al., 2013; Hutzler & Barak, 2017; Hutzler, 2003;
Jerlinder et al., 2010; Karani & Skordilis, 2016; Kwon & Block, 2017; Martin,
2014; Mauerberg-deCastro et al., 2013; Reina et al., 2016; Taliaferro, 2010). This
also has a positive impact on the academic and social success of students with SEN
(Hernandez et al., 2016). Jovanović et al. (2014) found that self-efficacy of PE
teachers was affected by the type of disability and gender. This means that PE
teachers had higher self-efficacy level working with students with intellectual and
physical disabilities rather than working with students with visual impairments.
Females had higher self-efficacy then males. Jovanović et al. (2014) revealed that
the level of self-efficacy to include children with disabilities of PE students from
different universities differed statistically significantly. The results of this study
showed that it is important to review the curriculum for physical education teachers
and to clarify the strengths and weaknesses of PE teacher training programs.
Analysing the studies that examined the SE beliefs of students working with SEN
in the field of physical education, it was found that PE teachers who had the
experience of including SEN students had a higher self-efficacy level than those PE
teachers who did not have such experience (Reina et al., 2016). Beamer and Yun
(2014) found that PE teachers’ experience, graduate coursework in APE, and
perceptions of strength of undergraduate training in APE significantly predicted
their self-efficacy and their self-reported behaviour for including students with
56
autism spectrum disorder (ASD). According to a study by Beamer and Yun (2014),
self-efficacy is closely related with behaviour, which is why it is very important to
investigate the relationship between SE and teaching behaviour. While research
(Armitage & Conner, 2001; Martin & Kulina, 2004; Wang & Ha, 2013) suggests
that SE beliefs are directly linked to professional preparation, however there are
not many studies (Beamer & Yun, 2014; Taliaferro, 2010) exploring the
relationship between SE beliefs, challenges, and behaviours of PE teachers in
inclusion of students with disabilities in physical education. These results can help
identify methods to improve SE and positive teaching behaviours of physical
educators towards students with SEN and could potentially guide future physical
education teacher education and professional development programming. According
to Bandura (1997), SE beliefs are effective predictors of behaviour. Armitage and
Conner’s (2001) meta-analysis showed that SE accounted for most additional
variance in intention, and both perceived behavioural control and SE accounted for
equivalent proportions of variance in behaviour. The implication is that individuals
have intentions that they are confident with and they can implement (those they
perceive as SE), and that translation of intention into action may be facilitated both
by SE and assessment of more external factors tapped by perceived behavioural
control (Armitage & Conner, 2001). Taliaferro (2010) found that PE teachers’ SE
belief in including a student with ASD is a strong predictor on self-reported
inclusion behaviour. Bandura (1997) proposed that SE beliefs are associated with
the degree of challenge that exists in the context of a task. The people who have
high levels of SE are more likely to view difficult tasks as a challenge to be
overcome rather than avoided, and they are more likely to put forth more effort and
persist longer in these tasks and are more likely to successfully perform the activity
than are people with low SE (Bandura, 1977). As it pertains to teaching students
with SEN, physical educators with low SE view students with SEN as a threat
instead of a challenge for their professional performance (Hutzler et al., 2005).
The analysis of research carried out has revealed that studies conducted in
this research area contribute significantly not only explaining the prevailing situation
of PE teachers’ self-efficacy level when including students with SEN, but also
accelerate the development of the whole process of inclusion (Healy, 2015; Kwon
& Block, 2017; Kwon, 2014; Sato & Haegele, 2017; Sierra, Garcia–Gómez,
Hemmelmayr, Fernández–Pacheco, & Reina, 2016; Taliaferro & Pilkington Harris,
2014; Taliaferro et al., 2015). Looking into Lithuania’s perspective, it has been
57
observed that this field of research has not yet been explored; therefore, it is
necessary to investigate and reveal how Lithuanian physical education teachers feel
ready to include students with SEN in the regular physical education classes.
Appropriate tools are needed to achieve this. In the studies based on the analysis of
self-efficacy for the inclusion of students with SEN in the regular PE classes, we
found that the following instruments were used to assess the self-efficacy score in
these studies:
● Self-efficacy in teaching PE under inclusive conditions (SEIPE). This
instrument was used in one of the first studies about PE teachers’ self-efficacy
towards inclusion by Hutzler et al. (2005); it was self-developed based on
instructions for constructing self-efficacy questionnaires (Bandura, 1997). It
includes 15 items containing short vignettes, with a question about the respondents’
confidence in their ability to provide the child with disability and his/her peers with
optimal learning conditions;
● Physical Educators’ Self-Efficacy towards Including Students with
Disabilities – Autism (PESEISD-A; Taliaferro, Block, Harris, & Krauske, 2011).
This instrument consists of a self-efficacy scale and six other scales which are
connected with questions of that scale (mastery experience, vicarious experience,
social persuasion, behaviour, physiological state and perceived challenges); this
instrument not only allows to identify PE teachers’ SE towards including students
with ASD, but also to better understand the problems that cause the biggest
difficulties for PE teachers to include students with ASD in a mainstream PE class,
and understand the factors that influence their SE. This instrument was used by
Beamer and Yun (2014), Li et al. (2018); Morgan (2013); Taliaferro (2010),
Taliaferro & Pilkington Harris (2014), in their studies;
● Self-Efficacy Scale for Physical Education Teacher Education Majors
towards Children with Disabilities (SE-PETE-D; Block et al., 2013). This
instrument consists of three self-efficacy scales (intellectual disability, physical
disability, and visual impairment) and was developed as situation- and disability-
specific, and therefore may be useful for a variety of disability conditions and
situations encountered during PE; the SE-PETE-D has been adopted by both
European and American scholars (Baloun et al., 2016; Eden & Hutzler, 2015;
Hutzler & Barak, 2017; Jovanović et al., 2014; Kudláček et al., 2018; Kwon &
Block, 2017; Reina et al., 2016; Taliaferro et al., 2015; Tekidou et al., 2015;
Tindall et al., 2016).
58
When discussing the importance of physical education classes to uphold the
principles of inclusive education and the role of a physical education teacher in
creating an inclusive learning environment for children with disabilities in a
regular physical education class, there is a natural need to examine the non-
disabled students’ attitudes towards participation of peers with disabilities in
physical education. The following section will aim to reveal the benefits of
inclusive physical education lessons for non-disabled students, their prevailing
attitudes towards participation of their peers with disabilities in physical education
lessons, and to discuss instruments that allow studying students’ attitudes towards
inclusion of students with disabilities in general physical education.
1.6. Attitudes of students towards the participation of peers with special

educational needs in a common physical education class
Attitude is defined as individual’s positive or negative feeling associated

with performing a specific behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). Attitudes are thoughts,
feelings, specific mood to respond positively or negatively towards individuals,
things or situations (Berns, 2009). An attitude can be looked at as an enduring set
of emotionally charged beliefs that predispose a person to certain kinds of
behaviours (Sherrill, 1998). “An attitude is an idea charged with emotions which
predispose a class of actions to a particular class of social situations” (Triandis,
1971, p. 2). As related to inclusion of students with SEN, McKay, Haegele, and
Block (2018) defined it as the cognitive component which involves statements
related to knowledge about classmates with SEN, the affective component which
involves statements about feelings towards students with SEN, and the behavioural
component which involves statements about actual or intended behaviour towards
individuals with SEN. Participants indicated paradigm shifts through cognition,
feelings, and intended behaviours, representing a multidimensional attitude change.
Students’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with SEN in general class
activities can be described as thoughts and feelings of the child, which justify the
perception of a classmate with SEN and his/her participation in joint activities.
Therefore, the student’s provisions include convictions, feelings and behaviours
including students with SEN in a regular PE class. Thus, from a student’s point of
view towards students with SEN, one can guess how he/she will react and behave
59
in an inclusive physical education class. Ajzen (1991) suggests that an individual
will hold a favourable attitude towards a given behaviour if he/she believes that
this behaviour will lead to positive outcomes. Attitudes, like values, are learned
from socialization actors, which are the role models, and direct experiences (Berns,
2009). Keeping an eye on the surroundings and observing, children create their
own attitudes towards the environment. According to Bandura’s (1986) Social
Cognitive Theory, children’s attitudes are shaped by their pursuit of attractive and
respectful models. Thus, the inevitably shaping the attitudes of students is greatly
influenced by the family, friends, media, and school environment (Berns, 2009).
Research on the impact of classmates on the inclusion of children with SEN
in the overall activity of the classroom showed that classmates’ attitudes have a
significant impact on the success of the inclusion of children with SEN (Arampatzi,
Mouratidou, Evaggelinou, Koidou, & Barkoukis, 2011; Cairns & McClatckey,
2013; Chuchu, T. & Chuchu, V., 2016; Hamid, Alasmari, & Eldood, 2015;
Kalambouka, Farrell, Dyson, 2007; Obrusníková, Válková, & Block, 2003;
Olaleye, A., Ogundele, Deji, Ajayi, Olaleye, O., Adeyanju, 2012; Prince &
Hadwin, 2013; Seymour, Reid, & Bloom, 2009; Shields & Synnot, 2016).
Bebetsos, Derri, Zafeiriadis, and Kyrgiridis (2013) found that students’ without
SEN attitudes were proved to be powerful in predicting their behaviour towards
their peers with SEN in the physical education class. An analysis by Ruijs and
Peetsma (2009) has shown that inclusion has a positive impact not only on students
with SEN, but also on students who are not identified as having special educational
needs. The interaction between students with different abilities in an inclusive
educational environment creates conditions for tolerance, friendship, understanding,
respect, caring, sincerity, helpfulness, and other moral characteristics (Peplak,
Song, Colasante, & Malti, 2017). The inclusive environment creates conditions for
the formation of a positive attitude towards the person’s exceptional abilities,
exceptional appearance, behaviour, recognizing it as a person’s uniqueness, and not
as a deficiency. Physical education classes are one of the most favourable
educational environments for modelling these students’ moral qualities
(Obrusnikova & Dillon, 2012; Orlić, Pejčić, Lazarević, & Milanović, 2016; Smith
& Thomas, 2006). The class of physical education through contact games creates
favourable conditions for individuals to know each other, to learn, to discover, to
face creative challenges, to develop tolerance and friendship (Klavina et al., 2014;
Lu & Buchanan, 2014; Seymour et al., 2009). It forms their attitudes not only as a
60
student but also as a future specialist (teacher, doctor, architect, etc.) towards social
inclusion of persons with disabilities, disorders, and learning difficulties. In
reviewing the research on students’ attitudes, the inclusion of students with SEN in
the regular PE classes, it was found that the more frequent interaction of students
with students with SEN (Arampatzi et al, 2011; Kudláček et al., 2011; Obrusníková
et al. 2003; Seymour et al., 2009) and personal experience with persons with
disabilities (family member, friend) had a positive impact on their attitudes towards
the inclusion of these students (Block, 1995). Studies have also shown that girls are
more positive about including their classmates with SEN in regular PE classes than
boys (Bebetsos, Derri, Filippoua, Zetoua, &Vernadakisa, 2014; Block, 1995;
Campos et al., 2013; Cordente-Mesas et al., 2016; Liu, Kudláček, & Ješina, 2010;
Obrusníková & Dillon, 2012), and that students are more favourably involved in
the inclusion of classmates with SEN in the physical education class than in the
participation of these students in sports games (Block, 1995). The difference in
students’ perceptions between the general attitudes to inclusion and the attitudes to
including students with SEN in sports games is explained by the level of
competitiveness, that is, children who like to win, but it is OK if they lose
sometimes and no matter whether they win or lose, they like the game itself are
more positive towards participation of students with SEN in joint games than those
who like to win, and are very upset if lose (Block, 1995; McKay, 2013; Van
Biesen, Busciglio, & Vanlandewjck, 2006). Hutzler and Levi (2008) found no
difference in the attitudes between students who participated in sports classes and
those who did not, and that students who had previous exposure to students with
disability exhibited reduced willingness towards including them in physical
education classes. Arampatzi et al. (2011) found that gender was a significant
factor just for students displaying aggression but not social insecurity and/or
adopting positive attitudes towards disability. Bebetsos et al. (2013) study revealed
that students’ specific training could improve their general attitudes and
consequently generate more positive general and modified behaviours towards
their peers; and the enhancement of teachers’ knowledge and skills on the subject
of inclusion in physical education in general and on attitudes and behaviours in
specific could further assist the above mentioned endeavour and produce the
desirable outcomes for all students.
Based on the importance of the approach to creating an inclusive
environment for students with SEN in physical education classes in Europe and the
61
US, Paralympic school days (PSD) (Liu et al., 2010; McKay et al., 2018; McKay,
2013; McKay, Block, & Park, 2015; Panagiotou, Kudláček, & Evaggelinou, 2006;
Van Biesen et al., 2006; Xafopoulos, Kudláček, & Evaggelinou, 2009), a summer
camp (Papaioannou, Evaggelinou & Block, 2014) and their effect on the students’
attitude towards the inclusion of peers with disabilities were studied. Using PSD to
expand perceptions and development of a culture where individuals of all abilities
are appreciated enhances much needed respect for human differences and diversity
in the school setting (McKay et al., 2018). The scientists from Belgium Van Biesen
et al. (2006) conducted the study and found that PSD had a significant positive
effect on the attitudes of students in two schools, but in one school the attitudes
after PSD changed negatively, however, the results were not significant. This study
also revealed that girls with a low level of competitiveness had more positive
attitudes than boys with a high level of competitiveness. In the research conducted
by Panagiotou et al. (2006), the PSD programme was applied for the students from
non-inclusive schools and inclusive schools. The results indicated significant
differences between groups of students from inclusive and non-inclusive schools.
These differences concerned only general attitudes about disabilities and not
specific sports-related questions. Panagiotou et al. (2006) stated that multifarious
curricula might improve general attitudes of children from non-inclusive schools,
and that more specialized curricula were needed to improve general attitudes of
children from inclusive schools and sport-specific attitudes of all children.
Xafopoulos et al. (2009) applied PSD programme for students from the United
Kingdom, Canada, US, Korea, and Czech Republic in an International school and
found significant differences only in general attitudes among girls. In the Czech
Republic, the results of the research conducted by Liu et al. (2010) revealed
positive attitudes towards the inclusion of students with disabilities in the PE
classes after the Paralympic school day, while attitudes towards changing sports
rules for students with a disability worsened, however, these changes were not
statistically significant. Papaioannou et al. (2014) aimed at examining the impact of
three-week Disability Camp Program on the attitudes of children without
disabilities towards the inclusion of hypothetical peers with physical disabilities in
a summer sports and leisure activity camp. Summer camps are recreational
settings, in which children have the opportunity to participate in activities and
games with peers on daily basis, which foster inclusion and develop close
relationships. This study shows that participation in this particular Disability Camp
62
Program can have a positive effect on children’s attitudes towards the inclusion of
children with disabilities in summer sports and leisure activity camp.
The scientists from US McKay et al. (2018) conducted a qualitative study,
the aim of which was to understand and describe the experiences of sixth grade
students, taking part in the ongoing PSD programme in relation to shaping attitudes
and perceptions of disability and disability sport. The results of this study showed
that Paralympic school day treatment had a positive influence on the students’
attitudes towards the inclusion of students with disabilities in PE class. The
analysis of the research results revealed three interrelated themes: “just like the rest
of us” (p. 7), “what it means to be normal” (p. 8), and “PSD changed my view of
disabled people” (p. 9) (McKay et al., 2018). Within the reflections of the
participants, phrases such as “there is no normal” (p. 12) and “normal doesn’t
exist” (p. 12), which support an “everyone is different, everyone is normal” (p. 12)
discourse, were constant (McKay et al., 2018). “Reflections related to “normal”
clearly depicted the PSD intervention, including the experience of intergroup
contact, as having a positive impact on newly formed perceptions” (p. 12), i.e.
students viewed individuals with disabilities as equal in status to themselves, not
superior or inferior in status (McKay et al., 2018).
The reviewed studies show that the students’ attitudes towards the inclusion
of class members with SEN in the physical education classes contribute
significantly to the implementation of inclusive provisions in the educational
process, but also to the broader perception of disability and wider opportunities for
the socialization of people with disabilities.
Analysing research conducted by European and US researchers, it has been
observed that many studies have been conducted using a unified approach of
students to the inclusion of students with SEN in the curriculum for physical
education. Analysis of the scientific literature revealed the use of such research
tools as Children’s Attitudes Towards Integrated Physical Education – Revised
(CAIPE-R; Block, 1995), Attitudes Towards Including Students with Disability in
Physical Education (ATISD-PE; Hutzler & Levi, 2008), and the Children’s Beliefs
and Intentions to Play with Peers with Disabilities in Middle School Physical
Education (CBIPPD-MPE; Obrusnikova, Dillon, Block, & Davis, 2012) separately
or there were different combinations of those tools together with the other ones
such as a revised version of the Planned Behaviour Theory (PBT) questionnaire,
the Adjective Checklist (Siperstein, 1980), modified version of the Attitudes
63
Towards Integrated Sports Inventory (ATISI; Block & Molloy, 1998), the
Checklist of Aggressive Behaviour (CAB; by Peterman & Peterman, 2001), the
Checklist of Social Insecure Behaviour (CSIB; by Peterman & Peterman, 2003).
One of the most commonly used tools in these studies was Children’s Attitudes
Towards Integrated Physical Education – Revised (CAIPE-R) Instrument created
by Block (1995) (Arampatzi et al., 2011; Bebetsos et al., 2013; Bebetsos et al.,
2014; Campos et al., 2013; Cordente-Mesas et al., 2016; Hutzler & Levi, 2008;
Kudláček et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2010; McKay et al., 2015; McKay, 2013;
Obrusníková et al., 2003; Panagiotou et al., 2006; Papaioannou et al., 2014; Van
Biesen et al., 2006; Xafopoulos et al., 2009).
After reviewing the importance of inclusive education and the possibilities
for developing this process in a physical education class, the following section will
explore ways to develop the self-efficacy of physical education teachers to create
an inclusive learning environment for students with special educational needs
caused by disabilities.
1.7. The ways for development of the self-efficacy of physical education

teachers to create an inclusive educational environment for
students with special educational needs in a regular physical
education class
An overview of the research results and conclusions in the last two chapters
shows that the necessity to develop, improve and evaluate strategies that would
develop the self-efficacy of physical education teachers to create an inclusive
educational environment and form positive attitudes of students towards the
inclusion of their peers with SEN in the regular physical education class is evident.
A small number of scientific publications have been found in the research (Kwon
& Block, 2017; Sato & Haegele, 2017; Sierra et al., 2016; Taliaferro & Pilkington
Harris, 2014; Taliaferro et al., 2015; Tindall et al., 2016) and dissertations (Healy,
2015; Kwon, 2014) discussing the issue of strategy-making teachers in the field of
physical education or the ability to create an inclusive learning environment for
students with SEN in a regular physical education class. These studies reveal a one-
day workshop (Taliaferro & Pilkington Harris, 2014), implementing the adapted
physical education e-learning one-week supplement (Kwon, 2014; Kwon & Block,
64
2017); impact of online professional development on physical educators’ knowledge
and implementation of peer tutoring (Healy, 2015), three-week training program
for inclusive physical education (Sierra et al., 2016), and adapted physical education
course with an associated on-campus practicum (Taliaferro et al., 2015) to teachers’
preparation to work in inclusive physical activity environments and self-efficacy
beliefs in the inclusion of individuals with special educational needs. Tindall et al.
(2016) aimed at examining the effects of a 10-week adapted physical activity
programme on the self-efficacy levels of pre-service teachers towards teaching
children and young people with disabilities during a weekly 1-hour APA programme.
A qualitative study by Sato and Haegele (2017) revealed the effectiveness of the
online APE course and ensured significant improvements in this course.
Taliaferro and Pilkington Harris (2014) investigated the effects of a one-day
(approximately six hours) workshop on general physical educators’ self-efficacy to
include students with autism spectrum disorder into the general physical education
setting. The workshop provided educational information about working with
students with autism, including strategies and ideas for including students with
autism into the general PE setting, getting to know the students, communicating
with parents and caregivers, creating individualized education plans, adapting
equipment, modifying instruction, developing appropriate activities, ensuring
student safety, and dealing with behavioural issues. During the workshop, general
physical educators were given a PowerPoint presentation including ideas and
strategies for including students with autism into the general PE classroom setting.
Several video examples were presented to show students with autism and other
disabilities successfully included in general PE (vicarious experiences).
Participants were able to ask questions about any disability he/she may have
difficulty including into the general PE. A practical session of approximately two
hours in the morning allowed participants to practice modifying equipment,
modifying activities and games, and modifying instruction (i.e., mastery
experiences), and watch how a trained adapted physical educator would conduct a
class that included a child with autism spectrum disorder (i.e., vicarious
experiences). Participants were encouraged to provide examples of their own
experiences in modifying activities and instructions to accommodate children with
autism in general physical education. Also participants were presented information
on positive behavioural support for children who display challenging behaviours,
and then small groups were formed allowing participants to work together to create
65
a functional behaviour plan (Taliaferro & Pilkington Harris, 2014). Results
indicated that a one-day workshop did not have a statistically significant impact on
physical educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in inclusion, but made the significant
positive influence on teachers’ self-efficacy feeling.
The scientists Taliaferro et al. (2015) evaluated the effect of completion of
an APE course with an associated on-campus practicum on pre-service physical
educators’ self-efficacy beliefs towards the inclusion of individuals with special
educational needs (autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disabilities, physical
disabilities, and visual impairments). All participants were enrolled in one of two
15-week APE courses with an associated during-class practicum that are required
in the undergraduate Physical Education Teacher Education program of study. All
participants in Course 2 had previously completed Course 1. Course 1 two-credit
pre-major APE survey course lasted for 160 minutes per week and occurred
typically in the second or third semester of the study. Content covered in this
course focused primarily on information pertaining to characteristics of various
disability categories and their implications for physical education programming,
implementation, and evaluation. Course 2, a one-credit senior-level APE course,
lasted 130 minutes per week. Course objectives were based on the planning,
implementation, and adaptation of classes for students with disabilities and
included managing a teaching environment to meet the needs of learners with
varying abilities, managing staff and assistants, creating meaningful class plans with
necessary adaptations, collaborating with special education staff, assessing student
performance and progress, and reflecting on teaching experiences. All participants
were involved in the same APE practicum experience working with individuals
with disabilities. The experience consisted of a 9-week, 60-minute per-week on-
campus practicum working with individuals with various disabilities (students).
The practicum in this study was designed to target all four sources of self-efficacy:
mastery experiences, social modelling, social persuasion, and psychological
responses (Bandura, 1977). The results of the study revealed that Course 1 and
Course 2 made statistically significant influence on self-efficacy beliefs.
The aim of Kwon’s (2014) study was to explore if an APE e-learning and
traditional printed supplements in Physical education teacher education courses
would have an impact on the self-efficacy and content knowledge of pre-service PE
teachers related to including students with intellectual disability (ID) in their team
sports classes. An APE supplement was developed based on the Instructional
66
Design Model (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2005) to provide three sources of self-
efficacy, mastery experience, vicarious experience, and social persuasions. The
online supplement included written information, videos showing how to make
accommodations, and an online discussion that allowed participants to share
information with each other. The content of the supplement covered these subareas
with results as follows: instructional strategies, (20%) equipment modification,
(20%) rule modification (20%), environmental modification (15%), characteristics
of ID (13%), and basic information of ID (12%). Three groups of pre-service
teachers took the same content supplement with different delivery system, E-
learning group with online, traditional group with printed handout, and control
group without supplement. Results indicated that pre-service teachers’ perceived
self-efficacy (p = .023) improved after taking the e-learning supplement, however,
there was no significant difference in the level of content knowledge (p = .248). A
modified Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire was employed to measure the
level of satisfaction towards the supplement, which results indicated that the e-
learning group showed significantly higher satisfaction levels than the traditional
group did in usability and content quality.
Results of the dissertation (“The Impact of Online Professional Development
on Physical Educators’ Knowledge and Implementation of Peer Tutoring” by
Healy (2015)) support the research results of Kwon and Block (2017). Healy’s
(2015) study revealed the positive influence of an online professional development
course aimed at preparing practicing physical educators for the development and
implementation of a peer-tutoring program in their physical education classes.
Results revealed that participation in an online professional development course
resulted in a significant increase in knowledge compared to the peer control group
that did not complete the online professional development course; participation in an
online professional development course helped 22% of participants to implement
peer tutoring preparation programs compared to the controls. They actually
implemented a peer tutoring program in one of their classes, 47% of participants
completed some of the peer tutoring activities, and physical educators perceived the
online environment as a positive setting for professional development (Healy, 2015).
Sierra and colleagues (2016) conducted an investigation in which they
evaluated the effect of “Incluye-T: Training program for an inclusive physical
education” on PE teachers self-efficacy beliefs towards the inclusion of individuals
with intellectual disabilities, physical disabilities, and visual impairments. This
67
program lasted for three weeks (18 hours); the classes were carried out twice a
week, each class lasted for three hours. The program consisted of theoretical and
practical classes, covering topics such as hearing and visual impairments, visual
impairments and intellectual disability, physical disability games and sports, and
contact with a para-athlete. Results showed that the applied programme had a
significant effect on PE teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs towards inclusion.
Tindall et al. (2016) applied adapted physical activity (APA) programme
which was based on the direct contact with children and young adults having
various disabilities, and their pre-service teachers had to include such activities as
dances, games, and health-related activities. Each teacher received a profile of their
child prior to the commencement of the APA programme. This profile entailed a
detailed account of disability as described by their parent or caregiver. At the end
of each session, teachers were required to record how their children performed,
marking any progress, physical difficulties with the planned activities or
behavioural problems encountered. In order to estimate differences in teachers’
self-efficacy, qualitative and quantitative methods were used. The results of study
showed that APA programme had a significant impact on teachers’ self-efficacy
levels (it was proved using qualitative and quantitative methods).
Sato and Haegele (2017) carried out descriptive-qualitative study, the
purpose of which was to investigate in-service PE teachers’ engagement during an
online APE practicum graduate course. The participants of the research were nine
in-service PE teachers. The program included two online courses (Introduction to
APE and Practicum in APE). Participants in this study were recruited from those
enrolled in the program (16 weeks and two semesters) in 2014 and 2015. APE
online graduate endorsement curriculum consisted of an introduction to the APE
course and a practicum in APE courses. Introduction to the APE online course was
designed to prepare physical education teachers to provide safe, appropriate and
individualized accommodation to students with disabilities (journal research article
reviews, case-study report, inclusion assessment, weekly bulletin board
assignments, and grant-writing practices). Practicum in the APE course consisted
of supervised and supervisory experiences in adapted physical education for all
ages, including conceptual bases for assessment and individual task analysis
(practicum profiles: school profile, hands-on experiences, peer teaching evaluation;
assessment report, individualized education program writing practices, bulletin
board, discussion assignments, e-book report, class plans and peer evaluation). The
68
survey data and the participants’ recommendations made it possible to determine
the strengths and weaknesses of online courses and make important changes to
make the course more effective.
The analysis of completed studies revealed that APE knowledge was basic
for educating PE teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs towards the inclusion of students
with special educational needs and other competences needed for creating inclusive
education environment in PE classes. Dissemination of knowledge and experiences
needs to be woven throughout the program content to preserve the competencies of
pre-service teachers towards working individuals with disabilities, and APE
content should be conveyed through relevant crossover topics to retain acquired
knowledge and signify the reality and importance of inclusion (Taliaferro et al.,
2015). Block et al. (2016) state that still many studies continue to report that
physical educators do not feel confident in their ability to accommodate students
with special educational needs; therefore, the teacher education model inevitably
needs to be changed. The results of a qualitative study by Ko and Boswell (2013)
have shown that PE teachers’ proper preparation for work in inclusive educational
environments can provide coherent and connected learning opportunities across
teachers’ careers. An infusion approach via online supplements may be an effective
way to help to prepare physical educators for inclusion better (Block et al., 2016;
Healy, 2015; Kwon, 2014; Kwon & Block, 2017). Sato and Haegele’s (2017) study
results confirm that online learning can be as effective as face-to-face learning.
Based on the review of the literature, the next chapter will present the
theoretical model of developing physical education teachers’ self-efficacy to create
an inclusive educational environment, the main elements of the theoretical model
and the principles of their interaction will also be discussed.
1.8. Construction assumptions of the Theoretical model of developing

physical education teachers’ self-efficacy to create an inclusive
educational environment
This section will discuss the elements of the chosen theoretical model on
which the model of developing physical education teachers’ self-efficacy to create
an inclusive learning environment is build (Figure 8).
Self-Efficacy Theory. Based on Bandura’s (1977) Self-efficacy Theory, it
69
was assumed that using self-efficacy sources such as master experience, vicarious
experience, social/verbal persuasion, physiological states, physical education
teachers’ self-efficacy to work with students with SEN in a common physical
education class can be effectively developed.
Master experience is one of the most powerful sources that has the
strongest effect on the sense of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986). The impact of this
source depends on how successful the teacher is to accomplish the task of creating
an inclusive learning environment, or how the teacher succeeded in creating an
inclusive learning environment in the past (Lent & Hackett, 2009).
Vicarious experience. Such experience as the observation of other
professionals working with children with SENs can have a strong influence on the
sense of self-efficacy of a physical education teacher to create an inclusive learning
environment for children with SEN and lead to a higher quality implementation of
a physical education program (Block et al., 2010). Master experiences enhanced
vicarious experiences are one of the most effective ways to develop a sense of self-
efficacy (Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009).
Social/verbal persuasion. Although direct and indirect experiences have
one of the strongest effects in developing a sense of self-efficacy, but if teachers do
not receive adequate feedback from others (for example from other teachers, school
administrators, parents, students) about how they managed to involve children with
special educational needs in sport or other physical activities, this may lead to a
distorted teacher’s feeling of self-efficacy (Lopez, 2009). The teacher can rely too
much on their abilities to create an inclusive education environment, or do not trust
their abilities and avoid engaging pupils with SEN in sports or other physical
activities, even though they are doing well.
Physiological states. The emotional state of the teacher and the experienced
sense about involvement of children with SEN can influence the sense of self-
efficacy in creating an inclusive learning environment. This source is of particular
importance when it comes to involving children with SEN in sports or other
physical activities, or when the teacher makes a lot of effort and the desired result
is not available as quickly as desired (Block et al., 2010).
Social Cognitive Theory. This theory of Bandura (1986) was used to
understand and justify the behaviour of the teacher and the students as a result of
the constant interaction between cognitive, environmental and behavioural factors.
In the theoretical model, this theory was used to justify the assumptions that (1)
70
high-performance lecturers conveying knowledge related to inclusive education in
physical education will positively affect the self-efficacy of physical education
teachers in creating an inclusive learning environment, and (2) positively affected
self-efficacy of physical education teachers will form positive attitudes of students
towards participation of their peers with SEN in sports or other physical activities.
Adapted physical education field of knowledge about children with SEN,
including their psychological and developmental characteristics, adaptation of
activities and equipment, development of a safe environment, encouragement of
collaboration with peers, behaviour management, evaluation of movement skills,
explanations of the tasks, modification of game rules, motivation, planning and
organizing of sports/physical activities, is one of the main fields of science that
strengthens the sense of self-efficacy of physical education teachers in creating an
inclusive learning environment for students with SEN caused by disability (Block
et al., 2016).
Online adapted physical education course. Transferring knowledge
remotely using information technologies is one of the most effective alternatives
for providing knowledge to physical education teachers and thus contributing to the
development of teachers’ self-efficacy in creating an inclusive learning
environment (Healy, 2015; Healy, Colombo-Dougovito, Judge, Kwon, Strehli, and
Block, 2017; Sato & Haegele, 2017). The use of remote means for transferring
knowledge involves the use of information sources such as footage, books, articles,
and the provision of e-consultation with specialists of adapted physical education
and other, when physical education teachers apply the knowledge acquired during
the course in physical education class. This alternative of knowledge transfer is
effective when there are no conditions for teachers to attend seminars or workshops
that take place in a traditional way. This alternative knowledge transfer was used to
justify the 18-hour online Adapted Physical Education course included in the
theoretical model (18 h online APE course). In this course, the self-efficacy of
physical education teachers has been influenced by sources such as vicarious
experience, verbal persuasion and physiological states.
Contact adapted physical education course. Traditional acquisition of
knowledge is based on the knowledge delivered through direct contact - one of the
most effective and commonly used ways to develop the self-efficacy of physical
education teachers to create an inclusive learning environment (Kwon, 2014).
Teachers are provided with an immediate environment to discuss, develop and test
71
their knowledge with practitioners. The traditional way of conducting courses
opens up opportunities for more widespread use of self-efficacy motivating
resources – master experience, vicarious experience, social/verbal persuasion, and
physiological states - to develop the self-efficacy of physical education teachers to
create an inclusive learning environment. The traditional way of transferring
knowledge has been used to justify the 40-hour contact adapted physical education
course (40 h contact APE course) included in the theoretical model.
In this course, the self-efficacy of physical education teachers was
influenced by sources such as master experiences (application of knowledge of
applied physical activity in practice), vicarious experience (footage, books,
articles), verbal persuasion (the teacher provided information on how they
managed to accomplish the tasks and were stimulated to apply knowledge at
work), and physiological states (during the courses, the emotional state of physical
education teachers was monitored, they were constantly asked about their well-
being, and practical knowledge was given about how to strengthen emotional state
while working in inclusive education environment).
The self-efficacy of physical education teachers towards inclusion
students with SEN is the element in the theoretical model which plays one of the
most important roles in creating an inclusive learning environment. Based on
Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (1986), it was assumed that when developing
physical education teachers’ self-efficacy to include students with disabilities into
the classroom, it is also possible to successfully shape and implement the values
needed to develop the principles of inclusive education in physical education
classes. In the theoretical model, the element of Children’s attitudes towards
inclusion of peers with SEN played a significant role not only as an indicator of
the success of involving peers with disabilities in sport and other physical
activities, but also it was used to evaluate the effectiveness of Adapted physical
education programs which develop teachers’ self-efficacy to create inclusive
educational environments.
Inclusive learning environment in physical education classes. In the
theoretical model, the creation of an inclusive learning environment is understood
as the formation of a positive climate in an inclusive physical education class. Such
psychological indicators as the self-efficacy of the teachers and students’ attitudes
were used to develop a positive climate for children with SEN (Lancaster, 2014;
McGhie-Richmond et al., 2013). This element of the theoretical model is
72
understood as the result of the effect of applied programs (18 h online APE course
and 40 h contact APE course) on the self-efficacy of physical education teachers
and the students’ attitudes towards inclusion of students with disabilities in
physical education classes.
The following is a hypothetical principle of operation of the theoretical
model of developing physical education teachers’ self-efficacy to create an
inclusive educational environment.
This model depicts two educational strategies for developing SE of physical
education teachers to create an inclusive learning environment for students with
SEN. Each of these strategies consists of knowledge-based lectures and practical
sessions. The first strategy was based on 18 hours (8 sessions) of an Adapted
Physical Education online course. This course, based on Self-efficacy theory, is
influenced by three sources of self-efficacy: vicarious experiences, verbal
persuasion, and physiological states. The second strategy was based on 40 hours of
a contact course (8 practical and theoretical findings) of Adapted Physical
Education, during which PE teachers’ SE beliefs are exposed to mastery
experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological states.
Both courses are conducted during the education process. In this way, teachers
have the opportunity to gain additional experience by applying the theoretical and
practical knowledge gained during the courses in their classes, and to solve the
challenges faced in real situations with competent specialists (lecturers of
theoretical and practical classes). Also, based on the theory of social cognition, PE
teachers, applying their knowledge in PE classes, will affect students’ attitudes
towards the inclusion of students with SEN in general physical class activities. By
implementing these strategies, we hypothesized that PE teachers’ observations and
their contacts with lecturers possessing high self-efficacy and positive attitudes
towards inclusion of students with SEN would have a positive effect on their own
self-efficacy. Also an increase in the self-efficacy beliefs of PE teachers would
have a positive impact on the attitudes of students towards inclusion of their peers
with SEN in the joint class activities, thus creating an inclusive learning
environment for students with SEN in regular physical education classes.
The educational experiment will be based on a theoretical model of
developing physical education teachers’ self-efficacy to create an inclusive
educational environment. It is assumed that after conducting exploratory research
and the educational experiment, this model will be revised.
73
Figure 8. Theoretical model of developing physical education teachers’ self-efficacy
to create an inclusive educational environment
74
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1. Research design
The methodology of the research was based on the Self-Efficacy Theory

(Bandura, 1977) and Social Recognition Theory (Bandura, 1986) which are
grounded on ideas of humanistic philosophy. Based on these theories, empirical
research design was made for the development of physical education teachers’ self-
efficacy to create an inclusive educational environment (Figure 9).
The following research methods were applied in the dissertation:
● Analysis of scientific literature;
● Documents analysis;
● Questionnaire survey: by e-mail (Web-based), and distributing personally
(paper-based);
● Natural educational experiment (Kardelis, 2016);
● Statistical analysis for data processing.
The research design for implementing the study was approved by the
Committee of Ethics of Social Sciences at the Lithuanian Sport University (No.
SMTEK-09). Permission to conduct the research was obtained from education
departments in municipalities and school directors. Also verbal (from physical
education teachers and children) and written (from students’ parents/caregivers)
consent to participate in the study was received.
In the research, a balance was followed between the researcher’s desire to
obtain objective information and the protection of the subject data (Kardelis, 2016).
These principles of ethics were followed during the study:
● Voluntary participation: the respondents were informed that they were
voluntarily participating in the study, they could refuse to participate in the study
and leave it at any time;
● equal respect;
● humanity;
● privacy: no sensitive and personal information about the subject was
published anywhere; the opportunity to participate in the study by choosing the
most suitable environment and time for the subject was given;
● providing detailed information about the investigations for the
75
parents/caregivers of the students;
● confidentiality: survey data and information about the subjects were
known only to the principal investigator; only generalized survey data were
publicized;
● securing anonymity: information that would threaten the identification of
the subject was not disclosed.
INSTRUMENT VALIDATION RESEARCH
Study I Pilot Study I Pilot Study I Pilot

Study II Study II Study II
Study Study Study
Self-Efficacy Scale for Physical Physical Educators’ Self-Efficacy

Children’s Attitudes toward
Education Teacher Education toward Including Students with
Integrated Physical Education –
Majors toward Children with Disabilities – Autism
Revised (CAIPE-R)
Disabilities (SE-PETE-D) (PESEISD-A)
SITUATION STUDIES ABOUT PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHERS’ SELF-EFFICACY AND CHILDREN’S WITHOUT
DISABILITIES ATTITUDES TOWARDS INCLUSION OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES INTO PHYSICAL
EDUCATION CLASSES
Children’s without disabilities

Physical education teachers’
Physical education teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion of
self-efficacy toward including
self-efficacy toward including peers with intellectual
children with intellectual
children with autism spectrum disability, physical disability,
disability, physical disability,
disorders visual impairments
visual impairments
Creation of a theoretical model for developing self-efficacy of physical education teachers to create inclusive educational
environment
The first
The Control group
experimental group
of physical
of physical education Knowledge EDUCATIONAL education teachers
teachers EXPERIMENT
Students
Knowledge
Students
The second
experimental group
Students
of physical
education teachers
Figure 9. Logical sequence of empirical research
76
2.2. Research organization
PE teachers’ recruitment was conducted between years 2015–2017, using

two modalities: (a) circulating the questionnaire by means of e-mail (Web-based),
and (b) distributing a paper-based questionnaire. During this period, pilot studies,
instrument validation studies, case studies, and experimental research were
performed (Figure 10).
Figure 10. Stages of empirical research
Before each survey using the paper-based method, physical education teachers
were introduced to the purpose of the questionnaire survey and the structure of the
questionnaire. If there were any questions concerning filling in the questionnaire, PE
teachers could consult with the researcher at any time. 40 min was given for filling
in the questionnaire when the survey was conducted before the APE workshops.
While filling in the questionnaire in schools, the time for the survey was not
limited, but the completion still did not last more than 40 minutes. The survey of
PE-teachers using the Web-based method was carried out by sending links
(http://www.manoapklausa.lt/apklausa/779221827/, http://www.manoapklausa.lt/a
pklausa/779328282/) or by sending a questionnaire in a word document format
directly to PE teachers by e-mail. Before starting to complete the questionnaire, the
subjects were introduced to the purpose of the survey and the questionnaire’s
77
instruction manual, and each PE teacher could contact the researcher through the
indicated contacts. The filling in of the questionnaire was limited to one time, but
the completion time was not limited.
Student survey was conducted using paper-based questionnaires. Only those
students who submitted written permission from parents to participate in the survey
could participate in the survey. Students who had parental permission, but did not
want to participate in it, had the right not to take part in the survey. The survey
time was agreed with the school head so that educational process would not be
disturbed. The survey was conducted through subject classes, except for physical
education classes. During the survey, the class teacher could participate if the
school head requested. The survey appying CAIPE-LT questionnaire lasted for 40
min. First of all the researcher shortly introduced the aim of the survey and the
structure of the questionnaire. Then the questionnaires were distributed. The survey
was started after making sure all participating students were ready to listen and
understood how to mark the answers properly. Before responding to the statements,
a description of the characteristics of the disabled child was read out loud and
clearly. According to the recommendations of Block (1995), two pivotal questions
were submitted before the main questions. Two statements (“I like to play
basketball”, “I like playing “Quadrate”) were presented to determine whether
students understood the directions and were cooperating. Next, the researcher read
in turn several questions related to the description of a student with disability
(questions were repeated as many times as all children marked the chosen option).
Separate scales were read one after another. A 1 min break was made between the
questionnaires, then the researcher briefly instructed the students how to fil in the
next part of the questionnaire and prepared the answer sheets for the following
survey. Demographic questions of the survey participants were given before all the
scales. In order to avoid the identification of the person, the students were asked for
the name of the imaginary peer with disability before reading the description. With
the approval of the class teacher and the students, the names were used that would
not lead to an identification of any student from the class or school.
The first stage of the research – Pilot study – conducted in 2015. The
pilot study using the SE-PETE-D-LT Instrument was conducted at the Lithuanian
Sports University before the 6-hour APE seminar for teachers of physical
education using a paper-based questionnaire. The pilot study using PESEISD-A-LT
was carried out in cooperation with the Lithuanian municipal education centres,
78
using the circulating questionnaire by means of e-mail (Web-based). The pilot
study using the CAIPE-LT instrument was conducted at one of the Lithuanian
general education schools with which the Lithuanian Sports University has a
cooperation agreement. Written permission from the school head and parents was
obtained to interview the students from 5-8th grades.
The second stage of the research – Validation study – conducted in 2015.
The survey lasted three months. Studies for the validation of statements in SE-
PETE-D-LT and PESEISD-A-LT instruments were conducted using a paper-based
questionnaire. PE teachers were surveyed before the 6-hour APE seminar, during
meetings with PE teachers in schools, using distributed paper-based questionnaires.
The study of CAIPE-LT instrument validation was conducted also using paper-
based questionnaires. Invitation letters to participate in the survey were sent to the
Education Departments of 15 Lithuanian municipalities. Nine Education
Departments of Lithuanian municipalities returned confirmation letters indicating
their agreement for cooperation and for sending the survey information to the
emails of general education schools in the department, encouraging the heads of
the schools to give the permission to conduct the survey in their schools. During
this phase of the study, the students from 8 general education schools from 5
municipalities were examined.
The third stage of the research – Situational research – conducted in
2016. The survey lasted 6 months. The studies to clarify the situation about
physical education teachers’ self-efficacy towards inclusion of students with
disabilities were conducted using two modalities: (a) circulating the questionnaire
by means of e-mail (Web-based), and (b) distributing a paper-based questionnaire.
Invitation letters to participate in the survey were sent to the Education
Departments of all Lithuanian municipalities (n = 60). Forty Education
Departments of Lithuanian municipalities returned confirmation letters indicating
their agreement for cooperation and for sending the survey information to the
emails of PE teachers in the department, encouraging them to participate in the
survey (circulating the questionnaire by means of e-mail). Another sample of PE
teachers was investigated during meetings with PE teachers in schools, using a
distributed, paper-based questionnaire.
The study of the situation about students’ attitudes towards inclusion of
peers with disabilities into PE classes was conducted using a paper-based
questionnaire. After conducting a telephone survey of the principles of the schools
79
from 9 municipalities, the permission to conduct the study was obtained.
The fourth stage of the research– Educational experiment – conducted
in 2017. The educational experiment was conducted under natural conditions. The
following experimental requirements were taken into account in the experiment
and in the formation of groups of experimental participants: two experimental and
one control groups were formed. Random grouping into control and experimental
groups, homogeneity of the groups in relation to the subject, pre-test, independent
variable effect on dependent variable, post-test measures were taken for
experimental groups.
Two experimental groups and one control group of PE teachers were formed
to evaluate the direct effect of strategies on PE teachers’ self-efficacy. Three
groups of students that matched teacher groups were formulated to evaluate the
indirect impact of educational strategies for teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs on
students’ attitudes.
PE teachers’ from Group I participated in an 18-hour online APE course, PE
teachers’ from Group II participated in a 40-hour contact APE course, and PE
teachers from Control Group did not take any of the courses. Two intervention
groups and one control group of students were formed to evaluate the indirect
effect of strategies on the attitudes of students to classmates with disabilities
attending the regular PE class. Group I consisted of students of PE teachers who
took an 18-hour online APE course, Group II consisted of students of PE teachers
who took a 40-hour contact APE course, and Control Group consisted of students
of PE teachers who did not take any of the courses.
Three groups of PE teachers – Group I (18-hour course), Group II (40-hour
course), and Control Group – were given the instrument SE-PETE-D-LT and
PESEISD-A-LT two times (pre-intervention and post-intervention). PE teachers
from Group I and PE teachers from the Control Group used a Web-based
questionnaire and Group II PE teachers used a paper-based questionnaire.
Three groups of schoolchildren - Group I (18-hour course), Group II (40-
hour course), and Control Group) were given the Lithuanian version of the
instrument Children’s Attitudes toward Integrated Physical Education – Revised
(CAIPE-R; Block, 1995) twice (pre-intervention and post-intervention). Children
answered the questions in the paper-based questionnaire. The children’s survey
was conducted based on the instrument author Block’s (1995) recommendations: at
first, the researcher explained the progress of the survey, then they were given
80
worksheets with numbered statements and multiple choice answers. The researcher
read aloud the description of an imaginary situation about a child with respective
disability and the children were asked to choose and mark the answer most
appropriate to them.
The intervention lasted for 14 weeks from February through May 2017. PE
teachers and students filled in post-intervention questionnaires during week 14
after the start of the intervention.
2.3. Participants
During this study period (2015–2017), 397 general education schools from
40 municipalities were included in research, and 883 physical education teachers as
well as 1689 students were research participants.
Physical education teachers. According to the data of 2015–2016 of the
Lithuanian Centre of Information Technologies in Education, there were 1645 PE
teachers working in sixty municipalities. In total, 883 (53.68%) physical education
teachers from 397 general education schools were investigated. Details of sample
sizes at each stage of the study are given in Table 1. In a separate section,
“Participants of the experiment”, information is provided about PE Teachers’
Groups. The participants of the survey received and signed an informed consent
form prior to filling in the questionnaires. For sample data, we calculated the
sample size based on the Paniotto formula with 95 percent probability.
Table 1. Sample sizes of physical education teachers for each stage of research
Sample size (n)

Stage of study SE-PETE-D-LT PESEISD-A-LT
Pilot study 75 43
Reliability of instrument
Cronbach’s alfa 171 346
Test-retest reliability 22 22
Validity of instrument
Exploratory factor analysis 171 346
Confirmatory Factor Analysis 171 –
Situation analysis 517 404
Experiment 58 58
81
Students. Students’ recruitment was conducted in 2015–2017 using a
distributed paper-based questionnaire. The total number of 1689 students from 5th
to 9th grades from 34 general education schools in nine municipalities was
investigated. The data from the questionnaire for students participating in pilot
studies was not included in other research data analyses. More detailed information
on sample sizes at each stage of the study is given in Table 2. The separate section
“Participants of the experiment” provides information about experimental groups
of students. Before conducting questionnaire surveys with students, written
permission from the schools for conducting surveys in schools and written
permissions of the parents concerning their child’s participation in the survey were
provided. Each child was also asked for agreement to participate in the survey
before it. For sample data, we calculated the sample size based on the Paniotto
formula with 95 percent probability.
Table 2. Stage of study and sample size of students
CAIPE-LT
Stage of study Sample size (n)
Pilot study 106
Reliability of instrument
Cronbach’s alfa 1008
Test-retest reliability 196
Validity of instrument
Exploratory factor analysis 1008
Confirmatory Factor Analysis 1008
Situation analysis 1583
Experiment 575
Participants of experiment. PE teachers were informed about the planned

intervention and were invited in collaboration with Lithuanian teacher professional
development centres. This study included a convenience sample of 58 volunteering
PE teachers and 575 schoolchildren from grades 5 to 9. Participants represented 22
physical education teachers who attended an 18-hour online APE course (Group I,
18 hours), 14 physical education teachers who attended a 40-hour contact APE
course (Group II, 40-hours), and 22 physical education teachers who did not attend
any of the courses (Control Group). Group I consisted of 22 PE teachers from 18
general education schools from six municipalities, Group II consisted of 14 PE
82
teachers from 11 general education schools from one municipality, and Control
Group consisted of 22 PE teachers from 12 general education schools from two
municipalities.
Three groups of schoolchildren from grades 5–9 were formed to evaluate the
indirect effect of APE courses delivered to PE teachers on their students’ attitudes
towards the inclusion of children with disabilities into a regular PE class.
Schoolchildren’s groups were formed from the classes taught by the PE teachers
participating in the intervention and were named in the same manner as teacher
groups. Group I (students of PE teachers who took an 18-hour online APE course)
consisted of 265 schoolchildren from grades 5–9 from 14 schools from five
municipalities, Group II (students of PE teachers who took a 40-hour contact APE
course) consisted of 114 schoolchildren from grades 5–9 from six schools from one
municipality, and the Control Group (students of PE teachers who participated in
the intervention but did not take any of the courses) consisted of 196
schoolchildren from grades 5–9 from six schools.
Both physical education teachers and student groups were formed randomly;
group homogeneity was assessed by pre-tests. Homogeneity was evaluated by
differences in PE self-efficacy and students’ attitudes between groups (Experimental
I, Experimental II and Control Group). First of all, it was determined what personal
attributes influenced self-efficacy and attitudes of each group individually
(Appendix 1), secondly, whether the experimental groups did not differ according
to their self-efficacy and attitude indicators (Appendix 2). The analysis carried out
revealed that there was no significant difference between the groups.
2.4. Intervention
Intervention 1 included an 18-hour online course for PE teachers

“Possibilities of Adapted Physical Education theory and praxis in creating inclusive
education environment in PE classes”. The program included 8 sessions once per
two weeks, prepared presentations, videos, publications were send to registered PE
teachers’ by e-mail. PE teachers were asked to confirm the receipt of e-materials by
sending an e-mail with a message “Information received”. PE teachers were
offered consultations of specialists on the topics of the course by e-mail and/or by
phone. Intervention 2 included 40 contact hours of APE course, 8 sessions, 5 hours
83
each (lectures, seminars, workshops and self-study) once per two weeks. During
the intervention, PE teachers who participated in 18-hour online and 40-hour
contact APE courses had to apply the received knowledge in practice, e.g. organise
game or physical activities in PE classes where children with disabilities could be
or were included. The course content covered knowledge about students with ID,
PD, VI, ASD, Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and behavioural
disorders, psychological and education peculiarities, physical activity adaptation
strategies and strategies of inclusion in a PE class (Figure 11).
Figure 11. The content of online 18-hour and contact 40-hour APE courses
Lectures were prepared and conducted by high-level and experienced

lecturers in the area of Adapted Physical Activity from Lithuanian Sports
University, teachers practicing with students with special educational needs, a
Paralympic athlete, and a goalball judge.
These qualification improvement course programs have been accredited and
registered at the Information Technology Centre for Education: 18-hour online
course (Accredited Program Registration No. 213001098, Order No. V-4 2017-02-
06) and 40-hour contact course (Accredited Program Registration No. 211000435,
Order No. V-11 2017 -01-23); 18-hour online and 40-hour contact APE courses
were offered to PE teachers free of charge and certificates were issued.
84
2.5. Research instruments
Instruments – Self-Efficacy Scale for Physical Education Teacher Education

Majors towards Children with Disabilities (SE-PETE-D; Block, Hutzler, Barak, &
Klavina, 2013) (Appendix 3), Physical Educators’ Self-Efficacy towards Including
Students with Disabilities – Autism (PESEISD-A; Taliaferro, Block, Harris, &
Krauske, 2011) (Appendix 4) – were used in our study, which allowed to evaluate
physical teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs towards inclusion of students with special
educational needs (intellectual disability, physical disability, visual impairments,
and autism spectrum disorder) in regular education classes, and Children’s
Attitudes towards Integrated Physical Education – Revised (CAIPE-R; Block,
1995) (Appendix 5), the improved Lithuanian version of which allowed to assess
the attitudes of students without disabilities towards inclusion of students with
intellectual disability, physical disability and visual impairment into a regular
physical education class.
The English version of the SE-PETE-D, PESEISD-A, and CAIPE-R
instruments were translated into Lithuanian using the back translation technique
described by Brislin (1986). This technique of translation requires four independent
bilingual translators. Translator 1 and Translator 2 independently translated the
original English versions of the questionnaires into Lithuanian. After comparing
the translations, the translated instruments were forwarded to the other two
bilingual translators who translated the instruments back into English. Finally, the
retranslated versions were compared with the English versions by one of the
authors of the English versions for final approval. In addition, an expert review was
performed. Two Lithuanian experts of adapted physical activity were consulted
about the clarity, conciseness and terminological precision of the Lithuanian
versions of the SE-PETE-D, PESEISD-A, and CAIPE-R. The initial versions of the
instruments were tested in pilot studies. This versions confirmed suitability for
further analysis and were labelled SE-PETE-LT (Appendix 6), PESEISD-A-LT
(Appendix 7) and CAIPE-R-LT (Appendix 8).
All questionnaires were anonymous: neither the participant nor the
investigator noted the first or family name of participant in any document.
Demographic questions (age, gender, attended adapted physical education, special
education courses or seminars, the experience with including children with
disabilities into PE classes during last 5 years, the support got from the specialists
85
(such as APE specialist, teacher assistant, special education teacher, physical
therapist, psychologist), personal experience with persons with disabilities (friend,
family member)) were included at the end of the instrument. Confidentiality of data
was ensured: the data of the participant and the school were known only to the
principal investigator, and the data was used only for scientific purposes and no
one could find out the data of a particular participant or school.
2.5.1. SE-PETE-D
The SE-PETE-D instrument consisted of four parts: three scales – one for
each disability, that is, intellectual disability (ID), physical disability (PD) and
visual impairment (VI), and a demographic section. A vignette demonstrating a
student with an ID, PD or VI, who was attending a PE class, was presented prior to
the questions of each scale. The first scale consisted of 11 questions related to the
inclusion of students with ID in a regular physical education class. The second
scale followed with 12 questions related to PD. The third scale followed with 10
questions related to VI. The scale used for rating each question ranged from 1 to 5:
1 (no confidence), 2 (low confidence), 3 (moderate confidence), 4 (high confidence)
and 5 (complete confidence). The self-efficacy score for scales is calculated based
on the mean score of scale questions. According to Block et al.’s (2013) validation
results, four factors were generated: instructing peers to assist the student with
disability (PI) across all three scales; coping with specific adaptation requirements
(SA) across the ID and VI scales; assuring the safety of the students with disability
(S) only in the PD scale; and adapting instructions to keep students with disability
staying on task (ST) only in the PD scale. The fourth part consisted of demographic
questions concerning the participants’ attributes, such as age, gender, years of
experience, training in APE and/or special pedagogy, and support from other
specialists.
This instrument aids in the study of PE teachers’ SE levels when working
with a variety of disability conditions depicting students with intellectual, physical
and visual impairments during different situations of PE implementation, such as
peers’ instruction, safety, specific adaptations, and staying on task. Klavina et al.
(2014) and Grenier et al. (2005) provided evidence suggesting that PE teachers’
skills in instructing peers to assist students with SEN positively influenced
86
students’ attitude towards classmates with SEN, and helped to create an inclusive
environment in the class. Another important factor for creating an inclusive
environment for all students is the ability of the PE teacher to ensure safety in the
PE class (Tripp, Rizzo, & Webbert, 2007; Qi & Ha, 2012) and to create a
motivational environment (Kodish et al., 2006; Ko & Boswell, 2013). The
outcomes of the Baloun et al.’s (2016) and Kudláček, Baloun, and Ješina’s (2018)
studies revealed that group perception towards the modifications of the equipment
and environment, together with appropriate instructions, were essential factors for
assuring the success of students with SEN in PE classes. Therefore, it is important
for PE teachers to be able to adapt instructions in order to keep their students with
disability on task (Perlman & Piletic, 2012; Block et al., 2013; Lee & Baek, 2015;
Kudláček et al., 2018). Also this instrument enables investigation of PE teachers’
SE levels when working with students with intellectual, physical and visual
impairments during different implementation stages of the physical education
program, such as fitness testing, teaching sports skills and organizing sports games.
The study conducted by Block et al. (2013) showed that the SE-PETE-D was
a valid and reliable instrument. Cronbach’s alpha reliability was high (for ID = .86,
PD = .90, and VI = .92). Although the chi-square was significant (compromising
model fit) in all models except for the ID, other goodness of fit measures
demonstrated acceptable model fit. In the three evaluated models the NFI and CFI
exceeded the .90 cut-off criteria. In the ID scale the RMSEA demonstrated good
fit, whereas in the PD and in the VI scale moderate fit.
2.5.2. PESEISD-A
The PESEISD-A was comprised of the SE scale and six other scales:
mastery experience, vicarious experience, social persuasion, behaviour,
physiological state and challenges. Demographic questions were included at the
end of the instrument. Prior to filling in the questionnaires, the participants were
given the description of a person with ASD.
Self-efficacy. The scale is designed to evaluate PE teachers’ SE in
mainstreaming students with ASD in a regular PE class and is called the Self-
efficacy (SE) scale (10 questions). For the SE scale, participants were asked to rate
their degree of confidence in their ability to perform each of ten tasks when
87
including students with ASD in regular PE classes: modify equipment, modify
activities, create a safe environment, promote social interactions with peers,
manage behaviours, modify instructions, assess motor sills, modify rules to games,
collaborate effectively with other teachers/professionals, and motivate students.
Prior to filling in the questionnaires the interviewees were given the description of
a person with ASD. Statements of the SE scale are scored in the range from 0 to
10, with a score of 0 indicating that the respondent cannot do that at all, a score of
5 indicating that the respondent can moderately do that, and a score of 10
indicating the respondent is highly certain they can do that.
Mastery experience. The first scale is designed to evaluate PE teachers’
mastery experiences, and is called the Mastery Experience (ME) scale (10
questions). For the ME scale, respondents rated the level of success they
experienced in doing the same 10 identified tasks on a 5-point Likert scale of “not
at all successful (less than 15% of the time)” to “very successful (more than 85% of
the time)”, with the added option of “I do not have any experience doing this”.
Vicarious experience. The second scale is called the Vicarious Experience
(VE) scale (10 questions). For the VE scale, respondents rated the level of success
of other PE teachers they observed at performing the same ten identified tasks
when including a child with ASD. Response choices were on a 5 point Likert scale
ranging from “not at all successful” (less than 15% of the time) to “very
successful” (more than 85% of the time), with the added option of indicating that
they have not seen others perform the task.
Social persuasion. The third scale, Social Persuasion (SP) scale (10
questions), asked respondents to rate what others (teachers, parents, colleagues,
supervisors, principals) had told them about their capabilities to include students
with ASD in PE on a 5-point Likert scale of “not at all capable” to “very capable”,
with the added option of “I have not been told anything about my capabilities”.
Behaviour. The fourth scale is called the Behaviour (BEH) scale (10
questions). For the BEH scale, respondents rated how frequently they performed
the ten identified teaching tasks on a 5-point Likert scale from “never” to “always”.
Physiological state. The fifth scale is called the Physiological State (PS)
scale (2 questions). The PS scale asked participants to respond to two questions
regarding how including a student with ASD in their PE class makes them feel
(stressed or nervous). Responses were on a five point scale ranging from
“definitely false” to “definitely true”. Responses were reversely coded from one to
88
five so that a higher score (“definitely false”) reflected a more favourable reaction.
Perceived challenges. The sixth scale – the Perceived Challenges (PCH)
scale – asked participants to rate the extent to which each of 11 situations made it
difficult to meaningfully include a student with ASD into their general PE
program. The eleven situations included: “I am not sure how to modify activities”,
“I do not have time to make modifications”, “I do not have appropriate
equipment”, “I have large class sizes”, “there are multiple classes in the gym”, “the
students’ skill level is very different than that of their peers”, “I have no aid or
support to help”, “I do not have information about the student”, “I have limited
training on autism, the student has behavioural problems, and the student has
problems staying on task”. Responses were on a 5-point Likert scale from “not at
all a problem” to “very much a problem”. Responses were coded from one to five
so that the higher score indicated a higher degree of perceived challenge.
Demographic factors. The end of the instrument covers demographic issues
such as age, gender, attended adapted physical education (APE) as well as special
education courses or seminars, the experience of including students with ASD into
PE classes during last 5 years, the support got from the specialists (such as APE
specialist, teacher assistant, special education teacher, physical therapist,
psychologist), personal experience with persons with ASD (friend, family member).
Scoring. The responses of participants to the SE scale, ME, VE, SP, BEH,
PS and PCH scales statements were summed up and the average was calculated
(Taliaferro, 2010). A response of these scales “I do not have any experience doing
this” (ME), “I have not seen other PE teachers doing this” (VE), and “I have not
been told anything about my capabilities” (SP) was coded as a zero. For example,
if an individual responded “I do not have any experience doing this” (ME) to two
items on the scale, their scores were summed and then divided by 8 (Taliaferro,
2010). The resulting score indicated the average success of the participants’
mastery experiences. Respondents who answered “I do not have any experience
doing this” across all 10 items were given a total score of 0 (Taliaferro, 2010). This
did not reflect that the participant failed to respond to the scale items (Taliaferro,
2010).
This instrument not only allows to identify PE teachers’ SE towards
including students with ASD but also to better understand the problems that cause
the biggest difficulties to PE teachers to include students with ASD in a
mainstream PE class, and understand the predictors that influence their SE and
89
behaviour. According to the study conducted by Taliaferro (2010), PESEISD-A is
a valid and reliable instrument, which reveals the links between self-efficacy
(internal reliability coefficient (Cronbach's Alpha) α = .98, test-retest reliability
coefficient r = .859) and mastery experiences (α = .92; r = .888), vicarious
experiences (α = .96; r = .931), social persuasion (α = .95; r = .708), behaviour
(α = .88; r = .603, physiological states (α = .96; r = .771), and challenges (α = .88;
r = .762). The results of an exploratory factor analysis on the 10 question self-
efficacy scale of the Taliaferro’s (2010) study revealed a one-factor solution
explaining 57.05 % of the variance.
2.5.3. CAIPE-R
The instrument CAIPE-R, used in this research, consisted of a description

about a student who had a physical disability (PD) (used a wheelchair) and 11
questions. The CAIPE-R instrument consists of a description of a hypothetical
student with a disability presented by a written vignette, demographics, experiences
(family member, friend, classmate) with individuals with disabilities, and level of
competitiveness, 6 statements about attitudes including a students with a disability
in physical education classes (general attitude subscale) and 5 statements about
attitudes modifying rules of sports (sport modification attitude subscale). Response
to each statement is obtained on a 4-point Likert scale (4 = yes, 3 = probably yes,
2 = probably no, 1 = no). Attitude score could be computed by summing or
averaging scale/subscale statements. When computing scores, a single CAIPE-R
attitude score can be determined, or two scores (inclusion in general physical
education and sport modifications) can be calculated, or a combination of these two
options can be calculated, totalling three scores (Block, 1995). The revised CAIPE-
R inventory was validated on a sample of 208 participants from the 5th and 6th
grades. The instrument is a validated attitude survey with an internal reliability
coefficient of .87, a test-retest reliability coefficient of .78 for the general attitude
subscale; a .66 internal and .56 test-retest reliability coefficients for the sport
modification subscale (Block & Zeman, 1996).
According to Block (1995), CAIPE-R is as reliable as the original CAIPE
while using a different description, that is why the CAIPE-R could be used to
measure attitudes towards specific types of disabilities in isolation or possibly to
90
compare responses of children without disabilities towards peers with different
disabilities. In the Lithuanian version of CAIPE, two scales of the questionnaire
were added: intellectual disability (ID) and visual impairment (VI). The Lithuanian
questionnaire version was used to measure the attitude of students without
disabilities towards including students with intellectual disability, physical
disability and visual impairment in regular PE in Lithuanian general education
schools. The CAIPE-LT version survey has four parts. Part I consists of
demographic questions such as age, gender, year, grade, experiences dealing with a
person with disabilities (in family and at school) and other questions related with
the level of competitiveness, Part 2 consists of 11 questions related to the attitudes
towards inclusion of students with an ID in regular PE classes, Part 3 consists of 11
questions related to the attitudes towards inclusion of students with a PD in regular
PE classes, and Part 4 consists of 11 questions related to the attitude towards
inclusion of students with a VI in regular PE classes. The original version used a
description of a child with a physical disability participating in a softball game. Our
version labelled CAIPE-LT was adapted describing a child with intellectual
disability participating in football, with physical disability participating in
basketball, and with visual impairment participating in “Quadrate” game. These
games were selected because they are much more popular in Lithuanian schools
than softball. Each scale consists of a description of a hypothetical student with a
disability presented by a written vignette. The responses of each participant to the
scale/subscale statements are summed up and the average is calculated.
2.6. Data analysis
SPSS Version 22.0 software and AMOS Version 23.0 were used to process
the statistical data.
2.6.1. Validation of research instruments
Construct validity. The factor structure and construct validity were assessed
by Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).
EFA. Following Field’s (2009) recommendation, an EFA was carried out
using the principal component analysis (PCA) extraction method, followed by
91
orthogonal (Varimax) rotation to maximize variance. Before conducting the PCA,
statistical hypotheses necessary for PCA were tested (Field, 2009). For example,
the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index should be greater than .70 and is considered
inadequate if less than .50 (Field, 2009), and Bartlett’s test of sphericity has to be
highly significant (p < .001) (Field, 2009). The optimal number of factors was
determined by latent root criteria (eigenvalues > 1.0, the Kaiser’s criterion K1) and
examination of the scree plot (Field, 2009). An item with communality of less than
.40 was removed from the analysis, and the PCA was computed again (Field,
2009). In addition, in order to assess the fit of the factor models, we examined the
differences between the model-based correlations and the observed correlations;
not more than 50% of the residuals should be greater than .05 (Field, 2009).
In the SE-PETE-D validity study, EFA for different study groups was
carried out according to demographic factors. The aim was to determine how the
scale structure would change according to gender, APE course or seminar, support,
and personal as well as professional experience with persons with disabilities. The
only difference in the structure of the scale across demographics was encountered
when dividing the sample according to their previous attendance in an APE course.
The EFA was performed with the total sample size (n = 171) and then separately
with each of the groups – PE teachers who attended an APE course (n = 33) and PE
teachers who did not attend such a course (n = 138). Based on the EFA results, we
performed a separate factor analysis with an exploratory and confirmatory factor
analysis with 138 participants. The data were randomly divided into two
independent samples (n = 69 cases in each half). One half was analysed with the
EFA to re-establish the factorial structure obtained with the total group, and the
second half was analysed with CFA to confirm this structure.
CFA. The data was analysed with Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)
using path analysis (Teo, Tsai, & Yang, 2013). SEM is a set of techniques for
testing a theory by examining correlation; covariance and even differences in
means. It can be illustrated using an elaborate and sophisticated form of box-and-
arrow model known as a path diagram (Teo et al., 2013). The goodness-of-fit of
each model was assessed using the chi-square (χ2), normal fit index (NFI),
comparative fit index (CFI) and root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA). Insignificant chi-square results at a .05 threshold are considered as an
acceptable model fit (Teo et al., 2013). Values of NFI and the CFI greater than .90
are considered as an acceptable model fit (Block et al., 2013; Teo et al., 2013). The
92
CFI is a revised form of the NFI, which takes into account sample size that
performs well even when the sample size is small (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
RMSEA values below .05 are considered to reflect good fit to the model, values
.05 – .10 – moderate fit and values greater than .10 – poor fit (Teo et al., 2013).
Reliability analysis. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was employed to
determine internal consistency, and test-retest reliability was employed to
determine stability over time. Cronbach’s α value of .70 and above imply an
acceptable level of internal consistency (Bryman, 2015; Field, 2009). Test-retest
reliability was used to examine stability among items in each scale/subscale. The
period between the test-retest was 14 weeks. Test-retest reliability was assessed by
using Pearson’s/or Spearman-Brown’s correlation. Following Vallerand (1989), we
estimated that a coefficient of .60 or more for test retest is satisfactory.
Descriptives. Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) were computed to
present the demographic characteristics of the participants, as well as raw data for
each of the items in each of the scale/subscales.
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (r) was used to discover the strength
of the relationship between the scales/subscales.
Mean comparison. One-way ANOVA was computed within subjects to
explore the similarities and differences across scales. Tukey’s post-hoc tests were
employed, following significant differences. A parametric Independent-Samples T-
test or Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine whether there was a significant
difference between the means of scales/subscales.
2.6.2. Situation research of physical education teachers’ self-efficacy and

children’s attitudes towards inclusion of children with disabilities into
physical education classes
Descriptive statistics including mean, standard deviations, and frequency

counts were used to characterize participants’ demographics. The data were tested
for normal distribution using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test that shows if the data
were normally distributed (p > .05) or if the distribution of variables is significantly
different from a normal distribution with p < .05. A parametric Independent-
Samples t-Test and Mann-Whitney test were used to determine whether there was a
statistically significant difference between the means of scale scores across groups
constructed according to demographic variables of interest. Effect size of Hedge’s
93
g was used to assess differences between groups. Hedge’s g values signifies
approximately medium (.20 to .50) to significant ( .50 to .80) effect sizes according
to Cohen’s (1988) guidelines. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was used to
determine the strength of the associations between the scales/subscales. To explore
what sources of self-efficacy determine the levels of SE in teaching students with
ASD, stepwise multiple regression analyses were carried out. This multiple
regression analyses were performed using separate subsets of the sample: who had
reported having prior experiences in all four, two or one sources of SE. A second
multiple regression analysis was carried out to examine the effect of demographic
factors on overall variance explained in SE scores. To explore what personal
attributes determine the attitudes of children towards inclusion of peers with
disability, stepwise multiple regression analysis was performed. Cohen’s (f2)
coefficient for effect size in multiple regression was calculated. According to
Cohen’s (1988) guidelines f2 ≥ .02, f2 ≥ .15, f2 ≥ .35 represent small, medium, and
large effect sizes, respectively. The Chi square (X2) test was used to evaluate the
homogeneity of the variables in the PCH scale. A path analysis – a confirmatory
analysis technique – was used to test the model and estimate the magnitude and
significance of the causal relationships between the self-efficacy, sources of self-
efficacy, behaviour and perceived challenges. The goodness-of-fit of the model
was assessed using the chi-square (χ2), normal fit index (NFI), comparative fit
index (CFI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Insignificant
chi-square results at a .05 threshold are considered as an acceptable model fit (Teo
et al., 2013). Values of NFI and the CFI greater than .90 are considered as an
acceptable model fit (Teo et al., 2013). RMSEA values below .05 are considered to
reflect good fit to the model, values .05 – .10 - moderate fit and values greater than
.10 - poor fit (Teo et al., 2013). The Chi square (X2) test was used to evaluate the
homogeneity of the variables in the PCH scale.
2.6.3. The natural experiment
Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviations, and frequency counts) were

used to characterize participants and groups.
Pre-intervention and post-intervention measures of physical education
teachers’ self-efficacy were collected and analysed for the control and experiment
94
groups to see if the interventions (18-hour online APE course and 40-hour contact
APE course) were effective in improving general physical educators’ self-efficacy
to include students with intellectual disabilities, physical disabilities, visual
impairments, and autism spectrum disorders into a regular physical education class.
Pre-intervention and post-intervention measures of students’ attitudes were
collected and analysed for the control and experiment groups to see if indirect
interventions (18-hour online APE course studies and 40-hour contact APE course)
were effective in improving students’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students
with intellectual disabilities, physical disabilities and visual impairments into a
regular physical education class. Data were analysed using SPSS General Linear
Modelling (GLM) repeated measures. It was the analysis for the one-way repeated
measures. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was calculated to measure the
statistical dependence between teachers’ self-efficacy scores and children’s attitude
scores (attitude towards inclusion score and attitude towards game modification
score showed the relationship between these survey items before and after the
intervention).
95
3. RESULTS
3.1. Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in the
research
3.1.1. Analysis of structure, validity and reliability of Self-Efficacy Scale for
Physical Education Teacher Education Majors towards Children with
Disabilities
3.1.1.1. Study I (Pilot study)
Two Lithuanian experts of adapted physical activity were consulted about

the clarity, conciseness and terminological precision of the Lithuanian version of
the SE-PETE-D. The initial version of the instrument tested a sample of 75 PE
teachers from 16 municipalities (males n =14; females n = 61; age from 22 to 62
years old, M = 45.61 SD =8.74), who work in general education schools (main,
progymnasiums, general schools, gymnasiums). Thirty six teachers of physical
education in the study indicated that they had experience in physical education
classes with students with intellectual disabilities, 32 physical education teachers
had experience with students with physical disability and 15 physical education
teachers had experience with students with visual impairments. After performing
the analysis of the indicators of self-efficacy, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients
were very high for each scale: ID scales α = .97 (M = 3.30 SD = .85), PD scales
α = .97 (M = 3.20 SD = .81), and VI scales α = .98 (M = 2.80 SD = 1.01).
The first principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted on the ID scale
(11 items). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure verified the sampling
adequacy for the analysis, exhibiting a KMO index of .915, p < .001. The K1-
criterion and scree plot indicated a one-factor solution explaining 74.20%, with one
eigenvalue exceeding 1.0. A second PCA was conducted on the PD scale of 12
items. The KMO measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, and the
KMO index of the PD scale was .909, p < .001). The K1-criterion and scree plot
indicated a two-factor solution explaining 81.91%, with one eigenvalue exceeding
1.0 (Table 3). The third PCA was conducted on the VI scale of 10 items. The KMO
measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis and the KMO index was
.920, p < .001). The K1-criterion and scree plot indicated a one-factor solution
explaining 83.88%, with one eigenvalue exceeding 1.0.
96
Table 3. Structure of physical disability scale factors after the application
of Varimax rotation method
Factor
Eigenvalue %
Scale Sign of Item
1 Factor load 2 Factor load Variance
A .24 .89
B .29 .93
C .48 .76
D .46 .74
Physical disability
E .62 .63
F .76 .50
81.91%
G .85 .31
H .84 .33
I .62 .67
J .85 .26
K .77 .47
L .83 .34
3.1.1.2. Study II
In the description of the following results, we repeated the method used in

the study of Block and associates (2013) by designating the scales’ items in the text
as well as in Tables 5 and 6, and Figure 11, with alphabetical labels for facilitating
orientation throughout the manuscript. These labels do not necessarily identify
similar items across scales.
Participants’ demographics
Seventy-three PE teachers participated in the electronic survey and 120 PE
teachers filled in the paper-based questionnaires. Among 171 participants, with age
range from 22 to 65 years (M = 46.47; SD = 9.08), there were 51 males (M = 47.02;
SD = 10.48) and 120 females (M = 46.24; SD = 8.46). Participants had general PE
teaching experience ranging from 1 to 42 years (M = 21.52; SD = 9.29). Thirty-
three PE teachers indicated that they had participated in an APE course or seminars
during their studies or after graduation. Thirty-seven PE teachers reported
experience working with students with ID, 20 had experience working with
students with PD and 20 had experience working with students with VI in general
PE classes in the last five years. Six PE teachers had support from an APE
97
specialist – 29 from a teacher assistant, 106 from special education teachers, 18
from a physical therapist and 17 from other specialists. Nineteen PE teachers noted
that they had a friend with ID, 18 PE teachers noted that they had a friend with PD
and 23 had a friend with VI. Thirteen PE teachers reported that they had a family
member with ID, seven PE teachers had a family member with PD, and seven - a
family member with VI. In order to perform the test-retest analysis, a group of nine
males and 12 females, in total 22 PE teachers, was formed. The mean age of
participants in this group was 52.73 years (SD = 6.37 years). These participants had
a mean general PE teaching experience of 28.82 years (SD = 8.64 years). Fifteen of
these PE teachers reported having experience working with students with ID, nine
had experience working with students with PD and five had experience working
with students with VI in general PE in the last five years.
APE course or seminar impact on SE
T-tests were calculated to measure differences between the SE of PE
teachers who attended an APE training (course or seminar) and PE teachers who
did not participate in such training. The results indicated significant group
differences in all scales (Table 4).
Table 4. Comparison analysis between PE teachers’ SE with and without APE course
or seminar in each scales
Group of PE teachers
Had APE course or No APE course or seminar
Scale
seminar (n = 33) (n = 138) p
M (SD) M (SD)
ID 3.54 (.68) 3.25 (.80) .043
PD 3.50 (.66) 3.01 (.89) .001
VI 3.44 (.75) 2.69 (1.01) .000
Construct validity
The descriptive statistics for each item (mean and standard deviation) and
principal component analysis (PCA) data with the total sample size (n = 171) are
presented in Table 5.
Since participants used a Likert Scale ranging from 1–5, it can be presumed
that a mean score higher than 3 and lower than 4 would indicate moderate SE, 4 or
above would indicate high SE, and below 3 would indicate low SE. It should be
noted that no item had a mean score below 3 in the ID scale, while two items in the
98
PD scale and six items in the VI scale had a mean score below 3 (Table 5).
The first PCA was conducted on the ID scale (11 items). The KMO measure
verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, exhibiting a KMO index of .937
and all KMO values for individual items > .89, which is above the desired level of
.70. Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ2 [55] = 1738.7, p< .001) indicated that
correlations between items were sufficiently large for PCA. An initial examination
of the items using PCA revealed high communalities, and ranged from .57 to .76
(Table 5). The K1-criterion and scree plot indicated a one-factor solution
explaining 69.02% of the variance (Table 5). There were 29 (43.50%) non-
redundant residuals with absolute values greater than .05, suggesting an acceptable
model fit.
A second PCA was conducted on the PD scale of 12 items. The KMO
measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, and the KMO index of the
PD scale was .935. All KMO values for individual items were > .90, which is
above the desired level of .70. Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ2 [66] = 2306.59
p < .001) indicated that correlations between items were sufficiently large for PCA.
An initial examination of the items using PCA revealed high communalities and
ranged from .70 to .77 (Table 5). The K1-criterion and scree plot indicated a one-
factor solution explaining 73.45% of the variance (Table 5). There were 32
(48.0%) non-redundant residuals with absolute values greater than .05, suggesting
an acceptable model fit.
The third PCA was conducted on the VI scale of 10 items. The KMO
.93; all KMO values for individual items were > .89, which is above the desired
level of .70. Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ2 [45] = 2303.34, p < .001) indicated that
of the items using PCA revealed high communalities, and ranged from .76 to .87
(Table 5). The K1-criterion and scree plot indicated a one-factor solution
explaining 81.90% of the variance (Table 5). There were 11 (24.0%) non-
redundant residuals with absolute values greater than .05, suggesting an acceptable
model fit.
For all scales, the numerical expressions made it possible to highlight the
dominance of one factor in relation to other factors. Other factors’ eigenvalues
were significantly less than one. This suggests that the scale items were
unidimensional (Table 5).
99
Table 5. Descriptive statistics, communalities before and after extraction, the eigenvalues,
and percentage of one extracted factor (n = 171)
Scale
Sign ID PD VI
of
Com- One One Com- One
Item Commu
M SD munal- Factor M SD Factor M SD munal- Factor
nality
ity Load Load ity Load
A 3.47 .90 .57 .76 3.04 1.01 .70 .83 2.74 1.11 .78 .88
B 3.40 .97 .74 .86 3.08 1.04 .77 .88 3.01 1.11 .78 .88
C 3.53 .97 .66 .81 3.28 1.04 .75 .87 2.99 1.14 .76 .87
D 3.30 .95 .69 .83 3.22 1.11 .70 .84 2.74 1.08 .85 .92
E 3.14 .90 .72 .85 3.04 .95 .75 .86 2.97 1.12 .85 .92
F 3.12 1.01 .69 .83 3.16 1.07 .75 .87 2.57 1.05 .82 .91
G 3.22 .96 .76 .87 2.87 1.00 .71 .84 2.80 1.13 .84 .92
H 3.49 .98 .67 .82 3.30 .98 .76 .87 2.75 1.10 .84 .92
I 3.20 .95 .69 .83 3.04 1.01 .74 .86 3.00 1.12 .87 .93
J 3.11 .96 .69 .83 2.89 1.00 .70 .83 2.81 1.16 .82 .91
K 3.44 .93 .70 .84 3.06 1.00 .77 .88
L 3.31 1.00 .72 .85
Eigenvalue 7.59 Eigenvalue 8.81 Eigenvalue 8.19
Total 3.31 .79 % Variance 3.11 .87 % Variance 2.84 1.01 % Variance
69.02 73.45 81.90
The results of the EFA for different groups that were formed according to
previous participation in an APE course or seminar indicated that participation
significantly influenced the structure of the scales. Table 6 describes the
independent factor structures generated for those who attended (n = 33) and those
who did not attend (n = 138) an APE course or seminar and compared with the
structure provided by Block et al. (2013). KMO estimate and significance of
Bartlett’s test of sphericity were suitable for EFA in both samples (Table 6).
100
Table 6. EFA comparison of results of PE teachers’ in separate groups with results
obtained by Block et al. (2013) EFA
Case of Lithuanian study Block et al. (2013)
No APE (n = 138) Had APE (n = 33) n = 243
Factors’
Scale Item Factors’ loadings Factors’ loadings
loadings KMO KMO KMO
F1 F1 F2 F3 F1 F2 F3
A .77 .63 removed
B .86 .65 .60 removed
C .82 .85 .81
D .83 .81 .82
E .86 .68 .53 .82 .69
.93 .83
ID F .84 .87 removed
p < .001 p < .001
G .88 .85 p < .001 removed
H .83 .73 .88
I .84 .48 .66 removed
J .83 .43 .68 .83
K .85 .87 .78
Variance Total Total Total
69.94 37.15 35.74 34.97 33.16
explained % 69.94 72.89 68.14
A .85 .85 .80
B .89 .94 .84
C .89 .79 .40 .75
D .84 .67 .88
E .87 .73 .54 .84 .69
F .86 .93 .58 .58 .83 .83
PD
G .88 p < .001 .94 p < .001
p < .001 .67
H .88 .41 .83 .92
I .86 .82 removed
J .84 .86 removed
K .87 .62 .43 .80
L .87 .91 .93
75.06 38.91 24.67 18.48 25.47 25.16 23.80
explained % 75.06 82.06 74.43
A .89 .73 .69
B .89 .90 .89
C .88 .74 .54
D .93 .67 .51 .73 .57
E .92 .92 .63 .63 .82 .87
VI
F .92 p < .001 .80 removed p < .001
p < .001
G .92 .84 .84
H .91 .85 .89
I .93 .75 .49 .84
J .92 .89 .76
82.90 45.49 31.91 37.07 33.41
explained % 82.90 77.40 70.52
Notes: The factor labels in the Lithuanian case of sample n = 138 in all scales, F1= self-efficacy
including students with SEN in PE class; the factor labels in the Lithuanian case of sample n = 33 in
ID, F1 = staying on task and when teaching sport skills, modify test, equipment and actual skills, F2 =
peers’ instruction, modify rules and stay on task during the game; in PD, F1 = modify the goals and
the task, instruct peers during fitness testing, F2 = safety and modify equipment, F3 = peers’
instruction when teaching sport skills and during the game; in VI F1 = inclusive when teaching sport
skills and during the game, F2 = inclusive during fitness testing. The Factor labels in the US case of
sample n = 243 in ID, F1 = peers’ instruction, F2 = staying on task; in PD F1 = specific adaptations,
F2 = peers’ instruction, F3 = safety; in VI F1 = specific adaptations, F2 = peers’ instruction.
101
An integrated EFA and CFA was performed on the group of PE teachers
who had not attended any previous APE training (n = 138). This sample was
randomly divided into two groups (n = 69 cases in each half). An EFA was
conducted on the first half of the data (group = 0) and a CFA on the second half
(group = 1). Before conducting the PCA with the first half of the data (n = 69), we
tested several of the statistical hypotheses for such analyses. The KMO index was
greater than .70 in each scale: .911 (ID), .905 (PD), .909 (VI); Barlett’s test of
sphericity was statistically significant (p < .001). These results indicate that the
sample size was adequate and the extracted factors accounted for substantial
observed variance. An initial examination of the items using PCA revealed high
communalities, ranging from .69 to .81 (ID), .69 to .81 (PD) and .76 to .87 (VI).
The K1-criterion and scree plot indicated a one-factor solution explaining 73.08%
(ID), 71.83% (PD) and 81.28% (VI) of the variance. The results of the CFA
(Figure 12) confirm the structure revealed in the EFA. To improve the model-data
fit, the Amos software automatically created a ‘modification index’, which
suggested several errors (residuals, designated as an e + number in Figure 12) to be
correlated. The chi-square was insignificant (model fit) in all models. The other
goodness of fit measures also demonstrated an acceptable model fit. In the three
evaluated models, the NFI and CFI exceeded the .90 cut-off criteria. In the ID and
VI scales the RMSEA demonstrated good fit to the model, whereas in the PD – a
moderate fit (Figure 12).
102
X2(26) = 21.20 (p = .732)
NFI = .976 CFI=1.000
RMSEA = .000
X2(37) = 43.74 (p = .207)

NFI = .957 CFI = .992
RMSEA = .054
X2(21) = 19.08 (p = .582)

NFI = .981 CFI = 1.000
RMSEA = .000
Figure 12. Path diagram of the ID = Intellectual disability scale, PD = Physical disability
scale, and VI = Visual impairment scale (n = 69)
103
Reliability evidence
Cronbach’s alpha reliability for all items in each of the scales was as
follows: α for ID scale (11 items) .96 (M = 3.31; SD = .79), α for PD scale (12
items) .97 (M = 3.11; SD = .87) and α for VI scale (10 items) = .98 (M = 2.84;
SD = 1.01).
The Pearson correlation coefficient of SE-PETE-D-LT for assessing test-
retest reliability was r = .70; correlation coefficients of each scale are shown in
Table 7.
Table 7. Scale data for the test-retest reliability (n = 22)
Cronbach's Alpha Pearson (test-retest)

Scale
1 Time α 2 Time α r
Intellectual disability .87 .84 .54*
Physical disability .96 .96 .75**
Visual impairment .93 .93 .63**
Note. Correlation is significant at the .01** and .05* level.
Comparison of SE-PETE-D-LT scales

In order to examine the similarities and differences across scales, mean
scales’ scores were compared using within-subjects one-way ANOVA. Statistically
significant differences between means of scales were determined by one-way
ANOVA (F (2, 510) = 12.213 p < .001), and follow-up post-hoc analysis
determined significant differences between the ID and VI (p < .001) and PD and VI
(p < .05) scales. VI (M = 2.84; SD = 1.01) was lower than both ID (M = 3.31;
SD = .79) and PD (M = 3.11; SD = .87).
3.1.2. Analysis of structure, validity and reliability of physical education

autism
The initial version of the instrument was tested with a sample of 43 PE

teachers from 20 municipalities (males n =26; females n = 17; age from 25 to 62
years old, M = 47.79 SD = 8.68), who worked in general education schools
104
(progymnasiums, general schools, gymnasiums). Ten of the physical education
teachers who participated in the study indicated that they had experience in
physical education classes with students with Autism Spectrum Disorder. After
analysing the scales of the instrument, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were very
high: SE scale α = .970 (M = 5.42; SD = 2.08), ME scale α = .992 (M = .99;
SD = 1.52), VE scale α = .995 (M = .79; SD = 1.41), SP scale α = .996 (M = .71;
SD = 1.43), BEH scale α = .995 (M = 1.98; SD = 1.43), PS scale α = .966
(M = 2.78; SD = 1.25), and PCH scale α = .942 (M = 2.97; SD = 1.06).
The validity of self-efficacy scale construct was verified through exploratory
factor analysis revealing a one-factor solution accounting for 79.88% of the
variance, the KMO measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis,
exhibiting a KMO index of .890 and all KMO values for individual items > .85.
Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ2 [45] = 664.018, p < .001) indicated that correlations
between items were sufficiently large for the PCA. An initial examination of the
items using PCA revealed high communalities and ranged from .69 to .86.
3.1.2.2. Study II
Fifty-nine PE teachers participated in the electronic survey and 309 PE

teachers filled in the paper-based questionnaires. The 346 PE teachers from 28
municipalities were included in the basic data analysis. Participants’ age ranged
from 24 to 65 years (M = 47.19; SD = 9.04); gender distribution was 143 males
(M = 46.04; SD = 10.35) and 203 females (M = 48.09; SD = 7.92). Participants had
general PE teaching experience ranging from 1 to 45 years (M = 22.06; SD = 9.86).
Demographic information is illustrated in Table 8.
105
Table 8. Information of physical education teachers (n = 346)
Factors n Percentage
Had undergraduate or graduate courses in APE
Yes 73 21.10
No 273 78.90
Had undergraduate or graduate courses in Special Education

Yes 176 50.90
No 170 49.10
Had included students with ASD in PE class

Yes 166 48.00
No 180 52.00
Had support from APE specialist 40 11.60
Had support from Teacher assistants 50 14.50
Had support from Special Education Teacher 158 45.70
Had support from Physical therapist 30 8.70
Personal experiences with ASD: No experience 319 92.20
Yes 27 7.80
ME, VE & SP 106 30.60
ME &VE 25 4.90
ME & SP 17 7.20
VE &SP 4 1.20
ME only 44 12.70
VE only 21 6.10
SP only 5 1.50
ME, VE & SP did not have 124 35.80
Total 346
Note. APE = Adapted physical education; ASD = Autism Spectrum Disorder;
PE = physical education; ME = mastery experience; VE = vicarious experience; SP = social
persuasion; n = number of physical education teachers.
In order to perform the test-retest analysis, a group of nine males and 13

females, in total 22 PE teachers, was formed. The mean age of the group
participants was 52.73 years (SD = 6.37 years). The participants had a mean
general PE teaching experience of 28.82 years (SD = 8.64 years). Eighteen of these
PE teachers reported having experience working with students with ASD in general
PE in the last five years.
The EFA of SE scale generated a one-factor solution accounting for 82.99%
106
of the variance, the KMO measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis,
exhibiting a KMO index of .941 and all KMO values for individual items > .90.
Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ2 [45] = 5131.7, p < .001) indicated that correlations
between items were sufficiently large for the PCA. An initial examination of the
items using PCA revealed high communalities and ranged from .74 to .88.
Cronbach’s alpha measured internal consistency of the scales and showed that all
statements of the scales perfectly reflected the tested values (Table 9).
Table 9. Cronbach’s Alpha values of PESEISD-A-LT instrument scales (n = 346)
Scales n of Items Mean SD Cronbach’s Alpha

Self-efficacy 10 5.36 2.18 .977
Mastery experience 10 1.69 1.65 .991
Vicarious experience 10 1.35 1.63 .994
Social persuasion 10 1.33 1.81 .996
Physiological state 10 2.49 1.49 .993
Behaviour 2 2.97 1.17 .932
Perceived challenges 11 3.37 .94 .931
A repeated interview with the same respondents was done after 14 weeks to
retest the stability of the scale. The Spearman-Brown’s correlation coefficient of
scales for assessing test-retest reliability was > .80, except for the Perceived
Challenges scale, the test-retest reliability coefficient of which was r = .46;
correlation coefficients of each scale are shown in Table 10.
Table 10. The PESEISD-A-LT instrument scales of the test-retest reliability (n = 22)
Spearman-Brown
Cronbach's Alpha
Scales (Test-retest)
1 Time 2 Time r
Self-efficacy .97 .97 .88
Mastery experience .98 .98 .89
Vicarious experience .99 .99 .85
Social persuasion .98 .99 .87
Physiological state .99 .99 .88
Behaviour .79 .74 .81
Perceived challenges .91 .95 .46
107
Correlation analysis indicated significant relationships between scales
(p < .01; Table 11).
Table 11. Inter-correlations of PESEISD-A scales

Scale SE ME VE SP PS BEH PCH
SE –
ME .366* –
VE .282* .574* –
SP .271* .616* .600* –
PS -.300* -.299* -.186* -.201* –
BEH .296* .796* .580* .628* .292* –
PCH -.343* -.312* -.249* -.269* -.456* -.315* –
Note. SE = Self-efficacy; ME = mastery experience; VE = vicarious experience;
SP = social persuasion; PS = physiological state; BEH = behaviour; PCH = perceived
challenges; * = correlation is significant at the .01 level.
3.1.3. Analysis of structure, validity and reliability of the children’s attitudes

towards integrated physical education-revised
Data were collected from 106 5-8th grade students (63 males and 43
females), mean age 12.63, SD = 1.24. Even 17.9 % of students, who participated in
the study, indicated that they had their peers with disabilities in the general physical
education class. After the arithmetic analysis of instrument scales, Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients were found to be very high: ID scale α = .922 (M = 3.20; SD = .69),
PD scales α = .920 (M = 3.22; SD = .72), VI scales α = .924 (M = 3.20; SD = .77).
The first principal component analysis was performed on the ID scale (11
items). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure verified the sampling adequacy
for the analysis, exhibiting a KMO index of .912 and all KMO values for
individual items > .88, which was above the desired level of .70. Bartlett’s test of
sphericity (χ2 [55] = 717.47, p < .001) indicated that correlations between items
were sufficiently large for PCA. An initial examination of the items using PCA
revealed high communalities, and ranged from .54 to .82. The K1-criterion and
scree plot indicated a one-factor solution explaining 57.48%, with one eigenvalue
exceeding 1.0.
108
A second PCA was conducted on the PD scale of 11 items. The KMO
measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, and the KMO index of the
PD scale was .897. All KMO values for individual items were > .84, which was
above the desired level of .70. Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ2 [55] = 710.10
p < .001) indicated that correlations between items were sufficiently large for PCA.
An initial examination of the items using PCA revealed high communalities and
ranged from .60 to .86. The K1-criterion and scree plot indicated a one-factor
solution explaining 56.17%, with one eigenvalue exceeding 1.0.
The third PCA was conducted on the VI scale of 11 items. The KMO
.92; all KMO values for individual items were > .83, which was above the desired
level of .70. Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ2 [55] = 788.16, p < .001) indicated that
of the items using PCA revealed high communalities, and ranged from .40 to .81.
The K1-criterion and scree plot indicated a two-factor solution explaining 68.97%,
with one eigenvalue exceeding 1.0. The VI scale included two factors, F1 general
attitude (items no. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9) and F2 sport modification (items no. 2, 7, 8, 10,
11) (Table 12).
Table 12. Factor loadings of principal components for CAIPE-LT of VI scales items
(n = 106)
Scale Item number F1 loadings F2 loadings

1 .77
2 .53
3 .85
General attitude
4 .79
5 .76
6 .81
7 .87
8 .78
Sport modification 9 .72
10 .84
11 .68
Eigenvalue 6.34 1.25
% Variance 40.90 28.07
Cum. % Variance 40.90 68.97
109
3.1.3.2. Study II
In the course of the survey, 1008 students from 5–8th grades from 8 general
education schools were surveyed, with an average age of M = 12.90, SD = 1.21
(boys M = 12.87, SD = 1.23, girls M = 12.93, SD = 1.18). The first school
comprised 10.5% of the sample, the second school – 6.7%, the third – 25.5%, the
fourth – 3.9%, the fifth – 15.5%, the sixth – 23.5%, the seventh – 4.7%, the
eighth – 9.7%. Indicating the breakdown according to the forms, the sample was
18.7% of fifth grade students, 23.9% students in the sixth grade, 28.3% students in
the 7th grade and 29.2% students in eighth grade. A more detailed demographic
statistics of the questionnaire is presented in Table 13.
Table 13. The statistical information about the students (n = 1008)
Factors Frequency Percentage

Gender
Male 521 51.69
Female 487 48.31
* Level of competitiveness
Very competitive 193 19.15
Somewhat competitive 622 61.70
Not competitive 193 19.15
Had a family member or close friend who has a disability
Yes 172 17.06
No 836 82.94
Had a student with disabilities in regular education class
Yes 202 20.04
No 806 79.96
Had a student with disabilities in physical education class
Yes 174 17.26
No 834 82.74
Note.* =Very competitive (I like to win, and I get very upset if I lose); Somewhat
competitive (I like to win, but it is OK if I lose sometimes); Not competitive (It really
doesn’t matter to me if I win or lose; I just play for fun).
110
A separate sample group was created for the test-retest analysis. This group
of participants consisted of 6 municipal schools from one municipality, 196
students from 5–9th grades (boys – 98, girls – 98), age M = 13.71 SD = 1.19. Even
46 of them answered that they had classmates with disabilities in general physical
education classes.
Construct validity
The Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted aiming to understand
the structure of a set of variables of the Lithuanian version of CAIPE-R
questionnaire and the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted in order
to test the suitability of the structural models of instrument scales of CAIPE-LT.
The scale items in the tables (Table 14, Table 15) and figures (Figure 13) are
designated with numerical labels for facilitating orientation throughout the
manuscript.
EFA. First principal component analysis (PCA) was performed for the scale
of ID on 11 items. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure verified the sampling
adequacy for the analysis and KMO index which was .90, and all KMO values for
individual items were > .88, which is above the acceptable limit of .50. Bartlett’s
test of sphericity X2 (55) = 2888.10, p < .001, indicated that correlations between
items were sufficiently large for PCA. An initial analysis was run to obtain
eigenvalues for each component in the data. Two components had eigenvalues over
Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination with explained 52.08% of the variance
(Table 14). Table 14 shows the factor loadings after rotation. The first factor
consisted of six items and the second factor consisted of five items. For factors
loadings, see Table 14. Judging by the items’ content, the first factor was
comprised of items describing general attitude subscale about attitudes towards
inclusive regular PE classes and the second factor included items describing sport
modification attitude subscale (Table 14).
Second PCA was performed for the scale of PD on 11 items. The KMO
measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis and KMO index which
was .92, and all KMO values for individual items were > .90, which is above the
acceptable limit of .50. Bartlett’s test of sphericity X2 (55) = 3965.93, p < .001,
indicated that correlations between items were sufficiently large for PCA. An
initial analysis was run to obtain eigenvalues for each component in the data. Two
components had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination
explained 54.56% of the variance (Table 14). Table 14 shows the factor loadings
111
after rotation. The first factor consisted of six items and second factor consisted of
fife items. For factors loadings, see Table 14. Judging by the content of items, the
first factor included items describing general attitude subscale about attitudes
towards inclusive regular PE classes and the second factor included items
describing attitudes towards sport modification (Table 14). In addition, to assess
the fit of the factor models, we examined the differences between the model-based
correlations and the observed correlations. There were 32 (48.0%) non-redundant
residuals with absolute values greater than .05.
Third PCA was performed for the scale of VI on 11 items. The KMO
measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis and KMO index which
was .93, and all KMO values for individual items were > .90, which is above the
acceptable limit of .50. Bartlett’s test of sphericity X2 (55) = 4703.89, p < .001,
indicated that correlations between items were sufficiently large for PCA. An
initial analysis was run to obtain eigenvalues for each component in the data. Two
components had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination
explained 58.86% of the variance (Table 14). Table 14 shows the factor loadings
after rotation. The first factor consisted of six items and second factor consisted of
five items. For factors loadings, see Table 14. Judging by the content of items, the
first factor included items describing general attitude subscale about attitudes
towards inclusive regular PE classes and the second factor included items
describing attitudes towards sport modification (Table 14). In addition, to assess
the fit of the factor models, we examined the differences between the model-based
correlations and the observed correlations. There were 27 (49.0%) non-redundant
residuals with absolute values greater than .05.
112
Table 14. Factor structures of the CAIPE-LT on ID, PD, VI scales by Exploratory
Factor Analysis (n = 1008)
Varimax components
Number of
Subscale F1 loadings F2 loadings
Item
ID PD VI ID PD VI
1 .65 .71 .72
2 .41 .57 .67
3 .77 .78 .75
General attitude
4 .71 .76 .78
5 .64 .68 .77
6 .61 .72 .73
7 .68 .73 .67
8 .61 .73 .73
Sport modification 9 .68 .82 .64
10 .61 .74 .76
11 .52 .56 .57
Eigen value 4.13 4.92 5.32 1.08 1.09 1.16
% Variance 41.27 44.69 48.34 10.81 9.86 10.52
Cum. % Variance 41.27 44.69 48.34 52.08 54.56 58.86
CFA. CFA was performed according to EFA distinct parameters. The model
parameters were estimated with a sample of 1008 subjects in every scale. Figure 13
(A, B, C) represents the factor structure for CAIPE-LT of each scale with two
dimensions defined. To improve the model-data fit, the Amos 23.0 software
automatically created a modification index, which suggested several variables to be
correlated. The results of the CFA and path diagram can be seen in Figure 13 (A,
B, C in parts).
CFA analysis of ID scale was performed on the basis of 11 items, two-factor
model. The overall model fit appears quite good. χ2 (df = 38) 108.66, (p = .000);
RMSEA values .043 are considered to reflect good fit to the model; a large CFI of
.963 and NFI of .975 indicate a good fit of this model (Figure 13 part A).
CFA analysis of PD scale was performed on the basis of 11 items, two-factor
RMSEA values below .046 are considered to reflect good fit to the model; a large
CFI of .980 and NFI of .971 indicate a good fit of this model (Figure 13 part B).
113
(A) Intellectual Disability
X2(38) 108.66 (p = .000)
NFI = .963; CFI = .975
RMSEA = .043
(B) Physical Disability
X2(37) 114.79 (p = .000)

NFI = .971 CFI = .980
RMSEA = .046
(C) Visual Impairment
X2(33) 96.27 (p = .000)

NFI = .980 CFI = .986
RMSEA = .044
Figure 13. Path diagram of the Intellectual disability scale, Physical disability scale,
and Visual impairment scale
114
CFA analysis of VI scale was performed on the basis of 11 items, two-factor
RMSEA values below .044 are considered to reflect good fit to the model; a large
CFI of .986 and NFI of .980 indicate a good fit of this model (Figure 13 part C).
Reliability evidence
Cronbach’s alpha reliability for all items in each of the scales was good in all
cases: α for ID scale (11 items) = .83 (M = 3.11; SD = .53), α for PD scale (11
items) = .87 (M = 3.09; SD = .62) and α for VI scale (11 items) = .89 (M = 3.09;
SD = .67). The descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) and Cronbach’s
reliability coefficients of CAIPE-LT version instrument items and each of the scale
(ID, PD, VI) subscales are presented in Table 15: General attitude subscale (six
general attitude items about inclusion in physical education classes) and Sport
modification subscale (five items related to rule modification that would
accommodate student with disability).
Table 15. Descriptive statistics of scale items and Cronbach’s reliability (n = 1008)
Statements
Subscale M ± SD α
Intellectual disability
1. It would be OK having [Pseudonym] come to my PE
3.12 ± .85
class.
3. If we were playing a team sport such as football, it
2.93 ± .96
would be OK having [Pseudonym] on my team.
4. It would be fun if [Pseudonym] was in my PE class 2.86 ± .90
General
5. If [Pseudonym] were in my PE class, I would talk to .82
attitude 3.28 ± .81
him and be his friend
6. If [Pseudonym] were in my PE class, I would like to
3.14 ± .88
help him practice and play the games.
7. I would like to pass the ball to [Pseudonym] while
2.92 ± .95
playing football.
To be continued on the next page
115
Continued
2. I would play slower due to [Pseudonym] because he
2.58 ± 1.02
cannot play so fast.
8. Someone repeatedly has to give short prompts
3.35 ± .76
[Pseudonym] to help him to reach right place of the hall.
Sport 9. You should be closer to the [Pseudonym] so that he
3.50 ± .70 .70
modification could pass the ball to you.
10. If the ball has been passed to the [Pseudonym], wait
3.31 ± .85
until he accepts it.
11. I would help to create conditions for [Pseudonym] to
3.28 ± .82
kick the ball into the gate.
Physical disability
1. It would be OK having [Pseudonym] come to my
2.85 ± 1.06
3. If we were playing a team sport such as basketball, it
2.82 ± 1.00
4. It would be fun if [Pseudonym] was in my PE class 2.91 ± .92
General
5. If [Pseudonym] were in my PE class, I would talk to .86
attitude 3.37 ± .79
him and be his friend
6. If [Pseudonym] were in my PE class, I would like to
3.09 ± .91
help him practice and play the games.
7. I would like to pass the ball to [Pseudonym] while
2.91 ± .97
playing basketball
2. I would play slower due to [Pseudonym], because he
2.72 ± 1.07
8. When playing the basketball I would agree that
3.17 ± .99
[Pseudonym] could throw the ball in a lowered basket.
Sport 9. [Pseudonym] could stand in three minutes zone longer
3.50 ± .79 .71
modification (for example 5s instead of 3s).
10. Playing basketball nobody should take over the ball
3.24 ± .93
from [Pseudonym] when he is passing the ball.
11. I would help to create conditions for [Pseudonym] to
3.38 ± .85
get scores.
Visual impairment
1.It would be OK having [Pseudonym] come to my PE
3.12 ± 1.01
General class.
.87
attitude 3. If we were playing a team sport such as “Quadrate”, it
2.94 ± 1.01
116
Continued
4. It would be fun if [Pseudonym] was in my PE class. 2.97 ± .93
5.If [Pseudonym] were in my PE class, I would talk to
3.30± .87
him and be his friend.
6.If [Pseudonym] were in my PE class, I would like to
3.10± .95
help him practice and play the games
9.I would hold [Pseudonym] hand and would say
2.74 ± 1.06
prompts /warnings.
2.I would play slower due to [Pseudonym], because he
2.80 ± 1.04
7. I would agree to play with “sound” ball while playing
3.59 ± .80
“Quadrate”.
Sport
8. Playing “Quadrate”, the ball should be rolled when .80
modification 2.99 ± 1.09
someone wants to punch [Pseudonym].
10.I would agree that [Pseudonym] should not be
3.14 ± 1.03
punched with a ball while standing near the line.
11.I would help [Pseudonym] to through a ball. 3.29 ± .95
A repeated interview with the same respondents was done after 14 weeks to
retest the stability of the (sub)scale. The Spearman-Brown correlation coefficient
of scales and subscales for assessing test-retest reliability was > .70, correlation
coefficients of each subscale are shown in Table 16.
Table 16. The indicators of subscale stability of students’ attitudes towards inclusion
and attitudes to game changes in the case of re-examination (n = 196)
Spearman-Brown
I study II study
Scale Subscale (Test-retest)
α α r
General attitude .81 .84 .78
ID
Sport modification .65 .75 .77
PD
VI
117
3.2. Situation studies of physical education teachers’ self-efficacy and
children’s attitudes towards inclusive physical education
3.2.1. The situation study of physical education teachers’ self-efficacy towards
including students with intellectual, physical and visual disabilities in
the general physical education classes
Ninety one PE teachers participated in the electronic survey and 426 PE

teachers filled in the paper-based questionnaires. Five hundred and seventeen
teachers of physical education (187 men and 330 women), age from 21 to 65 years
old (M = 46.93; SD = 8.99) from 397 general education schools in 40
municipalities were included in the analysis of the situation of physical education
teacher self-efficacy beliefs towards inclusion of students with intellectual
disability, physical disability and visual impairment in the general education
classes (Table 17). The average yearly work experience of physical education
teachers was from 1 to 45 years, M = 21.71; SD = 9.63.
Table 17. The statistical data of physical education teachers participating in the study

Gender: Males 187 36.1
Females 330 63.83
Had undergraduate or graduate APE courses: Yes 112 21.66
No 405 78.34
Had undergraduate or graduate Special
Education courses: 233 45.07
Yes 284 54.93
No
Had included students with ID in PE class: Yes 182 35.20
No 335 64.80
Had included students with PD in PE class: Yes 170 32.88
No 347 67.12
Had included students with VI in PE class: Yes 140 27.08
No 377 72.92
118
Continued
Had support from an APE specialist: Yes 83 16.05
No 378 73.11
Don’t 56 10.84
know
Had support from Teacher assistants: Yes 70 13.54
No 373 72.15
Don’t 74 14.31
know
Had support from a Special Education Teacher: Yes 84 16.25
No 194 37.52
Don’t 238 46.23
know
Had support from a Physical therapist: Yes 73 14.12
No 397 76.79
Don’t 47 9.09
know
Had support from a Psychologist*: Yes 266 51.45
No 219 42.36
Don’t 32 6.19
know
Personal experiences with individuals with ID
No experience 454 87.81
Friend 45 8.70
Family member 18 3.49
Personal experiences with individuals with PD
Friend 77 14.89
Personal experiences with individuals with VI
Friend 68 13.15
Note. ID = intellectual disability, PD = physical disability, VI = visual impairment,
APE = adapted physical education; M = average; SD = standard deviation; * = teachers
while answering the question „Do you get the support from other specialists” indicated
psychologist support as support from other specialist.
119
The analysis of the data showed that the self-efficacy of the physical
education teachers involved in the study was moderate; the highest level of self-
efficacy was specified towards inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities,
and the least towards including students with visual impairments (Table 18).
Table 18. The results of physical education teachers’ self-efficacy level
Self-efficacy
Factors ID PD VI
M (SD) p* M SD p* M SD p*
Gender
Males 3.34 (.72) 3.12 (.80) 3.02 (.86)
Females 3.35 (.79) 3.09 (.88) 2.92 (.98)
Had undergraduate or graduate APE
courses
Yes 3.48 (.77) 3.39 (.82) 3.35 (.89)
No 3.31 (.76) * 3.06 (.85)
* 2.85 (.92) *
Education courses
Yes 3.35 (.79) 3.15 (.88) 3.02 (.99)
No 3.34 (.75) 3.12 (.84) 2.91 (.89)
Had included students with disability in PE
class
Yes 3.40 (.76) 3.23 (.85) 3.22 (.83)
No 3.32 (.77) 3.09 (.86) * 2.86 (.96) *
Had support from an APE specialist
Yes 3.59 (.66) 3.46 (.80) 3.40 (.87)
No 3.31 (.78)
* 3.06 (.86) * 2.87 (.95) *
Don't know 3.38 (.78) 3.25 (.82) 3.06 (.80)
Had support from Teacher assistants
Yes 3.46 (.67) 3.33 (.79) 3.13 (.84)
No 3.30 (.78) 3.09 (.86) * 2.91 (.95)
Don’t know 3.35 (.78) 3.18 (.87) 3.06 (.99)
Had support from a Special Education
Teacher
Yes 3.41 (.67) 3.23 (.81) 3.07 (.83)
No 3.27 (.79) 3.06 (.92) * 2.83 (.96) *
Don’t know 3.35 (.78) 3.03 (.81) 2.94 (.96)
120
Continued
Had support from a Physical therapist
Yes 3.50 (.64) 3.59 (.77) 3.49 (.85)
*
No 3.29 (.79) 3.05 (.87) * 2.86 (.95) *
Don’t know 3.57 (.71) * 3.28 (.62) 3.14 (.76)
Had support from a Psychologist1
Yes 3.49 (.74) 3.30 (.85) 3.02 (.89)
No 3.28 (.81) 3.10 (.88) 2.87 (.99)
Don’t know 3.39 (.72) 3.14 (.74) 3.01 (.88)
Personal experiences with individuals with
disability
No experience 3.31 (.77) 3.08 (.88) 2.91 (.93)
Friend 3.71 (.53) * 3.41 (.72) * 3.25 (.93) *
Family member 3.38 (.90) 3.22 (.71) 3.05 (1.01)
Total 3.35 (.77) 3.14 (.86) 2.96 (.94)
Note. ID = intellectual disability; PD = physical disability; VI = visual impairment;
APE = adapted physical education; M = average; SD = standard deviation; 1= teachers
while answering the question „Do you get the support from other specialists” indicated
psychologist support as support from other specialist;*= statistically significant differences
between indicated groups using nonparametric method Mann-Whitney, p < .05.
Analysing the data, it was observed that in response to the question in the
demographic section “Did you have the APE course/seminars during your studies
or after graduation?” there were statistically significant differences between self-
efficacy of those teachers who had the course of APE and those who did not have
those courses/seminars (Table 18).
A significant difference was found between the self-efficacy of the teachers
who had experience in the inclusion of students with physical disabilities and
visual impairments in the general class activity and those who did not have it
(Table 18).
Analysing the data, it was observed that self-efficacy of those teachers who
got the support from adapted physical activity specialists, teachers’ assistants,
physiotherapists, special educators, psychologists was significantly higher than that
of those who had no support from such specialists (Table 18).
Self-efficacy towards including students with disabilities into general PE
class of those teachers who had personal experience with their friends with
intellectual and visual disabilities was higher than that of those who had no such
personal experience (Table 18).
121
Aiming at establishing the relationship between the level of self-efficacy and
the support received from specialists when including students with disabilities in
the activities of a physical education class, a correlation was calculated. The
Spearman rank correlation coefficients between the level of self-efficacy and the
support received from the adapted physical activity specialist, the teacher’s
assistant, and the physiotherapist were weak but statistically significant (Table 19).
Table 19. The results of correlation relations between self-efficacy level scales
and demographic indicators
Scales
APE ID PD VI
r p r p r p
APE course/seminars .088* .041 .152** .001 .224** .000
Inclusion of students with
– – – – .153** .000
disability
Personal experience with
.125** .004 .130** .003 .126** .004
disability
Support from an APE specialist .107** .015 .138** .002 .148** .001
Support from teacher
– – – – .097* .027
assistants
Support from a physical
.116** .009 .160** .009 .182** .000
therapist
APE = adapted physical education; r – Spearman rank correlation coefficient; p – level of
significance, statistically significant result p < .05* and p < .01**; – = no significant
difference.
The correlation results allowed the assumption that the support received
from adapted physical activity specialist, the teacher’s assistant and the
physiotherapist positively affected the physical education teacher’s self-efficacy
towards including students with disabilities into general physical education class
activities.
A stepwise multiple regression analysis was used to explore the ability of
demographic factors to predict levels of SE. Regression analysis using ID scales
data revealed that the teachers’ self-efficacy depended on the APE course or
seminars they had during their studies or after graduation, the physiotherapist’s
support when including students with an ID in the general PE classes and having
personal experience with persons with ID. Results of a multiple regression analysis
122
for the ID scale data showed significant models: R = .152, R2 = .023 F (3, 516) =
6.082, p = .002, and Cohen’s f 2 = .023, which indicated a small effect size.
Regression analysis using the data of PD scales revealed that the teachers’ self-
efficacy depended on the APE course or seminars they had during their studies or
after graduation, the physiotherapist’s support in including students with an PD in
the general PE class and having personal experience with persons with PD. Results
of a multiple regression analysis for the data of the PD scale showed significant
models: R = .222, R2 = .049 F (3, 516) = 8.881, p = .000, and Cohen’s f 2 = .052,
which indicated a small effect size. Regression analysis using data of VI scales
revealed that the teachers’ self-efficacy depended on the APE course or seminars
they had during their studies or after graduation, the physiotherapist’s support in
including students with VI in the general PE classes and having experience of
including students with VI into general physical education classes. Results of a
multiple regression analysis for the data of VI scale showed significant models:
R = .287, R2 = .082 F (3, 516) = 15.364, p = .000, and Cohen’s f 2 = .089, which
indicated a small effect size.
3.2.2. The situation study about physical education teachers’ self-efficacy

general physical education classes
Four hundred and four PE teachers filled in the paper-based survey. This
sample included a total of 404 PE teachers from 29 municipalities who participated
in the survey. Participants’ age ranged from 21 to 65 years (M = 47.28; SD = 8.51);
gender distribution was 162 males (M = 45.99; SD = 10.26) and 242 females
(M = 48.15; SD = 7.86). Participants had general PE teaching experience ranging
from 1 to 45 years (M = 22.09; SD = 9.79).
Level of PE teachers’ SE for the inclusions of students with ASD into
general PE classes was M=5.30 SD=2.14 (Table 20). Results of demographic
factors showed that higher SE level was in those PE teachers who: had APE course
M = 5.93 SD = 2.24, effect size Hedges’ g =.38; had included students with ASD in
regular PE class M = 5.80 SD = 1.97, effect size g =.47; had support from APE
specialist M = 5.86 SD = 1.97, effect size g =.32, had support from physical
therapist M = 6.27 SD = 2.0, effect size g =.54 and had support from a psychologist
M = 6.04 SD = 1.74, effect size g =.51 (p < .05; Table 20). Also we found that PE
123
teachers who had a friend with ASD had higher SE M = 6.10 SD = 1.81 than PE
teachers who did not have these personal experiences (friends or family member)
M = 5.25 SD = 2.16 (effect size g =.40, p < .05; Table 20).
Table 20. PE teachers’ self-efficacy level by demographic factors, other personal attributes,
and mastery, vicarious and social persuasion experiences
Self-efficacy
Demographic factors/Personal attributes n Percentage Mean (SD)
* (p < .05)
Gender
Males 162 40.10 5.37 (2.04)
Females 242 59.90 5.26 (2.21)
Had undergraduate or graduate APE courses
Yes 86 21.29 5.93 (2.24)
No 318 78.71 5.13 (2.09) *
Education courses
Yes 204 50.50 5.49 (2.21)
No 200 49.50 5.11 (2.06)
Had included students with ASD in PE class
Yes 199 49.26 5.80 (1.97)
No 205 50.74 4.82 (2.20) *
Had support from and APE specialist
Yes 43 10.64 5.86 (2.44)
No 287 71.04 5.19 (2.03) *
Don’t know 78 18.32 5.42 (2.32)
Had support from Teacher assistants
Yes 60 14.85 5.68 (2.02)
No 287 71.04 5.19 (2.12)
Don’t know 57 14.11 5.46 (2.34)
Had support from a Special Education
Teacher 189 46.78 5.49 (2.10)
Yes 163 40.35 5.14 (2.11)
No 52 12.87 5.12 (2.36)
Don’t know
Had support from a Physical therapist
Yes 37 9.16 6.27 (2.03)
No 303 75.00 5.13 (2.12) *
Don’t know 64 15.84 5.56 (2.18)
124
Continued
Had support from a Psychologist
Yes 25 6.19 6.04 (1.74)
No 162 40.10 4.97 (2.15) *
Don’t know 217 57.71 5.46 (2.15)
Personal experiences with ASD
No experience 372 97.08 5.25 (2.16)
Friend 29 7.18 6.10 (1.81) *
Family member 3 .74 3.47 (.74)
1. ME, VE & SP 124 30.69 5.91 (1.90)
2. ME &VE 27 6.68 5.53 (2.29)
3. ME & SP 23 5.69 6.03 (1.73)
*
4. VE &SP 4 .99 * 4.55 (3.00)
5. ME only 54 13.37 5.10 (1.80) *
6. VE only 23 5.69 5.22 (2.16) *
7. SP only 6 1.49 6.07 (2.57)
8. ME, VE & SP did not have 143 35.40 4.69 (2.29)
Total 404 5.30 (2.14)
Note. APE = Adapted physical education; ASD = Autism Spectrum Disorder;
PE = physical education; ME = mastery experience; VE = vicarious experience; SP = social
persuasion; SD = standard deviation.
Statistically significant differences were found between SE of PE teachers

who had only one mastery experience (M = 5.10 SD = 1.80) and SE of PE teachers
who had all three (ME, VE, SP) experiences (M = 5.91 SD = 1.90), effect size
Hedge’s g =.43 (p < .05); between SE of PE teachers who had only one ME
(M = 5.10 SD = 1.80) and ME and SP experiences (M = 6.03 SD = 1.73), effect size
Hedge’s g =.52 (p < .05); between SE of PE teachers who did not have any of ME,
VE, SP experience (M = 4.69 SD = 2.29) and SE of PE teachers who had all the
aforementioned experiences (M = 5.91 SD = 1.90), effect size Hedge’s g =.58
(p < .05); between SE of PE teachers who did not have any of ME, VE, SP
experience (M = 4.69 SD = 2.29) and those SE of PE teachers who had both ME
and SP experiences (M = 6.03 SD = 1.73), effect size Hedge’s g =.60 (p < .05)
(Table 20).
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was used to determine the strength
of links between the score of SE and demographic factors as well as other personal
attributes. Results (n = 404) showed that relationships between SE level and having
APE course was weak (r = .136) and statistically significant (p < .01). Results
125
(n = 404) showed that relationships between SE levels and inclusion of students
with ASD in general PE class was weak (r = .225) and statistically significant
(p < .01). The correlation between the level of SE and such demographic variables
as gender, age, years of experience teaching physical education, having special
education course, was weak and not statistically significant.
Second correlation analysis was used to determine the strength of links
between all scales (SE, ME, VE, SP, PS, BEH and PCH). Correlation analyses
were carried out with a total sample of PE teachers (n = 404) and separately with a
subsample of participants such as PE teachers who had all three (ME, VE, SP)
experiences (n = 124), PE teachers who had one or two experiences (ME, VE, SP)
(n = 137), and PE teachers who had no experience (n = 143). The calculated
coefficients between scales showed that in most cases the relations were weak and
moderately strong and statistically significant (Table 21).
Table 21. Means, standard deviations and correlations of scales by different

groups of sample size
Subsample Variable M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

** ** ** ** **
1. Self-efficacy 6.04 (1.86) – .57 .50 .35 -.32 .41 -.32**
2. Mastery
3.11 (.89) – .72** .62** -.23** .52** -.30**
experience
3. Vicarious
Had all 2.98 (.94) – .54** -.15 .47** -.35**
experience
three (ME,
VE, SP) 4. Social
3.56 (1.00) – -.20* .52** -.35**
experiences persuasion
(n = 124) 5. Physiological
2.69 (1.07) – -.26** .43**
state
6. Behaviour 3.71 (.84) – -.29**
7. Perceived
challenges
3.14 (.73) –
Had one or 1. Self-efficacy 5.39 (2.02) – .37** .12 .18* -.29** .22* -.36**
two
2. Mastery
experiences 2.21 (1.45) – -.23** -.05 -.34** .58** -.35**
experience
from three
(ME, VE, 3. Vicarious -
experience
1.16 (1.58) – .30**
.02 -.05 -.05
SP)
experiences 4. Social
(n = 137) persuasion
.75 (1.48) – .05 .11 -.08
126
Continued
5. Physiological
2.96 (1.06) – -.21* .40**
state
6. Behaviour 2.87 (1.42) – -.25**
7. Perceived
challenges
3.37 (.86) –
1. Self-efficacy 4.69 (2.29) – – – – -.25* .23** -.21*
2. Mastery
experience
– – – – – – –
3. Vicarious
Had no experience
– – – – – –
experiences
4. Social
(ME, VE,
persuasion
– – – – –
SP)
(n = 143) 5. Physiological
3.31 (1.21) – -.19* .41**
state
6. Behaviour 1.06 (.45) – -.11
7. Perceived
challenges
3.56 (1.09) –
1. Self-efficacy 5.30 (2.14) – .36** .28** .27** -.31** .32** -.33**
2. Mastery
1.70 (1.63) – .55** .61** -.30** .81** -.31**
experience
3. Vicarious
1.31(1.61) – .59** -.18** .56** -.24**
experience
Total
sample size 4. Social 1.35 (1.82) – -.19** .61** -.25**
persuasion
(n = 404)
5. Physiological
3.00 (1.14) – -.29** .43**
state
6. Behaviour 2.49 (1.48) – -.30**
7. Perceived
challenges
3.37 (.93) –

SP = social persuasion; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; ** = correlation is significant
at the .01 level; * = correlation is significant at the .05 level.
127
To explore what demographic factors/personal attributes and what sources of
self-efficacy (ME, VE, SP, PS) influenced the levels of SE in including students
with ASD in PE class, stepwise multiple regression analyses were performed
(Table 22).
A second stepwise multiple regression analysis was performed to determine
the ability of SE and perceived challenges to predict behaviours of PE teachers in
regard to the inclusion of students with ASD (Table 22).
Table 22. Results of stepwise regression on the prediction of PE teachers’ self-efficacy and
behaviour in regard to the inclusion of students with ASD in PE classes
Effect size
Subsample Variable Predictors R2 F df p
Cohen’s f2
Had students with
ASD in PE class x
SE .066 14.24 2; 403 .000 .07
Total sample size had APE course or
(n = 404) seminar
SE ME x PS x VE .193 31.84 3; 403 .000 .24
BEH SE x PCH .135 31.36 2; 403 .000 .16
Had all three SE ME x PS x VE .400 26.64 3; 123 .000 .60
(ME, VE, SP)
experiences BEH SE x PCH .222 17.26 2; 123 .000 .29
(n = 124)
Had one or two SE PS x SP x VE x ME .285 13.16 4; 136 .000 .40
experiences from
three (ME, VE,
SP) experiences BEH PCH .075 10.96 1; 136 .001 .08
(n = 137)
Had no
experiences
BEH SE .051 7.62 1; 142 .007 .05
(ME, VE, SP)
(n = 143)
SP = social persuasion; PS = physiological state; BEH = behaviour; PCH = perceived
challenges; APE = Adapted physical education; ASD = Autism Spectrum Disorder; R2 = a
squared multiple correlation for the regression equation; F = Fisher's criterion, df = degrees
of freedom; p = model is significant at the .05 level; f 2 = Cohen’s coefficient for effect size
128
Based on correlation and multiple regression analysis results, a path model
was developed to capture the most plausible theory of change linking proximity to
the self-efficacy, sources of self-efficacy, behaviour and challenges (Figure 14).
This path model was developed using n = 124 sample size (PE teachers who had all
three sources). Estimated weights, correlations between standard errors and R2 for
standardized regression of traits are presented in Figure 14. The standardized
regression weights represent the amount of change in the dependent variable that is
attributable to a single standard deviation unit’s worth of change in the predictor
variable (Figure 14). It is estimated that the predictors of SE explain 36 percent
(R2 = .360), the predictors of BEH explain -11.6 percent (R2 = -.116), and the
predictors of PCH explain 13.1 percent (R2 = .131) of its variance. To improve the
model-data fit, the Amos software automatically created a ‘modification index’,
which suggested several errors (residuals, designated as an e + number in Figure
14) to be correlated. A chi-square probability value greater than .05 indicates
acceptable model fit: chi-square (χ2) (7) = 13.23 p = .067. The other goodness of fit
measures also demonstrated an acceptable model fit. In the evaluated model,
NFI = .958 and CFI = .979 exceeded the .90 cut-off criteria. The RMSEA = .085
demonstrated moderate fit to the model (Figure 14). The results confirmed that ME
and VE were some of the strongest sources which affect SE. This SE level makes
strong influence to BEH and PCH. Results also show that ME and VE influence to
SE level is stronger when including verbal/social persuasion. Noticeable fact is that
BEH affects PCH as well.
129
Note. → = standardized regression weights; ↔ = correlations; R2= a squared multiple
correlation for the regression equation; e = error variance; SE=Self-efficacy; ME = mastery
experience; VE=vicarious experience; SP = social persuasion; PS = physiological state;
BEH=behaviour; PCH=perceived challenges; ***, ** and * = standardized total path
coefficients of paths are significant at .001, .01 and .05 level of probability.
Figure 14. Path model fitted (n = 124)
Chi-square (χ 2) p value was calculated in order to find the differences of

responses to PCH scale statements between PE teachers who had the experience of
including students with ASD into regular PE class during the last 5 years (n = 199),
and PE teachers who had no such experience (n = 205). PE teachers, who had
students with ASD in their classes, assessed the challenges in terms of the
challenges faced by including students with ASD into the classes. PE teachers who
had no children with ASD in their PE classes assessed the challenges they would
face if they were to include children with ASD into the class. The percentage
frequency of challenges most often faced by teachers delivering an inclusive PE
class and the extent at which these challenges affect the inclusion of students with
ASD into a general PE class were summarized in Table 23. For example, PE
teachers who had students with ASD in their classes as well as those who had not,
most often assessed the challenge “I have large class size” as “Somewhat of an
issue” and “Very much an issue” (Table 23).
130
Table 23. Percentage distribution of responses to perceived challenges scale statements
by PE teachers’ experience of including students with ASD in regular PE classes
Item of variant
Items of Not Sometimes
PE teachersʼ Not at Very χ2
Perceived much an issue, Somewh
group all an much *(p <. 05)
challenges scale of an sometimes at of an
issue an issue
issue not an issue issue (%)
(%) (%)
(%) (%)
I am not sure Including 13.57 22.61 42.21 15.58 6.03
how to modify 34.56*
activities Not including 11.22 15.12 26.34 24.39 22.93
I do not have Including 16.58 24.12 30.15 23.12 6.03
time to make 18.56*
modifications Not including 9.76 21.46 24.88 24.88 19.02
appropriate 21.55*
equipment Not including 7.32 12.20 23.41 27.32 29.76
I have large class Including 8.04 12.56 21.11 25.63 32.66
3.06
sizes Not including 7.32 9.27 17.56 26.34 39.51
There are Including 7.04 12.06 18.09 27.14 35.68
multiple classes 2.96
in the gym Not including 7.80 7.80 16.59 26.34 41.46
The student’s Including 9.05 16.58 33.17 27.64 13.57
skill level is very
different than 12.09*
that of peers in Not including 5.37 11.71 26.34 32.20 24.39
the class
I have no aid or Including 7.54 19.10 24.62 34.17 14.57
21.63*
support to help Not including 5.85 9.27 23.90 28.78 32.20
information
26.07*
about the Not including 8.29 16.10 20.00 31.22 24.39
student
I have limited Including 15.58 16.08 28.14 26.63 13.57
training on 26.89*
autism Not including 5.37 14.63 18.54 32.20 29.27
The student has Including 6.03 17.59 33.67 33.67 9.05
behavioural 19.18*
problems Not including 5.85 10.73 25.37 34.15 23.90
The student has Including 9.05 21.61 34.17 25.13 10.05
problems 17.10*
staying on task Not including 8.29 16.59 22.93 28.78 23.41
Note. In this table, PE teachers are divided into two groups according to whether or not they had
students with ASD included in their classes. PE teachers had to choose from eleven situations “Items
of Perceived Challenges”, which can make them most difficult to successfully include students with
autism spectrum disorders in general physical education classes. PE teachers evaluated (“Not at all an
issue”, “Not much of an issue”, “Sometimes an issue, sometimes not an issue”, “Somewhat of an
issue”, “Very much an issue”), how each of the described situations “Items of Perceived Challenges”
personally complicate the possibility to include students with autism spectrum disorders in a general
physical education class meaningfully. “Items of variants” in the table are presented in percentages,
how many PE teachers have chosen every assessment option. χ 2= Chi-square.
131
3.2.3. The situation study about students’ attitudes towards including peers
with disabilities into general physical education classes
As 1583 students from 5-9th grades (812 boys and 771 girls) aged from 10
to 16 years old (M = 13.06 SD = 1.35) from 34 general education schools of 9
municipalities were involved in the study. The information about demographic
statistical data of the sample is provided in Table 24.
Table 24. The statistical demographic data of the sample

Gender
Male 812 51.30
Female 771 48.70
* Level of competitiveness
Very competitive 288 18.19
Somewhat competitive 961 60.71
Not competitive 334 21.10
Had a family member or friend with disability
Yes 267 16.87
No 1316 83.13
Had peers with disabilities in a regular education class
Yes 420 26.53
No 1163 73.47
Has peers with disabilities in a physical education class
Yes 386 24.38
No 1197 75.62
Note.* = Very competitive (I like to win, and I get very upset if I lose); Somewhat
competitive (I like to win, but it is OK if I lose sometimes); Not competitive (It really
doesn’t matter to me if I win or lose; I just play for fun).
The analysis of the data of ID, PD and VI scales about students’ attitudes
towards including disabled peers in the general physical education class (Table 25)
showed that the average score of the students’ attitudes towards their peers with ID,
PD, and VI was 3, based on the scale of the questionnaire scores, which
corresponds to the statement probably yes. Based on this result, the students’
attitudes towards the inclusion of peers with disabilities in the general physical
education class tend to be positive, but the students are not sure about it, they doubt
whether they would act the same way as they think. Analysing the data from
132
General attitude and Sport modification attitude subscales (Table 25), it was
noticed that the score of General attitude scale was more negative and the score of
Sport modification attitude scale tended to be more positive. The difference
between General attitude and Sport modification attitude subscale scores was
statistically significant (Table 25). Based on this data, we can assume that students
are not positive about the inclusion of students with a disability in their physical
education class, but when asked about game changes, their attitude becomes more
positive, that is, changes made during the game increase interest in them, and at the
same time change their perspective to the positive side. Comparing the data, the
statistically significant differences between the scale scores are as follows: the
higher the score of the attitude in the ID scale, the lower the score in the VI scale
(Table 25).
Table 25. Statistical data of CAIPE – LT instrument scales and subscales
Total score
Scale Subscale M ± SD p p*1,2,3
M ± SD
General attitude 2.97 ± .68
ID .000 3.05 ± .57 *1, *2
Sport modification 3.15 ± .57
PD .000 3.03 ± .65 *1 , *3
VI .000 3.00 ± .71 *2 , *3
Note. *1,*2,*3 = significance level p, statistically significant difference between scales,
when p ≤ .05.
When analysing the students’ attitudes towards inclusion of their disabled

peers in the general physical education classes, the answers to the questions in
demographic part of the questionnaire revealed statistically significant differences
in attitude indicators between: girls and boys, those who had peers with disabilities
included in the physical education classes and those who did not, those who had
peers with disabilities included into other classes or not (Table 26). The girls’
attitudes towards inclusion of peers with disabilities were more positive than those
of boys (p < .05), the students who had no experience of inclusion of peers with
disabilities in the general physical education and other classes had more positive
attitude compared to those who had that kind of experience (p < .05). It was also
133
found that the students’ attitudes depended on the levels of competitiveness (Table
26). Those students who always wanted to win and suffer from the defeat,
negatively rated the inclusion of students with disabilities in the sports games.
Statistically significant differences were found between groups of students who
were very competitive and fairly competitive, and also between very competitive
and not competitive students in the ID and PD scales (Table 26).
Table 26. The comparison of the students’ attitudes by personal attributes

according to CAIPE-LT
General Sport
Total
Factors attitude modification
M (SD) p* M (SD) p* M (SD) p*
Gender:
Male 2.84 (.72) 3.07 (.61) 2.94 (.61)
* * *
Female 3.10 (.61) 3.25 (.51) 3.17 (.51)
Level of competitiveness:
Very competitive 2.94 (.70) * 3.11 (.57) 3.02 (.58)
Fairly competitive 2.97 (.65) 3.17 (.52) * 3.06 (.53)
Not competitive 2.98 (.75) 3.15 (.75) 3.05 (.67)
Had a family member or close friend
who had a disability
ID
Yes 2.99 (.67) 3.15 (.55) 3.07 (.56)

No 2.96 (.68) 3.15 (.57) 3.05 (.57)
Had a student with disabilities in
regular education classes
Yes 2.87 (.70) 3.11 (.58) 2.98 (.60)
No 3.00 (.67) * 3.17 (.56) * 3.08 (.56) *
Yes 2.90 (.69) 3.12 (.59) 3.00 (.59)
* * *
No 2.99 (.67) 3.16 (.56) 3.07 (.56)
Gender:
Male 2.81 (.77) 3.06 (.72) 2.92 (.69)
* * *
Female 3.04 (.70) 3.27 (.57) 3.14 (.58)
PD
Very competitive 2.88 (.73) * 3.11 (.67) 2.98 (.62)
Fairly competitive 2.93 (.72) 3.17 (.62) * 3.04 (.61) *
Not competitive 2.93 (.82) 3.16 (.76) 3.04 (.75)
134
Continued
Yes 2.99 (.72) 3.17 (.65) 3.07 (.63)
No 2.90 (.75) 3.16 (.66) 3.02 (.65)
Yes 2.84 (.76) 3.10 (.70) 2.96 (.68)
* * *
No 2.95 (.74) 3.18 (.64) 3.05 (.63)
Yes 2.87 (.77) 3.12 (.69) 2.98 (.67)
* * *
No 2.94 (.74) 3.17 (.65) 3.04 (.64)
Gender:
Male 2.68 (.82) 2.96 (.81) 2.81 (.74)
* * *
Female 3.20 (.66) 3.22 (.64) 3.21 (.60)
Very competitive 2.93 (.74) 3.09 (.71) 3.00 (.65)
Fairly competitive 2.93 (.77) 3.08 (.73) 2.99 (.69)
Not competitive 2.96 (.87) 3.11 (.80) 3.03 (.71)
VI
Yes 2.99 (.78) 3.13 (.74) 3.05 (.68)

No 2.92 (.79) 3.08 (.74) 2.99 (.71)
Yes 2.87 (.63) 3.02 (.78) 2.93 (.75)
* * *
No 2.96 (.77) 3.11 (.73) 3.03 (.69)
Yes 2.89 (.84) 3.02 (.80) 2.95 (.76)
* * *
No 2.95 (.77) 3.11 (.72) 3.02 (.69)
Note. ID = Intellectual disability, PD = physical disability, VI = visual impairment,
M = average; SD = standard deviation; *= significance level p, statistically significant
difference, when p ≤ .05.
The correlation analysis shows a weak but statistically significant difference

between students’ attitude scores and personal attributes (Table 27). Correlation
analysis of all scales and subscales revealed that the attitude depends on the gender,
age (The attitude towards inclusion of peers with disabilities of younger students’
is more positive than that of older students), having the experience of inclusion of
135
students with disabilities in the general classes, excluding physical education
classes (those students who had no experience of inclusion had more positive
attitude then those who had this kind of experience). It was also found that the
inclusion of students with ID and VI in the physical education classes had a
statistically significant impact on the general negative attitude of students towards
inclusion (ID scale) and towards the changes in the sport game needed to include a
student with VI in the general game (VI scale) (Table 27). The analysis revealed
that lower levels of competitiveness of students had a positive influence on the
attitudes of students towards changes in the sport game to include a student with ID
and PD into the game (p < .05; Table 27).
Table 27. Spearman’s rank correlation between attitude scores and personal attributes
Factors
Gender Age Inclusion in Inclusion Competit-
Scales/subscales regular in PE iveness
education class class
r r r r r
General -.055* –
.176** -.104** -.089**
attitude
ID Sport – -.055*
.174** -.077** -.048*
modification
Total .182** -.105** -.080** – –
General – –
.142** -.142** -.063*
attitude
PD Sport – -.049*
.141** -.200** -.058*
modification
Total .158** -.184** -.061* – -.054*
General – –
.324** -.141** -.051*
attitude
VI Sport -.053* –
.140** -.184** -.057*
modification
Total .274** -.172** .054* – –
*= p < .05 – the result is statistically significant; **= p < .01 – the result is statistically
significant; – there is a relation, but not statistically significant.
A stepwise multiple regression analysis was used to explore the ability of

personal attributes to predict levels of attitude.
136
Regression analysis performed using ID common scales, general attitude,
sport modification attitude subscales revealed that students’ attitudes were influenced
by gender, age, and having peers with disabilities in general education classes.
Results of a multiple regression analysis for the ID scale data showed significant
models of gender, age and having peers with disabilities in general education classes:
total data of ID scale R = .229, R2 = .053 F (3, 1582) = 29.252, p = .000, and Cohen’s
f 2 = .056 which indicated a small effect size; data of general attitude subscale
R = .231, R2 = .054 F (3, 1582) = 29.804 p = .000, and Cohen’s f 2 = .057 which
indicated a small effect size; data of sport modification subscale showed significant
model of gender and age components R = .172, R2 = .030 F (2,1582) = 24.120,
p = .000, and Cohen’s f 2 = .031 which indicated a small effect size.
Regression analysis performed using data from PD overall scale, general
attitude, sport modification attitude subscales revealed that students’ attitudes were
influenced by gender, age and having classmates with disabilities in general
education classes. Results of a multiple regression analysis for the PD scale data
showed significant models of gender, age and having peers with disabilities in
general education classes: total data of PD scale R = .247, R2 = .061 F (3, 1582)=
34.109, p = .000, and Cohen’s f 2 = .065 which indicated a small effect size; data of
general attitude subscale R = .210, R2 = .044 F (3, 1582) = 24.204 p = .000, and
Cohen’s f 2 = .046 which indicated a small effect size; data of sport modification
subscale R = .249, R2 = .062 F (3, 1582) = 34.670, p = .000, and Cohen’s f 2 = .066
which indicated a small effect size.
Regression analysis performed using data from VI overall scale, general
attitude, sport modification attitude subscales revealed that students’ attitudes were
influenced by gender, age and having classmates with disabilities in general education
classes. Results of a multiple regression analysis for the VI scale data showed
significant models of gender, age and having peers with disabilities in general
education classes: total data of VI scale R = .326, R2 = .106 F (3, 1582) = 62.572, p =
.000, and Cohen’s f 2 = .12 which indicated a small effect size; data of sport
modification subscale R = .240, R2 = .057 F (3, 1582) = 32.074 p = .000, and Cohen’s
f 2 = .060 which indicated a small effect size; data of general attitude subscale showed
significant model of gender and age components R = .353, R 2= .120 F (2, 1582) =
112.664 p = .000, and Cohen’s f 2 = .14 which indicated a small effect size.
137
3.3. The educational experiment: effectiveness of two educational
strategies for the development of physical education teachers’ self-
efficacy creating inclusive learning environment
This study included a convenience sample of 58 volunteer PE teachers and

575 students from grades 5 to 9. The PE teachers’ groups were formed for the
experiment. Demographic data of the PE teachers’ groups are presented in Table 28.
Table 28. Demographic data of the PE teachers’ groups
PE teachers’ group
Demographic factors Control Group I Group II
group 18 h 40 h
n 22 22 14
Gender Males 9 7 2
Females 13 15 12
Age (SD) 52.73(6.37) 46.27(8.18) 42.71(8.14)
Teaching experience (SD) 28.82(8.46) 20.82(7.19) 15.43(8.59)
Completed APE seminar/course 7 1 4
Completed Special education 10(Pre) 7 10
seminar/course 15(Post)
Experience with students with ID 15 8 5
Experience with students with PD 9 6 5
Experience with students with VI 5 5 3
Experience with students with ASD 18 9 5
ASD = autism spectrum disorder; APE = adapted physical education; M = average;
SD = standard deviation; n = number of subjects.
Three groups of students were formed to evaluate the effect of the

intervention on students’ attitudes. Demographic data of the students’ groups are
presented in Table 29.
138
Table 29. Demographic data of the students’ groups
Group I Group II
Demographic factors Control group
18 h 40 h
n 196 265 114
Gender Boys 98 145 48
Girls 98 120 66
Age (SD) 13.71(1.19) 13.02(1.58) 12.94(1.01)
Had a student with disabilities
in PE classes
Yes 46 137 29
No 150 128 85
Note. M = average; SD = standard deviation; n = number of subjects.
Repeated measures ANOVA test results for Group I (18-hour online APE
course) showed that 18-hour online APE course had a positive and statistically
significant effect on general physical educators’ self-efficacy to include students
with intellectual disabilities, physical disabilities visual impairment, and autism
spectrum disorder into a general physical education class: ID scale F (1, 21) 21.81,
p = .000, Partial Eta Squared (η2) .51, Observed Power .994; PD scale F (1, 21)
27.01, p = .000, Partial η2 .56, Observed Power .999; VI scale F (1, 21) 18.39 p =
.000, Partial η2 .47, Observed Power .983; ASD scale F (1, 21) 23.81 p = .000,
Partial η2 .53, Observed Power .996 (Figure 15).
Repeated measures ANOVA test results for Group II (40-hour contact APE
course) showed that 40 hour contact APE course had a positive and statistically
significant effect on general physical educators’ self-efficacy to include students
with intellectual disabilities, physical disabilities, visual impairment, and autism
spectrum disorder into a general physical education class: ID scale F (1, 13) 8.48, p
= .012, Partial η2 .40, Observed Power .77; PD scale F (1, 13) 25.71, p = .000,
Partial η2 .66, Observed Power .997; VI scale F (1, 13) 24.01 p = .000, Partial η2
.65, Observed Power .995; ASD scale F (1, 13) 53.31 p = .000, Partial η2 .81,
Observed Power 1.000 (Figure 15).
Repeated measures ANOVA test results for Control group revealed
statistically insignificant differences between pre-intervention and post-
intervention values of general physical educators’ self-efficacy to include students
with intellectual disabilities, physical disabilities and visual impairment into a
general physical education class: ID scale F (1, 21) 2.09, p = .163, Partial η2 .09,
139
Observed Power .281; PD scale F (1, 21) .07, p = .797, Partial η2 .003, Observed
Power .06; VI scale F (1, 21) .58 p = .454, Partial η2 .03, Observed Power .113.
The analysis of pre- and post-intervention data of ID, PD, and VI scales revealed
that self-efficacy reduced after the intervention (Figure 15). Meanwhile, the
repeated measures ANOVA test results of the control group revealed statistically
significant differences of general physical educators’ self-efficacy to include
students with autism spectrum disorder into a general physical education class
before and after the intervention. After the intervention SE indicators increased:
ASD scale F (1, 21) 8.91 p = .007, Partial η2 .30, Observed Power .812 (Figure 15).
Control group
Group I 18 h*
ID
Group II 40 h*
Control group
PD
Group I 18 h*
Group II 40 h*
Control group
Group I 18 h*
VI
Group II 40 h*
1 2 3 4 5
Control group*
ASD
Group I 18 h*
Group II 40 h*
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Physical education teachers‘ self-efficacy level

ASD = autism spectrum disorder; * = p < .05 – the result of change between pre-test
and post-test is statistically significant.
Figure 15. Changes in ID, PD, VI, and ASD scales of PE teacher’s self-efficacy before
and after the intervention
140
Comparing the results of PE teachers’ self-efficacy between groups after the
experiment, statistically significant differences were identified between Group I
(18 h) and the Control group PE teachers’ self-efficacy towards including students
with intellectual disabilities (p = .043), physical disabilities (p = .000) and visual
impairments (p = .000); between Group II (40 h) and Control group PE teachers’
self-efficacy towards including students with intellectual disabilities (p = .045),
physical disabilities (p = .000) and visual impairments (p = .001); between the
Group I (18 h) and Group II (40 h) PE teachers’ self-efficacy towards including
students with physical disabilities (p = .049).
Repeated measures ANOVA test results of student Group I (students of PE
teachers who participated in the 18-hour online APE course) showed that the 18-
hour online APE course given to PE teachers had a positive and statistically
significant effect on students’ attitude towards the inclusion of peers with
intellectual disabilities into a regular physical education class (ID scale) F (1, 264)
14.96, p = .000, Partial η2 .05, Observed Power .971; a positive but statistically
insignificant effect on students attitude towards the inclusion of peers with physical
disabilities into a general physical education class (PD scale) F (1, 264) 2.33,
p = .128, Partial η2 .01, Observed Power .33 and students attitude towards the
inclusion of peers with visual impairment into a regular physical education class
(VI) scale F (1, 264) 2.00 p = .159, Partial η2 .01, Observed Power .291 (Figure 16).
Repeated measures ANOVA test results of student Group II (students of PE
teachers who participated in the 40-hour APE course) showed that the 40-hour
contact APE course had a positive and statistically significant effect on students’
attitudes towards the inclusion of peers with intellectual disabilities into a general
physical education class (ID scale) F (1, 113) 13.73, p = .046, Partial η2 .05,
Observed Power .782, students’ attitude towards the inclusion of peers with
physical disabilities into a general physical education class (PD scale) F (1, 113)
14.75, p = .041, Partial η2 .06, Observed Power .859, and students’ attitude towards
the inclusion of peers with visual impairment into a general physical education
class (VI scale) F (1, 113) 12.63 p = .047, Partial η2 .05, Observed Power .763
(Figure 16).
Repeated measures ANOVA test results of student Control group (students
of Control group of PE teachers) showed a negative and statistically significant
change of students’ attitudes towards the inclusion of peers with intellectual
disabilities, physical disabilities and visual impairment into general physical
141
education classes during the intervention: (ID scale) F (1, 195) 29.74, p = .000,
Partial η2 .13, Observed Power 1.000, (PD scale) F (1, 195) 11.47, p = .001, Partial
η2 .06, Observed Power .921, (VI) scale F (1, 195) 9.90 p = .002, Partial η2 .05,
Observed Power .879 (Figure 16).
Comparing the results of students’ attitudes towards inclusion of peers with
intellectual disabilities, physical disabilities, visual impairments into PE class
between the groups after the experiment, statistically significant differences
between Group I (18 h) and Control group (p = .000) were found, between Group
II (40 h) and Control group (p = .000), between Group I (18 h) and Group II (40 h)
(p = .000).
Control group*
Group II 18 h*
ID
Group II 40 h*
Control group*
PD
Group II 18 h
Group II 40 h*
Control group*
Group II 18 h
VI
Group II 40 h*
1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00

Level of students' attitudes

* = p < .05 the result of change between pre-test and post-test is statistically significant.
Figure 16. Changes in attitudes of students’ groups by ID, PD and VI scales before
and after the intervention
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient r was calculated before and after the
intervention to measure the statistical dependence between PE teachers’ self-
efficacy and students’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with disabilities in
PE classes. SE data of 11 PE teachers from Control group, 15 teachers from Group
I, and 6 teachers from Group II and respectively the data of their students’ attitudes
towards the inclusion of classmates with disabilities into the PE classes (General
attitude subscale data), and attitudes towards the change of the game rules in order
142
to include students with relevant disabilities (Attitude towards Sport modification
subscale data) were used to calculate the correlation. The obtained results revealed
a linear dependence between PE teacher’s self-efficacy level and students’ attitude,
i.e. the higher level of PE teacher’s self-efficacy correlated with a more positive
students’ attitude both to the inclusion of classmates with disabilities into general
PE classes and to the modification of rules of the game for the purpose of
inclusion. The data analysis also revealed a stronger correlation between PE
teacher’s self-efficacy level and students’ attitudes after the intervention.
Correlation results are presented in detail in Table 30.
Table 30. Spearman’s rank correlation between PE teachers’ self-efficacy level and
student’s attitudes before and after the intervention
Group I 18-hour Group II 40-hour

Control group
Testing course course
Scale
time General Sport General Sport General Sport
attitude modification attitude modification attitude modification
Pre -.048 -.016 -.029 -.314 .000 .069
ID
Post .020 .050 .086 .657 -.215 -.270
Pre -.138 -.157 .261 .429 .100 .228
PD
Post .218 .251 .371 .493 .706* .615*
Pre .050 .045 .086 .029 .535 .479
VI
Post .061 .090 .486 .543 .672* .616*
Note. * p < .05 = the result is statistically significant.
143
4. DISCUSSION
4.1. Analysis of instrument structure, validity and reliability of
Self-Efficacy Scale for Physical Education Teacher Education
Majors towards Children with Disabilities
The primary purpose of this study was to determine the structure and validity
of the Lithuanian version of the SE-PETE-LT in a sample of Lithuanian PE teachers.
The second purpose of this study was to indicate the associations between the type
of disability of students and the experience in APE and SE level of PE teachers.
After completing the EFA for each scale (ID, PD and VI) of the SE-PETE-
D-LT instrument, we found that all items in all scales presented only one factor.
The EFA in the different sample groups, which were formed according to different
demographical factors, showed that PE teachers who attended an APE course or
seminar influenced the structure of the scales. Although the sample size was not
large, we followed de Winter, Dodou and Wieringa’s (2009) recommendations,
suggesting that factor recovery can be reliable with sample sizes well below 50.
The results of the group of PE teachers who attended an APE course or seminar
showed some differences and similarities to the original SE-PETE-D scale (Block
et al., 2013). In the Lithuanian case, the ID scale consisted of two factors (in factor
F1 the questions related to staying on task in fitness test and when teaching sports
skills, modifying the test, equipment and actual skills; in the factor F2 the questions
were related to peers’ instruction, modifying the rules and staying on task during
the game); the PD scale consisted of three factors (in factor F1 the questions were
related to modifying the goals and the task, and instructing peers during fitness
testing; in factor F2 the questions related to safety and modifying equipment; and,
in factor F3 the questions related to instruction of peers when teaching sports skills
and during the game); the VI scale consisted of two factors (in factor F1 the
questions related to teaching the basic skills of the sport and playing the actual
game; in factor F2 the questions related to physical fitness testing). Comparing the
scale structures of Block et al. (2013) with the scale structures in our study, we
found questions relating to the instruction of peers to help students with ID in the
ID scale in our case. Also in the study provided by Block et al. (2013), it was
essential for establishing one of the factors. The PD scale structure also had more
similarities than differences with that of Block et al. (2013). In the Lithuanian
version of PD scale, the main areas of the structures are specific adaptation, safety
144
and peer instruction. In our study, one of the factors in the VI scale structure
consisted mostly of the physical fitness testing area; another factor involved
teaching of sport techniques and including students with VI into an actual game,
while in the case of Block et al. (2013), the study distinguished such factors as
specific adaptation and peer instruction. In addition, we performed a separate factor
analysis with the sample size of 138 participants. We randomly split the sample of
138 teachers (who had not participated in an APE course) into two independent
samples, and we again performed an EFA with one of them and a CFA with the
other half. The results show one factor structure in each scale, and that the one-
factor model in the each scale was fit. An EFA and CFA value shows that results of
this small sample were significant. However, if the aim is to strengthen results of
the separate analysis, the replication analysis should be done with a larger sample.
According to Block et al.’s (2013) study, results show that more than 80% of
the participants had experienced an APE course, seminar or practicum session, but
in the case of our study, we had the opposite situation (80% of the participants did
not have experience with APE). Given these circumstances, we suggest that those
PE teachers with less knowledge and experience are less differentiated in their SE
regarding inclusion and adaptation. PE teachers with more training and experience
appear to have a more differentiated perspective, one based on the knowledge
bases they have acquired. PE teachers who had taken an APE course or seminar
had a multidimensional structure in the questionnaire (of 2 or 3 factors, even
though the items were not equally distributed as in the original (Block et al., 2013),
and the other PE teachers (no APE course or seminar) had a unidimensional
structure. This may explain the discrepancy between our results of EFA and
original version results of EFA. According to scientists, cultural factors (Klassen,
2004) and performance experiences (Bandura, 1997) might influence both self-
efficacy and responses to questionnaires.
We compared our survey results with those of surveys conducted by
researchers in other countries (Table 31). It is noticeable that Taliaferro et al.
(2015) also indicated only one factor in each ID, PD and VI scale in their
preliminary testing of survey participants prior to practicum intervention, while in
Time 2 and Time 3 of EFA (which were performed after an APE training) the
outcomes varied, suggesting a multiple-factor solution in each of these scales.
Taliaferro et al. (2015) proposed that the results of their factor analysis be
interpreted in accordance with Osborne and Fitzpatrick (2012), suggesting that
145
when the same model is applied to a new sample, the model is rarely as good a fit,
and when the sample size is not met, the factor structure may not be stable or
generalizable. Another validation example of SE-PETE-D was conducted in the
Czech Republic by Baloun et al. (2016) and Kudláček et al. (2018), where no EFA
but only a CFA was performed in order to confirm the factors revealed by EFA in
the US (Block et al., 2013). The CFA results by Baloun et al. (2016) and Kudláček
et al. (2018) showed that the designed models of scales ID, PD and VI were a good
fit (Table 31). However, the degree of inclusion within the Czech school system
may have been different than that in the Lithuanian school system.
The Cronbach’s reliability coefficients of every scale are described in Table
31, in comparison to Cronbach’s reliability coefficients, which were obtained
during studies made in other countries with SE-PETE-D scales. As presented in
Table 31, our results of the internal consistency analysis reached very strong
reliability values (α for ID scale .96, α for PD scale .97, α for VI scale .98), which
were within the range of the other studies, except for that of Baloun et al. (2016),
who presented slightly lower values. It should be noted that Baloun et al. (2016)
and Kudláček et al. (2018) used a different set of scale questions than that used in
our study – that is, they used only those questions that Block et al. (2013) indicated
following EFA (6 questions in the ID scale, 10 questions in the PD, and 9 questions
in the VI scale). In our study, as well as in the Block et al. (2013), Taliaferro et al.
(2015), Tekidou et al. (2015), and Reina et al. (2016), studies, Cronbach’s α was
indicated using the preliminary amount of scale questions provided in the survey –
that is, 11 questions in the ID scale, 12 questions in the PD scale and 10 questions
in the VI scale.
The results of the test-retest analysis indicated that the SE-PETE-D-LT
instrument is sufficiently reliable. According to Vallerand (1989), a coefficient of
.60 or more is sufficient for test-retest analysis. In our study, the pooled Pearson’s
correlation coefficient of the scales’ scores was greater than .60. The reliability
measured in each scale separately showed that only the ID scale factor was slightly
below .60. Czech researchers (Baluon et al., 2016) reported a study with 17 Master
students, and the test-retest results after 14 days showed test-retest Spearman’s
reliability coefficients in the ID scale (r = .78), PD scale (r = .53) and VI scale (r =
.69). Given the similarly reliable results in the Lithuanian and Czech samples
across different time spans (14 days through 14 weeks), it appears that the SE-
PETE-D is reliable across repetitions.
146
Table 31. Comparison of reliability and construct validity results of studies
147
148
In regard to our second purpose, we found differences in PE teachers’ SE
across disability scenarios. The PE teachers who participated in the survey
presented moderate SE towards including students with ID (M = 3.31; SD = .79)
and students with PD (M = 3.11; SD = .87), and a significantly lower SE (p < .05)
towards including students with VI (M = 2.84; SD = 1.01) in a mainstream PE
class. Our findings are similar to those indicated in previous research that was not,
however, supported with ANOVA. For example, the mean SE results of Jovanović
et al. (2014) as well as of Hutzler and Shama (2017) indicated that PE students’ SE
was higher, referring to including students with ID or PD compared to including
students with VI. Baloun et al. (2016), Reina et al. (2016) and Taliaferro et al.
(2015) found that self-efficacy level is influenced by the type of disability: physical
education teachers’ sense of self-efficacy is higher when in the PE lessons they
include children with intellectual disabilities and physical disabilities compared to
including students with visual impairments.
This study data also shows that the PE teachers who had attended previous
APE training presented higher SE than those who did not attend such training. This
finding is supported by other researchers’ data with similar results (Hutzler et al.,
2005; Taliaferro, 2010; Wang, Qi, & Wang, 2015). Presumably, such teachers may
be influenced by the increased professional knowledge acquired during their
training, which leads to greater competence in overcoming barriers when including
students both with and without disabilities in their classes.
4.2. Analysis of structure, validity and reliability of physical education

autism instrument
The first purpose of this study was to approve the Lithuanian version of the
PESEISD-A validity and reliability.
The results of an exploratory factor analysis on the 10-question SE scale of
the Lithuanian versions revealed a one-factor solution explaining 82.99 percent of
the variance, while Taliaferro (2010) exploratory factor analysis revealed a one-
factor solution explaining 57.05 percent of the variance, and Confirmatory Factor
Analysis performed by Li et al. (2018) revealed the one-factor model of the
PESEISD-A fit the total sample (n = 432) adequately. The coefficients of internal
149
consistency and test-retest reliability of PE teachers’ self-efficacy towards
including students with ASD into general PE classes scale, Mastery experiences
scale, Vicarious experiences scale, Social Persuasion scale, Physiological State
scale, and Behaviours scale confirmed the appropriateness of the Lithuanian
versions of PESEISD-A-LT for data analysis. However, when we analysed the test-
retest reliability of perceived challenges scale, we found correlation coefficient
lower than .60. This result shows that the scale of Perceived challenges is more
sensitive to time period than other scales. Perhaps it is related to a long time period
between tests (14 weeks). When we compare our research results with those of
Taliaferro’s (2010) (n = 236), it can be observed that validity and reliability
coefficient values of SE scale and all scales are similar or higher except for the
coefficient of perceived challenges scale test-retest scores, where the value was less
than .60. A recently conducted study by Li et al. (2018) involving Chinese
preservice physical educators (n = 432) showed high coefficients of internal
consistency (α = .92) and test-retest reliability (r = .90) of SE scale.
The second purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between self-
efficacy scale and other scales. The correlation analysis between PESEISD-A-LT
scales showed that PE teachers’ SE beliefs experienced the strongest influence of
mastery experience. According to Bandura (1995), the most influential source of
efficacy information is personal mastery experiences because they provide the most
authentic evidence of whether one can master whatever it takes to succeed in a
particular field or endeavour. Tschannen-Moran and McMaster (2009) propose that
SE beliefs may be diminished when success is achieved through extensive external
assistance, after considerable effort, or on a task perceived as easy or unimportant.
It serves to convince them that they have what it takes to achieve increasingly
difficult accomplishments of a similar kind. Self-mastery is best achieved through
progressive mastery, which is attained by breaking down difficult tasks into small
steps that are relatively easy, in order to ensure a high level of initial success.
Individuals should then be given progressively more difficult tasks in which
constructive feedback is provided and accomplishments are celebrated before
increasingly challenging tasks are attempted (Heslin & Klehe, 2006). Also we
found that the source of efficacy information as vicarious experience, social
persuasion, and physiological states are significant predictors on PE teachers’ SE
beliefs. The influence of the observed models to the person’s sense of self-efficacy
depends on how much the observed model is similar to those who observe them
150
(Bandura, 1986). Through their behaviour and expressed ways of thinking,
competent models transmit knowledge and teach observers effective skills and
strategies for managing environmental demands (Klassen & Tze, 2014). (Bandura,
1997; Tschannen-Moran, & Mcmaster, 2009). Teachers who have doubts about
their activities and receive verbal encouragement from somebody to continue these
activities will likely put more efforts to perform as well as possible than those who
did not receive verbal encouragement (Bandura, 1997; Tschannen-Moran, &
Mcmaster, 2009). To the extent that persuasive boosts in perceived SE lead people
to try hard enough to succeed, self-affirming beliefs promote development of skills
and a sense of personal efficacy. People also rely on their physiological and
emotional states in judging their capabilities. Teachers’ experienced stress and
tension determine poor activity results (Bandura, 1995). It is not the sheer intensity
of emotional and physical reactions that is important but rather how they are
perceived and interpreted (Bandura, 1995). For example, teachers who have a high
sense of self-efficacy are likely to view their state of affective arousal as an
energizing facilitator of performance, whereas for those who have low self-efficacy
sense, their arousal is the factor which leads to weak activities (Vancouver et al.,
2001). Therefore it is needed to pay a lot of attention to teachers’ emotional state
improvement: preparing teachers and developing their competence after studies to
apply various methods in order to control themselves in stressful situations
(Maddux, 2009).
Results of analysis showed that SE beliefs had influence on their behaviour
to work with students with ASD who are included in their classes. Physical
educators who had higher levels of self-efficacy towards including students with
ASD tended to engage in behaviours associated with inclusion more frequently. In
addition, we found that mastery experience, vicarious experience, social persuasion
are strong predictors on behaviour. PE teachers who had these experiences
performed more often the tasks (modified equipment, activities, instructions, rules,
created a safe environment, promoted social interactions, assessed motor skills,
collaborated effectively with others, motivated the student) for students with ASD
who are included in general physical education classes. Armitage and Conner’s
(2001) meta-analysis showed that self-efficacy accounted for the most additional
variance in intention, and both perceived behavioural control and self-efficacy
accounted for equivalent proportions of variance in behaviour. The implication is
that individuals form intentions that they are confident with and they can enact
151
(those they perceive self-efficacy better), and that translation of intention into
action may be facilitated both by self-efficacy and assessment of more external
factors tapped by perceived behavioural control (Armitage & Conner, 2001).
Taliaferro (2010) found that PE teachers’ SE beliefs towards including a student
with ASD were a strong predictor on self-reported inclusion behaviour.
Also SE had a significant inverse relationship with perceived challenges.
Physical educators who had higher levels of self-efficacy perceived fewer
challenges associated with including students with ASD in their classes. Bandura
(1997) proposed that SE beliefs are associated with the degree of challenge that
exists in the context of a task. As it pertains to teaching students with SEN,
physical educators with low self-efficacy may view students with SEN as a threat
instead of a challenge for their professional performance (Hutzler et al., 2005).
Teachers who have a higher self-efficacy sense are likely to seek to undertake more
complicated tasks, but not avoid them; they will put more efforts to achieve better
results compared to teachers who have a low self-efficacy sense.
4.3. Analysis of structure, validity and reliability of the children’s

attitudes towards integrated physical education-revised instrument
The purpose of this study was to determine the structure and validity of the
Lithuanian version of the CAIPE-LT in a sample of Lithuanian general education
students without disabilities.
After providing EFA for each scale of CAIPE-LT (ID, PD, and VI), two-
factor structure was found in all scales. The results of the analysis showed that the
distribution of statements which comprise ID and PD scales factors was the same.
The distribution of the values of the VI scale factor differed slightly from the
structure of the ID and PD scale factors. When comparing the CAIPE-LT
instrument scales structure with the CAIPE-R version structure, the distribution of
CAIPE-LT ID, PD, and VI scaling factors between the factors slightly differed
from the CAIPE-R structure. The statement “Due to [Pseudonym] I would play
slower because he cannot play so fast”, which belong to the subscale General
attitude, was assigned to the Sport modification subscale on all scales of the
Lithuanian version (ID, PD, VI) by turning the axis of factors using the Varimax
rotation method. The statements “When playing football I would be happy to pass
152
the ball to [Pseudonym]” (ID scale) and “Playing basketball I would be happy to
pass the ball to [Pseudonym]” (PD scale) belonging to the Sport modification
subscale, was assigned to the General attitude subscale by turning the axis of
factors using the Varimax rotation method. The statement “I would hold
[Pseudonym]’s hand and would say prompts/warnings constantly” (VI scale)
belonging to the Sport modification subscale, was assigned to the General attitude
subscale by turning the axis of factors using the Varimax rotation method. Factors
contributing to the CAIPE-LT Lithuanian version explained more than 50% of the
overall dispersion. This score is very high comparing it with the results of the
studies conducted by Campos et al. (2013), Cordente-Mesas et al. (2016), and
Hutzler and Levi (2008) (Table 32). The factors which were noted by Kudláček et
al. (2011) also explained more than 50% of dispersion (Table 32). The factors
identified in the Lithuanian CAIPE version define the same subscales as the
CAIPE-R version: Factor 1 is described as a General attitude subscale (students’
attitude towards including students with disabilities into physical education class),
and Factor 2 is described as a Sport modification subscale (students’ attitude
towards changes of the rules of the game to include students with disabilities). An
analysis of other researchers’ work showed that the general physical education
attitude subscale in the studies of Czech researchers Kudláček et al. (2011) was
called as General beliefs about inclusion in physical education subscale and the
sport specific subscale Belief about actual behaviour (Table 32). Comparative
analysis of the research also revealed that three factors were identified in the
studies carried out by the Portuguese and Spanish researchers, two factors were
described in the same way as in CAIPE-R (Block, 1995), the third factor was
identified by Spanish researchers as External Assistance (Cordente-Mesas et al.,
2016). It should be noted that the CAIPE questionnaire taken from the Spanish
research evaluated the students’ attitudes towards classmates who had visual
impairments. The items 9 and 11 refer to the concept of counting on external help
to provide support to the peer with disability. Cordente-Mesas et al. (2016) believe
that Spanish students tend to be positive towards this idea, having obtained higher
values that in the sentences contained in the original Sport Specific subscale, and
that, for the Spanish students, the idea of helping the peers with disabilities is
significantly more interesting that the idea of modifications of sport rules, which
could explain the presence of this third factor.
In order to confirm CAIPE-LT versions’ ID, PD, and VI scale factor
153
structures revealed by EFA, CFA was performed for each of these scales. To
improve the model-data fit, the Amos software automatically created a
‘modification index’, which suggested several errors (residuals, designated as an
e + number) to be correlated. The chi-square was significant (model fit) in all
models. When the sample is less than 200, the acceptable model fit is at a time
p > .05, and when the sample is more than 200 acceptable model fit is when p < .05
(Awang, 2015). The other goodness of fit measures also demonstrated an
acceptable model fit. In the three evaluated models, the NFI and CFI exceeded the
.90 cut-off criteria. In the ID, PD, and VI scales the RMSEA demonstrated good fit
to the model. In the case of Portugal (Campos et al., 2013), the CFA was
performed on the basis of the CAIPE-R (Block, 1995) structural model and
indicated that the overall model was moderately supported by the two-factor
structure for the four out of six criteria reaching the cut-off intervals acceptable to
confirm the model fit.
The CAIPE-LT results of the internal consistency analysis reached good
reliability values (α for ID scale .83, α for PD scale .87, α for VI scale .89).
Subscale results of the internal consistency analysis also reached acceptable and
good reliability values (Table 32). Compared to other authors’ data, CAIPE-LT
internal consistency values were very high (Table 32). The results of the test-retest
analysis indicated that the CAIPE-LT instrument is sufficiently reliable. According
to Vallerand (1989), a coefficient of .60 or more is sufficient for test-retest
analysis. In our study, the pooled Spearman-Brown correlation coefficient of the
subscale scores was greater than .60. CAIPE-R (Block, 1995) test-retest coefficient
of general PE attitude subscale was also marked by good stability, and the sport
specific subscale, on the contrary, did not show good stability (Table 32).
A comparative study was conducted between the data of this study, data
from US (Block, 1995), and research data obtained by other European scientists
(Campos et al., 2013; Cordente-Mesas et al., 2016; Hutzler & Levi, 2008;
Kudláček et al., 2011) and it showed that CAIPE-LT is a valid and reliable
instrument (Table 32).
154
Table 32. Comparison of reliability and construct validity results of studies
155
156
4.4. The situation study of physical education teachers self-efficacy
disabilities in the general physical education classes
The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of physical education
teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs towards including students with special educational
needs (intellectual disability, physical disability, and visual impairments) in the
general education classes, demographic characteristics and other personal attributes
influence on the teachers’ self-efficacy levels.
Analysis of physical education teachers’ personal attributes showed that one
fifth of physical education teachers had adapted physical education (APE) courses
or seminars in their studies or after graduation, and about half of the respondents
answered that they had completed special education course or workshops during or
after studies. The analysis of US researchers Beamer and Yun (2014) who examined
142 PE teachers (mean age 46; SD = 9.20) showed a reverse situation in Lithuania:
in undergraduate studies more than 70% of teachers had an APE course, and a
special education course (during undergraduate and graduate studies) was offered to
less than 30% of PE teachers. Also, this study found that less than one third of PE
teachers had APE course during graduate studies, and 68% in in-service training
(Beamer & Yun, 2014). Spanish researchers Seirra et al.’s (2016) study results of 79
PE teachers (mean age 40.4; SD = 9.20) show that 18.1% of teachers had APE
courses. Analysing the results of the support received, it was found that more than
half of the interviewed physical education teachers had the opportunity to get or got
the support from a psychologist, but the support of such professionals as the APE,
teacher’s assistant, special educator, or physiotherapist was available to only one-
sixth of physical education teachers. A study by US researchers Beamer and Yun
(2014) found that 72% of PE teachers received support from a teacher assistant,
80% from a special education teacher and 49% from a physical therapist. By
analysing the teachers’ experiences when including students with disabilities in the
general physical education classes, one third of teachers had the experience of
including students with ID, PD, and VI into a physical education class. Based on
this situation, the analysis of data from self-efficacy scores revealed that self-efficacy
of the physical education teachers who participated in the study in Lithuania was
moderate; the highest level of confidence was determined by including students with
intellectual disability, and the least – including students with visual impairments.
157
Comparing the level of self-efficacy of Lithuanian physical education
teachers with the self-efficacy estimated and presented in other countries, it was
found that teachers of physical education in Spain showed a similar level of self-
efficacy as the Lithuanian physical education teachers (Reina et al., 2016; Sierra et
al., 2016), higher self-efficacy levels were demonstrated by current and future
physical education teachers from the United States (Block et al., 2013; Taliaferro et
al., 2015), Serbia (Jovanović et al., 2014), and Czech Republic (Baloun et al.,
2016). It was also found that the level of self-efficacy of physical education
teachers in Lithuania as well as in other countries depends on the type of student
disability. For example, the mean SE results of Jovanović et al. (2014) as well as
those of Hutzler and Shama (2017) indicated that Sport and PE students’ SE was
higher in regard to including students with ID or PD compared to including
students with VI. The SE study results of Baloun et al. (2016), who surveyed the
last year Bachelor students, also revealed the tendency of SE to be higher in
including students with PD compared to students with ID and VI. The results of
Taliaferro et al.’s (2015) Course 1 and Course 2 time 1 (before the practicum
intervention) also indicated that SE was higher while considering the inclusion of
students with PD than students with ID and VI. On the other hand, Reina et al.’s
(2016) SE results showed a tendency for SE to be higher when including students
with ID than when including those with VI and PD. Therefore, it can be concluded
that the type of disability influences the teachers’ level of SE, and that the inclusion
of students with VI into PE classes appears to be a greater challenge for PE
teachers than the inclusion of students with ID or PD. Analysing the data, it was
observed that in response to the questions in demographic section “Did you have
the APE course /seminars during the studies or after graduating?”, there were
statistically significant differences between those teachers who had the course of
the applied physical activity and the teachers who did not complete the course
/seminars. A significant difference was found between self-efficacy level of
teachers’ who had experience in including students with physical disabilities and
visual impairments in the general lessons and those who did not have this
experience. The studies conducted by Beamer and Yun (2014) and Reina et al.
(2016) also show that PE teachers who indicated that they had the experience of
including students with disabilities into the PE classes had a higher level of self-
efficacy than teachers who did not have this experience. By analysing teachers’
self-efficacy levels among those who had personal experience with people with
158
intellectual disabilities, physical disabilities and visual impairment and those who
did not, the results showed that experience with friends with disability had a
significant impact on teachers’ self-efficacy towards including students with
disabilities in the activities of general lessons. This result confirms that friends play
a significant role in the process of personal socialization (Berns, 2009), that is,
teachers who had persons with disabilities among their friends, not only had more
positive attitudes towards the process of inclusion, but also had a higher self-
efficacy level, when it was necessary to include students with disabilities in the
general physical education class. By analysing the differences between self-
efficacy level of teachers who have received support from physical activity,
teachers’ assistants, physiotherapists, specialist teachers, psychologists and those
who did not get the support from these specialists, it was observed that a higher
level of self-efficacy was found among those who had the support from such
specialists. A correlation relationship was calculated to determine the strength of
the relationship between the level of self-efficacy and the support received from the
specialists for including student with disability in the physical education class
activity. Calculated correlation coefficients of Spearmen’s ranking between the
level of self-efficacy and the support received from APE specialist, the teacher’s
assistant, and physiotherapist were weak but significant. Based on the results of the
correlation, it can be assumed that the support received from the APE specialist,
the teacher’s assistant and the physiotherapist had a greater positive effect on the
self-efficacy of the physical education teacher towards including students with
disability in the general physical education class activities than the support got
from a special education teacher or psychologist. Meanwhile, Beamer, and Yun
(2014) found that special education teacher support also had a positive influence on
teacher self-efficacy (r = .23; p < .01).
Correlation analysis revealed that: APE course /seminars had a positive
influence on the physical education teachers’ self-efficacy towards including
students with physical disability and visual impairments; the previous experience of
including students with disabilities had a positive influence on teachers’ self-
efficacy towards including students with visual impairments; the previous personal
experience with a person with disability had a positive influence on teachers’ self-
efficacy towards including students with ID, PD, and VI; the possibility to get or
getting the support from an APE specialist had a positive influence on teachers’
self-efficacy towards including students with PD, and VI; the possibility to get or
159
getting the support from a teachers’ assistant had a positive influence on teachers’
self-efficacy towards including students with ID, and VI; the possibility to get or
getting the support from a physiotherapist had a positive influence on teachers’ self-
efficacy towards including students with ID, PD, and VI. These results show that in
order to increase the level of self-efficacy of physical education teachers, the type of
disability should be taken into account, as the teacher including students with
different disabilities faces different challenges. For example, according to the results
of this study, the level of self-efficacy of teachers towards including students with
ID was higher when they had personal experience with persons with a disability,
when they had the opportunity to receive support from a teacher’s assistant and a
physiotherapist; the level of self-efficacy of teachers towards including students
with PD was higher when they had personal experience with persons with a
disability, had the APE course /seminars, had the opportunity to receive support
from an APE specialist and a physiotherapist; the level of self-efficacy of teachers
towards including students with VI was higher when they had personal and working
experience with persons with a VI, when they had APE course, had the opportunity
to receive support from an APE specialist, a teachers’ assistant and a physiotherapist.
The regression analysis clarified the results of the correlation analysis and
found that the sense of teachers’ self-efficacy to include students with ID and PD
depended on received APE course or workshops during or after their studies, the
support received from a physiotherapist, personal experience with persons with ID
and PD; the level of self-efficacy of teachers towards including students with VI
depended on the APE course, support from a physiotherapist and the experience of
including students with VI in general PE class.
The analysis of research results showed that such factors as the support of
professionals (APE specialist, teacher assistants), adapted physical education
knowledge, and teacher training in inclusive practices had a positive influence on
the PE teachers’ self-efficacy sense towards creating an inclusive learning
environment for students with SEN (Hutzler, 2003; Jerlinder et al., 2010; Karani &
Skordilis, 2016; Kwon & Block, 2017; Mauerberg-deCastro et al., 2013; Reina et
al., 2016; Taliaferro, 2010; Tindall et al., 2016).
Having in mind that direct experience with people with disabilities, the APE
knowledge and support received positively influence the feeling of self-efficacy of
PE teachers, it is necessary to develop and apply strategies for the development
teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs towards inclusion of students with SEN.
160
4.5. The situation study about physical education teachers’ self-efficacy
general physical education classes
The first purpose in this study was to provide an assessment of current

physical education teachers’ self-efficacy toward including students with ASD. The
data analysis revealed that moderate (5–6 out of a possible 10) level of SE toward
the inclusion of students with ASD into general PE classes prevailed among the
Lithuanian PE teachers who participated in the survey. This result reveals that PE
teachers do not feel well prepared to include students with ASD in their classes.
The results of this study show a significant difference in SE-level between
Lithuanian and US teachers. The research carried out by Taliaferro et al. (2015)
showed that the level of students in physical education teacher education programs
is much higher than the average (8–9 out of a possible 10). This shows that
although Lithuania has been legally moving from integration towards inclusive
education, in practice, the development of inclusion is facing obstacles such as a
lack of competent teachers. Ensuring the training of teachers for working with
children with different educational needs and ensuring continuous improvement of
qualifications and competences is one of the main challenges the education system
is still facing not only in Lithuania but also in other countries (European Agency
for Development in Special Needs Education, 2012; Galkienė, 2016; Griggs &
Medcalf, 2015).
The secondary purpose of this study was to identify which predictors made
the influence on the PE teachers’ SE level toward inclusion students with ASD. For
this purpose, analyses have been carried out which allowed to determine
relationships between the level of SE, personal attributes, the sources of SE,
behaviour, and perceived challenges.
Personal attributes and self-efficacy. The Lithuanian PE teachers’ SE level
study revealed that the PE teachers’ SE level was positively influenced by the APE
course or seminar, students with ASD included in PE classes, support from APE
specialists, physiotherapists, psychologists, and personal experience with
individuals with ASD (friends or family members with ASD). The Lithuanian PE
teachers’ SE level study found that direct contact with students with ASD in
inclusive settings had a significant impact on PE teachers’ self-efficacy
development: having students with ASD in PE classes and having friends with
161
ASD. The results obtained by Beamer and Yun (2014) and Taliaferro (2010) also
indicate that this kind of teachers’ experiences predicted their SE for including
students with ASD. According to Bandura (1986), mastery experience is one of the
strongest sources, which make the significant influence on personal self-efficacy.
However, the impact of available mastery experiences on SE level is dependent on
how PE teachers succeeded in including students with ASD in the class (Bandura,
1997; Block et al., 2010; Klassen & Tze, 2014; Tschannen-Moran & McMaster,
2009). This depended on whether the student with ASD was only integrated into
PE class, but the PE teacher did not include him/her in physical activity or if the PE
teacher tried to include the student with ASD, but he failed to do this successfully,
and if the PE teacher included the student with ASD and it seemed to be a good
thing for him/her, and the level of the SE might decrease or even increase
significantly.
In such cases, appropriate knowledge or support from other professionals is
required (Campos et al., 2015). The analysis of the results found that the PE
teachers’ SE level was positively influenced by the APE course or seminar and
received support from APE specialists, physiotherapists, psychologists, but very
few PE teachers had these courses or seminars and support from these specialists.
Based on results of Taliaferro’s (2010) study it was identified that having
APE courses had a statistically significant effect on the level of SE of the teachers
of physical education. The systematic literature review on inclusion in physical
education (1975–2015) by Tant and Watelain (2016) revealed that one of the major
limitations for inclusive education is APE training. A qualitative study by Tant and
Watelain (2016) had previously shown “that PE teachers needed regular APE
training focused on inclusive didactic strategies and pedagogical adaptations and
the support of teachers with inclusion experience (co-teaching) throughout their
careers (starting at the university level)” (p. 11). Pedagogical training towards
inlusion students with SEN could refer to the use of the following: “a mastery
climate that facilitates students’ concentration on their own learning process rather
than on the performance; cooperative learning, which is the instructional use of
small groups of students who must work together to achieve a common goal; peer
tutoring is an instructional strategy that provides a trained peer tutor to support a
student with SEN in PE courses” (p. 12) (Tant & Watelain, 2016). The study of
Marimuthu and Cheong (2015) highlights the necessity of adequate knowledge for
teachers working in inclusive education conditions and argue that “inclusive
162
education requires well equipped, knowledgeable and competent teachers who are
able to foster the required values, confidence and support in students with SEN,
thus preparing them to become capable citizens” (p. 317). Hassan, Ahmed, and
Alasmari (2015), who studied the attitudes of special educators towards educating
students with autism in regular settings, found that teachers who studied in special
courses on inclusive education demonstrated more positive attitudes compared to
those teachers who had not studied in special courses. Healy et al. (2017) found in
their study that pre-service PE students typically acquired one course devoted to
APE and argued that this was insufficient preparation for the successful inclusion
of students with disabilities in PE. Taliaferro and Harris (2014) also indicated that a
one-day workshop did not have a significant impact on physical educators’ SE
toward inclusion. Inclusion of Adapted Physical Education into the teachers’
training programs has a positive effect on PE and other teachers’ attitudes towards
inclusion of children with disabilities and increases the self-efficacy sense to
effectively include students with disabilities in class (Healy et al., 2017; Taliaferro
et al., 2015). Recent studies also confirmed the positive effect of APE knowledge
(Kwon & Block, 2017) and its importance (Hutzler & Barak, 2017) for teacher’s
SE in developing an inclusive educational environment for students with disabilities.
Beamer and Yun (2014) and Taliaferro (2010) indicated that the support got
for including students with ASD into general PE was mostly provided by a special
education teacher and teacher assistants. According to Beamer & Yun’s (2014)
survey, almost 80% of PE teachers received the special educator’s support in cases
when students with ASD had to be included in general PE classes. Such support
was available for only about 47% of the PE teachers participating in the current
study and this was also the most common support reported. When comparing the
data concerning the support from teacher assistants reported in Beamer and Yun’s
(2014) survey and in our survey, differences were noticeable. In the Lithuanian case,
only about 15% of the teachers received a teacher assistant, whereas 72% of
respondents in Beamer and Yun’s (2014) study stated that such support was
available for them. In addition, 76% of teachers interviewed in Beamer and Yun’s
(2014) survey reported that APE specialists’ support was available, should the
teacher need it. In Lithuanian case, only about 11% of PE teachers said that the APE
specialist support was available to them. It has also been found that received support
from a physiotherapist (9%) and a psychologist (6%), significantly positively
influence PE teachers’ SE level, but only very few PE teachers received this support.
163
When comparing the US and Lithuania, Lithuanian teachers lack specialists’ support.
Sources of self-efficacy as predictors. Identification of the relationship
between the SE scores and ME, VE, SP, and PS scores enabled to disclose what
kind of sources and combination of the sources made the largest impact on the PE
teachers’ SE levels when including students with ASD into the class activities.
Results of our analysis confirmed the results of research made by Bandura (1986)
and other scientists (Block et al., 2016; Klassen & Tze, 2014; Lent & Hackett,
2009; Ozyilmaz et al., 2018; Taliaferro, 2010; Taliaferro et al., 2015; Tschannen-
Moran & McMaster, 2009; Urton et al., 2014) that mastery experiences play an
important role in developing the SE level. It was also found that PE teachers with
higher SE feel less stress and worry when they have to include a student with ASD
into the general PE class (Taliaferro, 2010). This result shows that developing
physical education teachers’ SE toward inclusion of students with ASD, it is
important to enhance physical status, reduce stress and negative emotional
proclivities, and correct misinterpretations of bodily states (Bandura, 2006). The
results of the regression analyses showed that such sources of self-efficacy as
combination of ME, PS and VE had the most effective impact on developing PE
teachers’ SE level toward inclusion of students with ASD. A study conducted by
Urton et al. (2014) confirms a relationship between a teacher’s mastery and
vicarious experiences and his/her SE towards inclusive education.
Self-efficacy, behaviour, and perceived challenges. Results of the analyses
showed that a higher level of SE enables to create a more inclusive environment for
students with ASD in a general PE class; and vice versa, the frequency of creating
an inclusive environment for students with ASD increases the PE teachers’ SE. The
correlation between SE score, BEH and PCH scales leads to the presumption that
the more often and inclusive environment for students with ASD in a general PE
class is created, the less importance is given to situations that hinder the delivery of
a meaningfully inclusive PE class. The correlation analysis showed that the
challenges teachers face have the significant influence on SE level. Taliaferro’s
(2010) performed multiple regression also indicated that the linear combination of
SE and perceived challenges were significantly related to behaviour. According to
Bandura (1997), we can assume that PE teachers with high levels of SE will be
more likely inclined to include students with ASD into physical activities and more
likely to attempt difficult tasks to ensure the qualitative inclusion of students with
ASD into physical education classes.
164
Path model. Based on correlation and multiple regression analysis results,
path model was formed, which helped to reveal causal relationships between
sources and level of self-efficacy, level of SE, behaviour and perceived challenges.
The results of path analysis confirmed such a model for the development and
influence of SE in behavioural work in an inclusive PE class: Lithuanian PE
teachers’ SE level toward inclusion students with ASD is most affected by mastery
experience, vicarious experience and physiological state; PE teachers’ behaviour
and perceived challenges depend on the influence of those sources on the SE level;
behaviour is related with perceived challenges, that is as often as possible PE
teachers create an inclusive learning environment the less they can see the
challenges that can make it difficult for students with ASD to be included in
physical activity (Taliaferro, 2010).
Taking into account the results of this model and other results of this
research, it would be possible to formulate the following strategy for educating
self-efficacy of physical education teachers: continuous APE courses or seminars
based on mastery experiences and vicarious experiences; additionally, methods to
enhance the psychological state of PE teachers; the team of specialists for support
(APE specialist, physiotherapist, psychologist) is ensured.
Challenges. An analysis of challenges’ scale was performed in order to
identify the challenges most often faced by Lithuanian PE teachers. This analysis
was carried out on different PE teachers groups, according to whether they had or
not a student with ASD in their PE class. Such an analysis has been carried out as it
helps to understand the difficulties faced by PE teachers who have already had
students with ASD in their PE classes and what difficulties PE teachers think they
would face when including students with ASD in PE classes. The analysis revealed
that the main challenges for both groups of PE teachers are associated with the
management of a big class with lot of students, and lack of support. In addition,
teachers who had students with ASD in their PE classes experienced one of the
most common difficulties because they did not have appropriate equipment; and
teachers who did not have students with ASD in their PE classes considered having
limited training on working with students with ASD would also cause serious
difficulties The obtained results lead to the conclusion that multiple classes in the
gym and large class sizes are the biggest barriers for the inclusion of students with
ASD into general PE class. Unianu (2012) suggests that decreasing the number of
students in one class is a very important factor for creating a more inclusive
165
environment. Such activities as the assurance of the necessary support to the
teacher, adequate time allocation to prepare the educational activity plan and
assurance of interactive partnerships between teachers, students, teachers and
parents are also very important when creating inclusive education environment.
However, in their study on special educators’ attitudes towards educating students
with autism in regular settings, Hassan et al. (2015) did not find any significant
differences in the attitudes of special education teachers towards educating students
with autism in regular settings according to the class size. Obrusnikova and Dillon
(2011) found that in the case of including students with ASD in PE class, PE
teachers most often experience challenges related to cooperative, competitive, and
individualistic learning situations. Obrusnikova and Dillon (2011) found that when
including children with ASD in PE classes, PE teachers most often experience
challenges related to cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning
situations. Obrusnikova and Dillon (2011) concluded that PE teachers must
acknowledge potential teaching challenges such as planning for and addressing
inattentive and hyperactive behavior, social behavior difficulties, and emotional
regulation difficulties.
4.6. The situation study about students’ attitudes towards including

peers with disabilities into general physical education classes
The purpose of this study was to identify the prevailing attitudes of students
in Lithuanian schools to the inclusion of classmates in the general physical
education classes and personality attributes which influence their attitudes.
The analysis of statistical indicators revealed that only about one third of
students indicated that there were students with disabilities in their physical
education and other classes. Taking into account this situation, the analysis of the
students’ attitudes towards the inclusion of peers with disabilities (ID, PD and VI
scale) in the general physical education classes revealed that the students’ attitude
score towards the inclusion of students with disabilities in the general physical
education class was 3, this means, that students more often chose the answer
probably yes talking about the possible inclusion. This indicates that the students
were not sure whether they would act the same as they thought. Comparing the
results of this study with other researchers’ data it was found that in US (Block,
166
1995; McKay et al., 2015) and Israel (Hutzler & Levi, 2008) the score was also 3
(probably yes), and in countries such as Spain (Cordente-Mesas et al., 2016), the
Czech Republic (Kudláček et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2013), Greece (Arampatzi et al.,
2011; Bebetsos et al. 2014; Bebetsos et al. 2013; Panagiotou et al., 2006), Portugal
(Campos et al., 2013), and Belgium (Van Biesen et al., 2006) the score was more
than 3, this means that students in these countries are more positively inclined to
include students with disabilities in the PE classes. By analysing the findings from
the General attitude and Sport Modification attitude subscales, it was observed that
the General attitude subscale score tended to be more negative and the attitude
score of the subscale Sport modification tended to be more positive. Based on this
data, we can assume that students are not positive about the inclusion of students
with disabilities in their physical education classes, but when asked about changes
in games, their attitudes were more positive. The changes made during the game
were interesting for them, thus their attitudes changed positively. The results of
studies conducted in other countries were different: some researchers found that the
attitudes towards including students with disabilities in the general physical
education classes were more positive than the attitudes towards changes in the
sports games (Cordente-Mesas et al., 2016; Hutzler & Levi, 2008; McKay et al.,
2015), in other studies, students’ attitudes to changes in game rules were more
positive than students’ attitudes towards inclusion to PE classes (Block, 1995;
Bebetsos et al., 2014; Campos et al., 2013; Kudláček et al., 2011; Panagiotou et al.,
2006; Papaioannou et al., 2013; Papaioannou et al., 2014; Van Biesen et al., 2006;
Xafopoulos et al., 2009).
Comparing the data obtained between the scales, students’ attitudes were
more positive towards inclusion of peers with ID and PD than the ones with SEN.
Analysing the attitudes of students towards inclusion of their classmates with
disability to the general physical education class according to the demographic
data, it was found that girls’ attitudes were more positive than those of boys. Many
researchers also found that girls’ attitudes were more positive than those of boys
(Arampatzi et al., 2011; Bebetsos et al., 2014; Block, 1995; Campos et al., 2013;
Van Biesen et al., 2006). However, data analysis performed by gender show that in
some studies boys tend to have more positive attitudes towards changing game
rules than girls (McKay et al., 2015; Xafopoulos et al., 2009). In reviewing the
research on students’ point of view towards the inclusion of students with SEN in
the general PE classes, it was found that the more frequent interaction of students
167
with SEN students (Arampatzi et al. 2011; Kudláček et al., 2011; Obrusníkoková et
al., 2003; Seymour et al., 2009) and personal experience with persons with
disabilities (family member, friend) had a positive impact on their attitudes to the
inclusion of these students (Block, 1995). The results of the Lithuanian situation
survey showed that students who did not have peers with disabilities in physical
education and other classes had more positive attitudes towards inclusion than
those who did have this experience. Such an approach is also seen in a study
conducted by Israel scientists (Hutzler & Levi, 2008). The personal experience
(friend or family member) had no significant impact on the attitudes, but the results
indicate a positive trend in attitudes. Also Hutzler and Levi (2008) found that there
was no difference in attitudes between children who participated in sport classes
and those who did not, and that children who had previous exposure to children
with disability exhibited reduced willingness toward including them in physical
education classes. The results of the Lithuanian situation survey showed that
students who always wanted to win and got very upset due to defeat, rated students
with ID and PD in sports games more negatively than the ones having lower levels
of competitiveness. Meanwhile, there was no significant difference between the
attitudes of students with a very high competitive level and lower levels of
competitiveness, while including students with VI. Block (1995), McKay (2013),
and Van Biesen et al. (2006), also found that students who considered themselves
as kind of competitive or non-competitive were more positive towards including
peers with disability in the PE classes and changes in the game rules than students
who considered themselves very competitive.
Correlation analysis on all scales and subscales confirmed that attitudes
depended on gender, age (younger students were more positive towards students
with disabilities than older students), and the inclusion of students with disabilities
in general classes other than physical education (students who did not have
students with disabilities in general classes, had more positive attitudes than those
students who had). It was also found that the inclusion of students with ID and VI
in the physical education classes had a significant impact on the negative attitudes
towards general physical education (ID scale) of the students and the attitudes to
the changes in the sport game that are needed to include the students with VI into
common game (VI scale). The analysis showed that lower levels of
competitiveness had a positive influence on the attitudes of students to changes in
the sports games to include students with ID and PD in the game.
168
Results of a multiple regression analysis for the ID scale and general
physical education attitude subscale data showed significant models of gender, age
and having disabled peers in general education classes. Results of a multiple
regression analysis for the sport modification subscale revealed a significant model
of gender and age components. A stepwise regression analysis performed using
data from the PD common scale, general attitude, and sport modification attitude
subscales revealed that students’ attitudes depended on gender, age, and having
classmates with disabilities in general education classes. Regression analysis
performed using VI common scale and sport modification attitude subscales data
revealed that students’ attitudes depended on gender, age, and having classmates
with disabilities in general education classes. Results of a multiple regression
analysis for the general attitude subscale showed a significant model of gender and
age components. Block’s (1995) regression analysis results also showed that
general attitudes towards inclusion in physical education were affected by such
personality attributes as school attendance, gender, and having a family member or
close friend with a disability, while sports specific attitudes were affected by only
one attribute - having a family member or a close friend with disability.
According to the results of the Lithuanian situation study, it is necessary
further to develop this field of study and take steps to change the attitudes of
Lithuanian students towards the inclusion of students with disability in the general
physical education class. One of the most effective ways in the US and European
countries is to organize Paralympic school days in general education schools (Liu
et al., 2010; McKay, 2013; McKay, Block, & Park, 2015; McKay, Haegele, &
Block, 2018; Panagiotou et al., 2006; Van Biesen et al., 2006; Xafopoulos et al.,
2009) and summer camp (were the Disability Camp Program is applied)
(Papaioannou et al., 2014) for the non-diabled students. According to Papaioannou
et al. (2014), an inclusive summer camp could be organized and its impact on the
attitude of students could be evaluated.
169
4.7. The educational experiment: the effectiveness of two educational
strategies for the development of physical education teachers’ self-
efficacy creating inclusive learning environment
The aim of this study was to evaluate two strategies used for building PE
teachers’ self-efficacy and to analyse their effectiveness. The results of the
experiment will also help to determine which training method is the most suitable
for building general PE teachers’ skills to include students with disabilities into
general physical education classes.
The first strategy was based on the 18-hour online APE course and its
delivery, and the second strategy was based on the 40-hour contact APE course and
its delivery. Two experimental PE teacher groups and one control group were
formed. The control group did not receive any training. Three student groups
trained by PE teachers in the aforementioned groups were also formed. Changes in
students’ attitudes towards the inclusive PE classes were evaluated with respect to
the changes in PE teachers’ sense of self-efficacy during the intervention. The
change in students’ attitudes enabled to evaluate the effect of PE teacher’s
participation in the training course on students’ behaviour, namely on students’
attitudes towards the inclusion of classmates with intellectual and physical
disabilities as well as visual impairment into a regular PE class. Thus the
evaluation of the change in students’ attitudes was used as one of the indicators of
strategy effectiveness.
The analysis of the effect of the first strategy (delivery of the 18-hour online
APE course) revealed that PE teachers’ sense of self-efficacy while including
students with ID, PD, VI and ASD significantly improved. The inter-comparison of
data of the scales showed that the 18-hour online APE course had a positive effect
on PE teachers’ sense of self-efficacy for the inclusion of students with PD and
ASD. The analysis of the data of teachers who participated in the 40-hour contact
APE course revealed a significantly strengthened sense of self-efficacy when
including children with ID, PD, VI and ASD. The greatest effect of this course was
observed in increasing PE teachers’ self-efficacy when including students with
ASD, PD, and VI into the activities of the regular PE class. In his study De Boer et
al. (2010) reported that teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion were related to the
type of disability: teachers were less apt to include students with learning
disabilities, AD/HD and other behaviour problems and more apt to include students
170
with physical disabilities and sensory impairments. The comparison of the results
obtained in our study with the results reported by de Boer et al. (2010) leads to the
conclusion that PE teachers lack practical knowledge when dealing with more
severe and more complicated disabilities, and they are not confident in relying on
their skills both to include students with these disabilities and to form a positive
attitude towards the inclusion of these students in general education classes. In a
similar study Sierra et al. (2016) found that an 18-hour training program for an
inclusive physical education had a greatest effect on PE teachers’ self-efficacy in
including students with ID, although high factors of positive effect were also found
in PD and VI scales. Teachers also need support in the class when including
students with more severe or rarer disabilities. Umhoefer et al. (2015) argue that
general PE teachers who receive little training or support from specialists feel lack
of self-confidence, frustrated and inadequate at dealing with the unique needs of
students with disabilities, especially in the areas of severe physical limitations. This
frustration may affect the general PE teachers’ efficacy level when working with
students with disabilities; in the meantime teachers with higher teaching efficacy
are more likely to believe they can make a difference with their students
(Umhoefer et al., 2015). One of the proposed ways to help PE teachers face the
challenges is to have an itinerant adapted physical education (APE) specialist
available to provide consultation and support (Obrusnikova & Kelly, 2009;
Umhoefer et al., 2015). As Self-efficacy theory suggests, support areas such as
mentoring through vicarious experience play a significant role in developing a
person’s efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1977).
The analysis of PE teachers’ control group data revealed that PE teachers’
sense of self-efficacy in including students with ID, PD and VI decreased, although
insignificantly, whereas the analysis of ASD scale data revealed that PE teachers’
sense of self-efficacy significantly increased. In this case the intervention period
had a significant effect in the sense of self-efficacy of control group PE teachers
only in the inclusion of students with ASD. As control group PE teachers had a
right to attend other courses/workshops during the intervention period, such a result
might have been influenced by the teachers’ personal initiative to attend
courses/workshops on the education of students with SEN. The analysis of
demographic data given in questionnaires before and after the intervention showed
that the number of control group teachers who attended a 6-hour workshop on
special education during the intervention and, presumably, this workshop was on
171
education of children with ASD. Also, based on the analysis of demographic data,
it can be presumed that control group PE teachers had chosen the workshop on the
education of children with ASD due to increasing numbers of students with ASD in
schools. Basing on the results of our study and the findings of Taliaferro and
Pilkington Harris’ (2014) study, where one-day workshop on PE teachers self-
efficacy towards inclusion of students with ASD was given, a short workshop or
seminar may also have a positive effect on PE teachers’ sense of self-efficacy.
The comparison of changes in self-efficacy indicators of PE teachers who
took an 18-hour online APE course and PE teachers who took a 40-hour contact
APE course during the intervention period revealed that the 18-hour online APE
course had a greater effect on PE teachers’ sense of self-efficacy in including
children with ID into a regular PE class that the 40-hour contact APE course; on
the other hand the 40-hour contact APE course had a bigger effect on PE teachers’
sense self-efficacy in including students with PD, VI and ASD. The comparison of
changes in the sense of self-efficacy of PE teachers who took APE courses with the
sense of self-efficacy of control group PE teachers in including students with ID,
PD and VI into a regular PE class revealed that the delivered APE courses had a
significant effect on PE teachers’ sense of self-efficacy. The comparison of
changes in the sense of self-efficacy of PE teachers who took APE courses with the
sense of self-efficacy of control group PE teachers in including students with ASD
into a regular PE class revealed that although control group PE teachers had a 6-
hour seminar on the education of students with ASD, the knowledge gained in APE
course had a stronger effect on PE teachers’ sense of self-efficacy. According to
Adapted Physical Education Manual of Best Practices (Silliman-French, 2005), an
APE specialist should provide consultation services and in-service education to a
general PE teacher. These actions, along with appropriate modelling,
encouragement, and support, may assist in providing the action and influence
teacher efficacy when working with children with SEN in a physically active
setting (Silliman-French, French, Kinnison, & Stephens, 2008). In return, the
general PE teachers may be more receptive to making the adaptations necessary for
successful inclusion of students with SEN in their classroom. Teachers with higher
teaching efficacy tend to be more receptive to implementing new instructional
practices (Guskey, 1988) and provide a more active effort to address difficult
challenges (Bandura, 1977).
On the basis of these results we may conclude that the online APE course is
172
effective only in cases when teachers have a frequent experience of including
children with certain SEN. In this study it was experience with ID students and
specific as well as concentrated theoretical and practical knowledge available to the
teacher at the time convenient to him/her. The results of the study by Kwon and
Block (2017) confirm the findings of our study that APE e-learning programme
had a positive effect on PE teachers’ performance. This form of knowledge transfer
is also more convenient and preferable by working teachers in terms of time.
Delivery of APE knowledge in the e-learning form is based on self-study and
teachers’ motivation to develop professionally and update the knowledge. The
results of this study and the study by Kwon and Block (2017) reveal that the
delivery of knowledge on inclusion and APE in the virtual learning environment,
regular updating of this knowledge and a possibility for teachers to share and
consult with APE specialists when specific challenges have to be overcome can
effectively build the teachers’ confidence in their abilities to create an inclusive
environment in the class. The study results revealed that a contact APE course was
effective in those cases when PE teachers had no knowledge and experience about
the inclusion of students with SEN, when they faced a rarer or more severe SEN
and also in the case of unsuccessful previous experience of including students with
special needs into a regular PE class. This leads to a low sense of self-efficacy and
builds a negative attitude towards the inclusion of students with SEN into a regular
PE class. According to Sierra et al.’s (2016) study, an 18-hour contact training
program for inclusive physical education for PE teachers, more than 80% of which
did not have the basic APE knowledge or direct experience, had a big effect on
their self-efficacy in including students with SEN into a regular PE class. This
strategy based on the direct contact should consist of a cycle of workshops
conducted by PE teachers with a strong sense of self-efficacy; the cycle of APE
workshops should be based on practical training of PE teachers in designing and
testing inclusive physical activities in the class; the cycle of APE workshops should
include APE knowledge related to students with special educational needs in
general or students with specific disability or impairment that creates special needs
in education. For instance, in Lithuania, students with SEN are classified into three
major SEN groups (Students with disabilities, Students with difficulties, and
Students with disadvantages in learning), which are further classified into sub-
groups of disability, impairment and learning difficulties. In this study the contact
course on APE covered four different groups of disabilities (ID, PD, VI, and ASD)
173
with 8 hours devoted for each disability. During the training sessions PE teachers
expressed a wish to have separate courses covering one disability in order to get
deeper knowledge on the issue. The course was based on Sierra et al.’s (2016)
Training Program for an Inclusive PE in terms of time (3 weeks, 2 days/w, 3 h/day)
and content. In addition to information about inclusion, impairment, and adapted
games and sports, the Programme also includes a 3-hour practical training with a
para-athlete, which, in our opinion, significantly increased PE teachers’ sense of
self-efficacy. In Lithuania, the direct contact with a para-athlete was organised only
in the training session on physical disability; subsequently, the self-efficacy results
in PD scale were some of the highest. These results confirm the arguments of
Bandura (1986) and other scholars (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007) that
direct contact with people having a strong sense of self-efficacy increases your own
self-efficacy. Personal factors, behaviour, and the environment that surrounds them
determine human behaviour (Bandura, 1986). According to the findings of
Tschannen-Moran and McMaster’s (2009) study, treatment (information) 3-hour
workshop based on verbal persuasion as the identified source of SE beliefs, and
also treatment (information + modelling + practice + coaching) based on stronger
master experience with the inclusion of follow-up coaching in the use of the new
skill is the best approach for increasing teachers’ self-efficacy. The above-
mentioned findings of other researchers and our study show that the combination of
two strategies, namely the online and contact courses would give the best effect in
developing PE teachers’ self-efficacy. A consistent development of these two RE
teacher self-efficacy building strategies would ensure continuous professional
development of PE teachers. In the trainings PE teachers can gain direct and
indirect experience, professional consultation, share their personal experience in
building the inclusive education environment for students with special educational
needs in a regular PE class. The results of an experimental study conducted by
Tschannen-Moran and Mcmaster (2009) showed that the professional development
format that supported mastery experiences through follow-up coaching had the
strongest effect on the sense of self-efficacy. Researchers suggested that
professional development programs that aimed to support teachers’ ongoing
utilization of new knowledge regarding effective practice needed to develop a
delivery system characterized by the provision of continued support and follow-up
after initial training (Tschannen-Moran and Mcmaster, 2009). Through consistent
implementation of these two PE teachers’ self-efficacy building strategies, teachers
174
would not only gain APE knowledge and practical skills but also develop such
competencies and collaboration, initiative and creativity. The results of Umhoefer’s
et al. (2015) revealed that perceived teacher self-efficacy was the highest with the
collaborative method used. De Boer et al. (2010) and Fisher (2017) concluded that
teachers with inclusive education experience show significantly more positive
attitudes than teachers with less or no experience in inclusive education, and that
additional teacher training in educating students with special needs in regular
education leads to more positive attitudes and willingness to implement inclusive
education. To ensure that teacher trainees develop positive attitudes towards
inclusion, the educational and academic systems will have to develop teacher
training programs that do not distinguish between inclusion teachers and
mainstream teachers, because it has been proven that both inclusion teachers and
mainstream teachers hold the same beliefs and attitudes towards inclusion (Fisher,
2017). Researchers Umhoefer et al. (2015) from Texas conducted a survey to
identify the effects that consultation, itinerant, and collaborative APE service
delivery options have on teacher efficacy towards working with children with SEN
in a regular PE class. According to Bandura (1977), a collaborative model, by
design, includes team teaching, class plans, accommodations, modifications,
modelling, hands-on assistance, and encouragement, so it is reasonable to assume
these factors play a direct role in the increase of general PE teachers’ efficacy,
which makes sense as these are sources of efficacy beliefs.
The change in students’ attitudes towards the inclusions of classmates with
ID, PD and VI into a regular PE class before and after the implementation of
strategies is another indicator used to measure the effectiveness of PE teacher self-
efficacy building strategies. The analysis of student attitude indicators prior and
post the 18-hour online training strategy implementation revealed a positive change
in students’ attitudes towards classmates with ID, PD, and VI; however, the
statistically significant effect was observed only in the inclusion of students with
intellectual disability into a regular PE class. We believe that the difference in
student attitudes towards disabilities resulted from direct experience both of
teachers and students contacting people with intellectual disabilities. The analysis
of the indirect effect of the 40-hour contact APE course on student’s attitudes
towards classmates with ID, PD, and VI revealed a positive and significant change.
Comparing the attitudes of the first experimental group and the second group of
students after the experiment, it was found that teachers who participated in the 40-
175
hour contact APE course had a more significant influence on the attitudes of
students than the teachers who participated in the 18 h online course. This could be
explained that during the implementation of these strategies we did not control the
mastery experiences task among PE teachers, therefore the frequency and type of
activities used by PE teachers are not known. The analysis of the change in control
group students’ attitudes towards inclusion of classmates with ID, PD, and VI
revealed statistically significant downwards moves. When students are informed
that classmates with disabilities will participate in the ordinary PE class and no
actions are taken to help them understand the process of inclusion in the PE class, a
negative attitude towards the inclusion of peers with disability is formed among
students. The scientists think that students’ specific training could generate more
positive general (Vickerman, 2007) and modified behaviours towards their peers
(Bebetsos et al., 2014). The effectiveness contributed to the notion that if proper
teaching conditions in regular PE classes are provided, the inclusion of students
with disabilities does not negatively affect students without disabilities in terms of
motor skills learning, on-task behaviour, or social acceptance (Bebetsos et al., 2014;
Block & Zeman, 1996; Obrusnikova, & Dillon, 2012; Vogler, Koranda, & Romance,
2000; Obrusníková et al. 2003). When general PE teachers are not adequately
prepared, inclusion can become a negative experience for students with and
without disabilities (Goodwin, 2001; LaMaster, Gall, Kinchin, & Siedentop, 1998).
The results of experimental student groups could have been influenced by
different associative attitude formation mechanisms, which were influenced by the
respective 18-hour and 40-hour APE courses attended by their PE teachers. The
intervention applied to PE teachers and its influence on students’ attitudes towards
their disabled classmates participating in regular PE class and certain games
depended on the knowledge absorbed in the courses and the effect of this
knowledge on their sense of self-efficacy. We observed a trend that PE teachers’
stronger sense of self-efficacy caused a more positive attitude among students and
vice versa, PE teachers’ weak sense of self-efficacy caused a negative attitude of
students towards the inclusion of disabled peers into a PE class. It was also
observed that less practical experience gained by PE teachers who took the 18-
hours online APE course compared to PE teachers who took the 40-hours contact
APE course the attitudes of their students to classmates with PD and VI did not
change significant. Of course, the sense of self-efficacy of teachers became
significantly stronger after the 18-hour online APE course; however it was not
176
strong enough to influence the change of their students’ attitude to classmates with
PD and VI. It can be assumed that the knowledge gained in the 18-hour online APE
course increased PE teachers’ confidence in their skills, but the application of those
skills in practice was not sufficiently effective to have a positive effect on students’
attitudes. Researchers (Beamer & Yun, 2014; Hutzler & Barak, 2017; Marimuthu
& Cheong, 2015; Obrusnikova & Kelly, 2009; Sierra et al., 2016; Silliman-French
et al., 2008; Tant & Watelain, 2016; Umhoefer et al., 2015) argue that PE teachers,
who start working in an inclusive environment, need an APE specialist’s support.
The APE specialist assisting a PE teacher in the classroom would help to deal with
hardships and challenges caused by the lack of knowledge about certain
psychological factors and relevant skills. The support would build PE teacher’s
self-efficacy and create the environment, where positive attitudes of students
towards the inclusion of classmates with SEN into a regular PE class would
develop. Researchers Corneille and Stahl (2018) argue that in social cognition and
attitude research, associative attitude learning is typically considered a slow-pace
mechanism that automatically registers mere co-occurrences between stimuli, and in
contrast, propositional or rule-based learning is often thought to include the non-
automatic encoding of qualified links between stimuli. Critical dimensions included
in this distinction are distinct conditions under which attitudes are formed and
distinct mental mechanisms through which they operate (Corneille & Stahl, 2018).
A correlation analysis prior and post the intervention was done to investigate
the relationship between PE teachers’ self-efficacy and their students’ attitudes. For
the analysis, the students’ attitudes were divided into two factors on the basis of the
structure of the CAIPE questionnaire scales: students’ attitudes towards the
inclusive PE class and students’ attitudes towards the changed rules of the game. A
positive relationship between PE teachers’ self-efficacy and students’ attitudes
prevailed in the analysis. This relationship ranged from weak to strong depending
on the survey subject groups and the type of disability. The analysis also revealed
that after the intervention the relationship became stronger in all groups. After the
intervention a stronger positive relationship between PE teachers’ SE and their
students’ attitudes towards the changed rules of the game than the relationship
between PE teachers’ SE and their students’ attitudes towards the inclusive PE
class was observed in 18-hour online and 40-hour contact course groups. The
comparison of the groups revealed that the strongest relationship between PE
teachers’ SE and their students’ attitudes was in the control group and in 40-hour
177
contact course group. The obtained correlation analysis results lead to the
conclusion that PE teachers’ assurance in their capabilities to include students with
disabilities into a regular PE class and changes in their sense of self-efficacy are
closely related with the building of their students’ attitudes towards the inclusion of
classmates with disabilities into the regular class. The analysis also revealed that
PE teachers’ improved sense of SE after APE courses had a more positive effect on
students’ attitude towards the changed rules of the game than on the inclusive PE
class. Teachers’ self-efficacy refers to the extent to which teachers believe their
effort will have a positive effect on their students’ abilities, in redirecting their
students’ behaviour, and on overall student achievement (Al-Alwan & Mahasneh,
2014; Ashton & Webb, 1986). Teacher’s sense of efficacy had a strong positive
effect on student performance (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). The results of Al-
Alwan and Mahasneh (2014) study revealed that there was a significant
relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and students’ attitudes towards school.
The teachers with a strong sense of efficacy exhibit high levels of planning,
management, and organization, are open to new ideas and are more willing to
experiment with new methods to better meet the needs of their students; also
exhibit enthusiasm for instruction, are more committed to their profession, and
likely exert a positive influence on students’ attitudes towards school (Al-Alwan &
Mahasneh, 2014).
4.8. Generalization
Based on the analysis of the results of the educational experiment, it can be

confirmed that the model developing the physical education teachers’ self-efficacy
to create the inclusive environment based on the ideas of Self-efficacy (1977) and
the Social Cognition Theories (1986), is effective in real conditions: lecturers’
transferred knowledge, both in direct contact and online, has positively influenced
the self-efficacy of physical education teachers to create an inclusive educational
environment, and the increased self-efficacy of physical education teachers has
positively influenced students’ attitudes towards inclusion of peers with disability
into physical education class.
Summarizing the results of the study of the self-efficacy situation of physical
education teachers, the results of the students attitudes and the results of the
178
educational experiment, a strategic model (Figure 17) can be formed that can
effectively create an inclusive educational environment for students with
disabilities in a regular physical education class.
Figure 17. Strategic model for developing inclusive educational environment

in a physical education class
179
Based on this model, teachers’ self-efficacy towards inclusion of students
with disabilities can be effectively developed in three ways based on the Self-
efficacy Theory (Bandura, 1977): (1) by creating a website of adapted physical
activity; (2) developing continuous workshops / courses on adapted physical
activity, and (3) developing a website for adapted physical activity and developing
ongoing workshops/courses on adapted physical activity. The self-efficacy of the
physical education teachers developed in these ways will influence the surrounding
environment (attitudes of the students towards inclusion of peers with disabilities).
While a physical education teacher develops an inclusive educational environment,
it is necessary to provide them with support of such specialists as an adapted
physical activity specialist, teacher assistant and psychologist (Figure 17).
Interaction between all components of this model will create an inclusive
educational environment for students with disabilities and without disabilities.
180
CONCLUSIONS
Using reliable and valid instruments, the study revealed that in Lithuanian
general education schools, physical education teachers face children with
intellectual, physical disabilities, visual disorders, and autism spectrum disorders in
physical education classes. However, by including these children in a regular
physical education class and joint sports activities teachers of physical education
cannot ensure a quality physical education program and create an inclusive
educational environment for all the participants. This is due to the moderate
teachers’ self-efficacy level to work with students with disabilities, the type of
disability (it is more difficult to include students with physical disabilities, visual
impairments, and autism spectrum disorders), lack of knowledge about adapted
physical education, insufficient support from other professionals, inability to
manage big classes with a lot of students.
A more detailed analysis has shown that PE teachers’ self-efficacy in
working with students with intellectual disabilities is positively influenced by:
adapted physical education knowledge, support from an adapted physical activity
specialist and a physiotherapist; having friends with intellectual disability.
PE teachers’ self-efficacy in working with students with physical disabilities
is positively influenced by: adapted physical education knowledge; support from an
adapted physical activity specialist, an assistant teacher and a physiotherapist;
having friends with physical disability; the professional experience working with
students with physical disabilities.
PE teachers’ self-efficacy in working with students with visual impairments
is positively influenced by: adapted physical education knowledge; the professional
experience working with students with visual impairments; support from an
adapted physical activity specialist, an assistant teacher, a special education teacher
and a physiotherapist; having friends with visual impairments.
PE teachers’ self-efficacy in working with students with autism spectrum
disorders is positively influenced by: adapted physical education knowledge; the
professional experience working with students with autism spectrum disorders;
support from an adapted physical activity specialist, a psychologist and a
physiotherapist; having friends with autism spectrum disorders.
The analysis carried out, based on Bandura’s Self-efficacy Theory (1977),
revealed that such a combination of (a) the ability to successfully include a student
181
with disability (mastery experience) for as much time of a class as possible, (b) a
lower level of stress/nervousness (physiological states); (c) seeing more successful
examples of creating an inclusive educational environment in the field of physical
education (vicarious experiences) has the greatest impact on the self-efficacy of PE
teachers towards inclusion students with disabilities. This analysis has also revealed
that the higher the level of self-efficacy, the more often PE teachers have tried to
create an inclusive learning environment for students with disabilities (modifying
equipment, activities, instructions, rules, creating a safe environment, promoting
social interactions, managing behaviours, assessing motor skills, collaborating
effectively with others, motivating the student) and less noticing situations that can
make it difficult to include a student with disability into physical activity.
Analysis of the challenges faced while including students with disabilities into
regular PE classes has revealed that teachers who have already have experience in
working with disabled students have identified three of the most complicated
challenges: multiple classes in the gym; large class sizes; lack of aid or support.
Teachers who had not worked with students with disabilities before identified
nine most complicated challenges for including students with disabilities into
regular physical education program: multiple classes in the gym; large class sizes;
limited training on disabilities; lack of aid or support; students having behavioural
problems; lack of appropriate equipment; the student’s with disability skill level
being very different from that of peers in the class; lack of the information about
the student; the student’s with disability problems staying on task.
The use of reliable and valid instrument in the study has revealed that the
attitudes of children in mainstream schools are moving in the right direction
towards inclusion of peers with intellectual and physical disabilities and visual
impairments. Children positively evaluate the situation when the rules of the game
should be changed in order to include peers with disabilities into a common game.
However, the inclusion of children with disabilities into PE classes is viewed
negatively. The analysis of the situation revealed that students’ attitudes towards
inclusion of peers with disabilities depend on:
● the type of the disability (more positive attitude is towards inclusion of
peers with intellectual disability than with visual impairments);
● gender (girls have more positive attitudes than boys);
● age (younger children have more positive attitudes than the older ones)
● having experience with peers with disability in regular education and
182
physical education classes (children who had no experience with inclusion of peers
with disability had more positive attitudes than those who had such experience).
● level of competitiveness (children who evaluate themselves as fairly or not
competitive have more positive attitudes than children who evaluate themselves as
very competitive);
The theoretical model that develops the self-efficacy of physical education
teachers to create an inclusive educational environment has been approved through
the educational experiment as an effective way to develop the self-efficacy of
physical education teachers to create an inclusive educational environment. The
theoretical model revealed that:
● 18-hour online Adapted physical education course is an effective
alternative to educate the self-efficacy of physical education teachers towards
inclusion of students with intellectual disability, physical disability, visual
impairments, and autism spectrum disorders, but it does not provide sufficient
capacity for a physical education teacher with the knowledge they have gained to
influence the students’ attitudes towards inclusion peers of with physical
disabilities and visual impairments;
● 40-hour contact Adapted physical education course is an effective
traditional knowledge transfer way to develop the self-efficacy of physical
education teachers towards inclusion of students with disabilities (intellectual
disability, physical disability, visual impairments, and autism spectrum disorders),
and giving physical education teachers the ability to significantly influence
students’ attitudes towards inclusion of peers with intellectual disability, physical
disability, and visual impairments into regular physical education classes;
● The results of the control group revealed that speaking about the inclusion
of students with disability and not taking further preparatory steps for creating an
inclusive environment in the classroom has a negative effect on the physical
education teachers’ self-efficacy and students’ attitudes towards inclusion of peers
with disabilities.
The theoretical model can be improved by including the element of the
support from an adapted physical activity specialist, a teacher’s assistant, and a
psychologist.
183
RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to ensure the quality inclusion of students with disabilities in physical

education classes, it is recommended to cooperate with the Ministry of Education
of the Republic of Lithuania, municipal departments and school administrations to
ensure that teachers of physical education have acquired adapted physical
education knowledge and physical education teachers who include or plan to
include students with disabilities in physical education classes received the support
from adapted physical activity specialists, teacher assistants, and psychologists.
In cooperation with scientists and educational institutions responsible for the
training and qualification of teachers, it is recommended to create Adapted Physical
Education website and continuing Adapted Physical Education seminars/courses and
programs for PE teachers and to evaluate their usefulness and impact on PE teachers’
self-efficacy to create an inclusive learning environment for students with SEN in a
It is recommended that teachers of general education schools were constantly
interested in the knowledge and innovations of adapted physical activity in the context
of Lithuania and other countries; took the initiative to develop an inclusive educational
environment for students with disabilities in physical education classes (for example:
spread positive mood, changed game rules more frequently, included theoretical and
practical knowledge of Paralympic sports in the physical education program; more
often organized inclusive sports competitions or other inclusive sports events).
Scientists are advised to further develop the field of physical education
teachers’ self-efficacy towards inclusion of students with disabilities by carrying out
further self-assessment of physical education teachers according to different
disability groups and levels; to develop strategies for increasing self-efficacy of
physical education teachers towards inclusion of students with disabilities. Further
studies, using not only quantitative methods but also qualitative research methods,
are important for the evaluation of the impact of adapted physical education courses
on the physical education teachers’ self-efficacy towards developing an inclusive
educational environment for students with disabilities in a regular physical education
class. Based on the findings of the students’ attitudes towards the inclusion of peers
with disabilities in the regular physical education classes, it is recommended for
scientists to further investigate this field of research in the broader field of studies
and to study the influence of such interventions as Paralympic school days on
students’ attitudes towards inclusion of students with disabilities.
184
LIMITATION
This study did not assess whether there were students with disabilities
(intellectual disability, physical disability, visual impairment, autism spectrum
disorders) in those schools involved in the study. Also, this study would be
reinforced if it had analysed how many children with disabilities (intellectual
disability, physical disability, visual impairment, and autism spectrum disorders)
had been included in PE classes during the last 5 years.
The homogeneity of the groups was not fully ensured during the educational
experiment: in the experimental (40 h contact APE course) group of physical
education teachers, the number of participants was lower (n = 14) than in the
experimental (18 h online APE course) group (n = 22) and in the control group
(n = 22). The student groups also consisted of unequal numbers of subjects: the
experimental group consisted of 265 students, the second experimental group
consisted of 114 students, and 196 students were in the control group.
185
REFERENCES
1. Adomaitienė, R., Augustinaitytė-Jurčikonienė, G., Mikelkevičiūtė, J.,

Morkūnienė, A., Ostasevičienė, V., Samsonienė, L., Skučas, K. (2003).
Taikomoji neįgaliųjų fizinė veikla. Kaunas: Lietuvos kūno kultūros akademija.
2. Adomaitienė, R. (2001). Specialiųjų poreikių asmenų ugdymo reformos
nacionalinės strategijos projektas. Prieiga per internetą:
https://www.smm.lt/uploads/documents/kiti/STRATEGIJA-RA.pdf
3. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
4. Al-Alwan, A. F., & Mahasneh, A. M. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy as
determinant of students’ attitudes toward school: A study at the school level.
Review of European Studies, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.5539/res.v6n1p171
5. Alberta Education. https://education.alberta.ca/professional-practice-
standards-resources/inclusive-education/
6. Alquraini, T., & Gut, D. (2012). Critical components of successful inclusion
of students with severe disabilities: Literature review. International Journal
of Special Education, 27(1), 42–59.
7. André, A., Deneuve, P., & Louvet, B. (2011). Cooperative Learning in
Physical Education and Acceptance of Students with Learning Disabilities.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23(4), 474–485.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2011.580826
8. Angel, G. A., & Dogaru, M. (2018). School education in the context of
inclusive education policies. ICOANA CREDINTEI, 8(4), 71–78.
https://doi.org/10.26520/icoana.2018.8.4.71-78
9. Aramavičiūtė, V. (2010). Požiūris į vertybes kaip demokratijos ugdymo
sąlyga. Pedagogika, 100, 27–36.
10. Aramavičiūtė, V., Martišauskienė, E. (2009). Vertybės: švietimo strategijos
ir realybė. Pedagogika, 95, 28–35.
11. Arampatzi, A., Mouratidou, K., Evaggelinou, C. Koidou, E., & Barkoukis, V.
(2011). Social developmental parameters in primary schools: Inclusive
settings’ and gender differences on pupilsʼ aggressive and social insecure
behaviour and their attitudes towards disability. International Journal of
Special Education, 26(2), 58–69.
186
12. Armitage, Ch. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned
behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40,
471–499. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939
13. Armstrong, A. C., Armstrong, D., & Spandagou, I. (2010). Inclusive
education: International policy and practice. London: Sage.
14. Ashton, P., & Webb, R. (1986). Making a Difference: Teachers’ Sense of
Efficacy and Student Achievement. New York, NY: Longman.
15. Awang, Z. (2015). SEM Made Simple: A Gentle Approach to Learning
Structural Equation Modeling. Selangor: MPWS Rich Publication.
16. Bailey, R. (2006). Physical education and sport in schools: A review of
benefits and outcomes. Journal of School Health, 76(8), 397–401.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2006.00132
17. Baloun, L., Kudláček, M., Sklenaříková, J., Ješina, O., & Migdauová. A.
(2016). Czech self-efficacy scale for physical education majors towards
children with disabilities. Acta Gymnica, 46(1), 44–54.
https://doi.org/10.5507/ag.2016.002
18. Bandura, A. (1971). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning
Press.
19. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295X.84.2.191
20. Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social
Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
21. Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of
Child Development. Vol. 6. Six Theories of Child Development (pp. 1–60).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
22. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, 4
(pp. 71–81). New York, NY: Academic Press.
23. Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of Personal and Collective Efficacy in
Changing Societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in Changing Societies
(pp. 1–45). New York: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.10171/CBO9780511527692
24. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY:
W. H. Freeman and Company.
25. Bandura, A. (2006). Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In
187
F. Pajaresand, T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents.
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1111j.1745-
6916.2006.00011.xPMID:26151469
26. Bandura, A. (2007). Reflections on an agentic theory of human agency.
Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening, 10, 995–1004.
27. 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, 362–376.
https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.2014-0134
28. Bebetsos, E., Derri, V., Filippoua, F., Zetoua, E., &Vernadakisa, N. (2014).
Elementary school children’s behavior towards the inclusion of peers with
disabilities, in mainstream physical education classes. Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 152, 819–823.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.327
29. Bebetsos, E., Derri, V., Zafeiriadis, S., & Kyrgiridis, P. (2013). Relationship
among students’ attitudes, intentions and behaviors towards the inclusion of
peers with disabilities, in mainstream physical education classes.
International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 5(3), 233–248.
30. Bembenutty, H., White, M. C., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2016). Applying
Social Cognitive Theory in the Development of Self-Regulated
Competencies throughout K-12 Grades. In A. A. Lipnevich et al. (Eds.),
Psychosocial Skills and School Systems in the 21st Century. The Springer
Series on Human Exceptionality (pp. 215–239). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-319-28606-8_9
31. Berns, R. M. (2009). Vaiko socializacija. Šeima, mokykla, visuomenė.
Vilnius: UAB „Poligrafija ir informatika“.
32. Block, M. E., & Zeman, R. (1996). Including students with disabilities in
regular physical education: Effects on non-disabled children. Adapted
Physical Activity Quarterly, 13, 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.13.1.38
33. Block, M. E. (1995). Development and validation of the children’s attitudes
towards integrated physical education-revised (CAIPE-R) inventory. Adapted
Physical Activity Quarterly, 12, 60–77. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.12.1.60
34. Block, M. E., Hutzler, Y., Barak, S., & Klavina, A. (2013). Creation and
validation of the situational specific self-efficacy instrument for physical
education teacher education majors toward inclusion. Adapted Physical
188
Activity Quarterly, 29, 184–205. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.30.2.184
35. Block, M. E., Kwon, E. H., & Healy, S. (2016). Preparing future physical
educators for inclusion: Changing the physical education teacher training
program. Journal of the Brazilian Society for Adapted Motor Activity, 17(1),
9–12. Retrieved from
http://www2.marilia.unesp.br/revistas/index.php/sobama/article/view/6084/4037
36. Block, M. E., Taliaferro, A., Harris, N., & Krause, J. (2010). Using Self-
Efficacy Theory to facilitate inclusion in general physical education. Journal
of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 81(3), 43–46.
37. Block, M.E. & Malloy, M. (1998). Attitudes on inclusion of a player with
disabilities in a regular softball league. Mental Retardation, 36(2), 137–144.
https://doi.org/10.1352/0047-6765(1998)0362.0.CO;2
38. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning
and Participation in Schools. Bristol: CSIE. Retrieved from
https://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/Index%20English.pdf
39. Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments.
In J. Lonner and J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field Methods in Cross-cultural
Research (pp. 137–164). Newbury, CA: Sage.
40. Bryman, A. (2015). Social Research Methods (5th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
41. Cairns, B., & McClatchey, K. (2013). Comparing children’s attitudes
towards disability. British Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 124–129.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12033
42. Campos, M. J., Ferreira, J. P., & Block, M. E. (2014). Analysis the structure,
validity and reliability of the physical educators’ attitude toward teaching
individuals with Disabilities III – Peatid III. Annals of Research in Sport and
Physical Activity, 5.
43. 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.
https://doi.org/10.2466/10.IT.4.5
44. Campos, M. J., Ferreira, J. P., & Block, M. E. (2013). An analysis into the
structure, validity and reliability of the children’s attitudes towars integrated
physical education-REVISED (CAIPE-R). European Journal of Adapted
189
Physical Activity, 6(2), 29–37.
45. Cherniss, C. (1993). Role of professional self-efficacy in the etiology and
amelioration of burnout. In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T. Marek (Eds.),
Series in Applied Psychology: Social Issues and Questions. Professional
Burnout: Recent Developments in Theory and Research (pp. 135–149).
Philadelphia, PA, US: Taylor & Francis.
46. Chuchu, T., & Chuchu, V. (2016). The impact of inclusive education on
learners with disabilities in high schools of Harare, Zimbabwe. Journal of
Social and Development Sciences, 7(2), 88–96.
47. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences,
2nd ed. New Jersey Lawrence Elbaum Associates, Inc.
48. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2016). Baigiamosios
pastabos dėl pirminės Lietuvos ataskaitos. http://lnf.lt/wp-
content/uploads/2016/09/4.-JT_Rekomendacijos_Lietuvai.pdf
49. Cordente-Mesas, D., González-Víllora, S. Block, M. E., & Contreras-Jordán,
O. R. (2016). Structure, validity and reliability of the children’s attitudes
towards integrated physical education-Spanish version (CAIPE-SP).
European Journal of Adapted Physical Activity, 9(2), 3–12.
50. Corneille, O., & Stahl, Ch. (2018). Associative attitude learning: a closer
look at evidence and how it relates to attitude models. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318763261
51. Council of Europe (2009). Council Conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a
Strategic Framework for European Cooperation In Education and Training
(ET 2020). Official Journal of the European Union, 2009/C 119/02.
http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/education_benchmarks_2020.pdf
52. De Boer, A., Pijl, S. J., & Minnaert, A. (2010). Regular primary
schoolteachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: A review of the
literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(3), 331–353.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110903030089
53. De Winter, J., Dodou, D., & Wieringa, P. A. (2009). Exploratory factor
analysis with small sample sizes. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44(2),
54. Deppeler, J., Loreman, T., & Smith, R. (2015). Teaching and learning for all.
Inclusive Pedagogy across the Curriculum, 7, 1–10. https://doi.org
/10.1108/S1479-363620150000007010
190
55. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. (2005). The Systematic Design of
Instruction (6th ed.). NY: Allyn and Bacon.
56. Eden, O., & Hutzler, Y. (2015). Self-efficacy of physical education teachers
in teaching students with disabilities in regular classes. In D. Hellerstein-
Yehezkel (Ed.), The 20th International Symposium on Adapted Physical
Activity: Book of Abstracts (p. 33). Netanya, Israel: The Zinman College of
Physical Education and Sport Sciences at the Wingate Institute.
57. Education Management Information System (2018). [2018-08-12]. Retrieved
from http://rsvis.emokykla.lt
58. Engstrand Zakirova, R., & Roll-Pettersson, L. (2012). Inclusion of preschool
children with autism in Sweden: Attitudes and perceived efficacy of
preschool teachers. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs,
14(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2012.01252.x
59. Eroglu, C. & Unlu, H. (2015). Self-efficacy: Its effects on physical education
teacher candidates’ attitudes toward the teaching profession. Educational
Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15(1), 201–212.
60. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2003).
Inclusive Education and Classroom Practice: Summary Report.
https://www.european-agency.org/sites/default/files/inclusive-education-
and-classroom-practices_iecp-en.pdf
Mapping the Implementation of Policy for Inclusive Education: An
Exploration of Challenges and Opportunities for Developing Indicators.
https://www.european-agency.org/sites/default/files/mipie_MIPIE-summary-
of-proposals-EN.pdf
Teacher Education for Inclusion Profile of Inclusive Teachers.
https://www.european-agency.org/sites/default/files/Profile-of-Inclusive-
Teachers.pdf
63. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2014). Five
Key Messages for Inclusive Education. Putting Theory into Practice.
Odense, Denmark: European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive
Education. https://www.european-
agency.org/sites/default/files/Five%20Key%20Messages%20for%20Inclusiv
e%20Education.pdf
191
64. European Agency for the Development of Special Needs and Inclusive
Education (2017). Inclusive Education for Learners with Disabilities.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596807/IPOL_S
TU(2017)596807_EN.pdf
65. European Agency Statistics on Inclusive Education (EASIE) (2018). Data
Tables and Background Information. https://www.european-
agency.org/data/data-tables-background-information
66. Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: Introducing Statistical
Method (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
67. Fisher, Y. (2017). Predicting teachers’ perception of inclusion: What is the
role of self-efficacy? EC Psychology and Psychiatry, 2(5), 157–171.
68. Florian, L. (2015). Conceptualising Inclusive Pedagogy: The Inclusive
Pedagogical Approach in Action. In Inclusive Pedagogy across the
Curriculum (pp. 11–24). https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-
363620150000007001
69. Friedman, I. A., & Kass, E. (2002). Teacher self-efficacy: A classroom-
organization conceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(6),
675–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00027-6
70. Galkienė, A. (2016). Internalisation of disability as a social phenomenon in
the reality of inclusive education. Pedagogika [Pedagogy], 121(1), 136–155.
https://doi.org/10.15823/p.2016.10
71. Gallagher, M. W. (2009). Future mindedness. In Lopez, S. J. (Ed.), The
Encyclopedia of Positive Psychology (pp. 418–420). Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing. http://simbi.kemenag.go.id/pustaka/images/materibuku/the-
encyclopedia-of-positive-psychology.pdf
72. Gomez, M. D. (2009). Bandura, Albert. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), The
Encyclopedia of Positive Psychology (pp. 98–99). Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing. http://simbi.kemenag.go.id/pustaka/images/materibuku/the-
encyclopedia-of-positive-psychology.pdf
73. Goodwin, D. L. (2001). The meaning of help in PE: Perceptions of students
with physical disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 18, 289–303.
https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.18.3.289
74. Grenier, M., Dyson, B., & Yeaton, P. (2005). Cooperative learning that
includes students with disabilities. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation
& Dance, 76(6), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2005.10608264
192
75. Griggs, G., & Medcalf, R. (2015). Inclusive pedagogy in physical education.
Inclusive Pedagogy across the Curriculum, 7, 119–137.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-363620150000007013
76. Grimes, P. (2010). A Quality Education for All: A History of the Lao PDR
Inclusive Education Project 1993–2009. Vientiane, Lao PDR: Save the
Children.
77. Guo, Y., Justice, I., Sawyer, B., & Tompkins, V. (2011). Exploring factors
related to preschool teachers’ self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 27, 961–968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.03.008
78. Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward
the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 4(1), 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(88)90025-X
79. Hamid, H. A. E., Alasmari, A., & Eldood, A. E. Y. (2015). Influences of
self-efficacy as predictors of academic achievement. A case study of special
education students – university of Jazan. International Journal of Education
and Research, 3(3), 275–284.
80. Hashim, M., Ghani, M., Ibrahim, S., & Zain, W. (2014). The relationship
between teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes towards inclusive education in
Pulau Pinang. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 4(7), 24–33.
81. Hassan, A. E. H., Ahmed, E. Y. E., & Alasmari, A. (2015). The Influences
of some variables on attitudes of special education teachers towards
educating pupils with autism in regular settings. International Journal of
Research – Granthaalayah, 3(10), 30–37.
http://granthaalayah.com/Articles/Vol3Iss10/02_IJRG15_B10_95.pdf
82. Healy, S. (2015). The Impact of Online Professional Development on
Physical Educators’ Knowledge and Implementation of Peer Tutoring
(Doctoral dissertation). University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
83. Healy, S., Colombo-Dougovito, A., Judge, J., Kwon, E., Strehli, I., & Block
M. E. (2017). A practical guide to the development of an online course in
adapted physical education. Palaestra, 31(2), 48–54.
84. Hernandez, D. A., Hueck, S., & Charley, C. (2016). General education and
special education teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. Journal of the
American Academy of Special Education Professionals, 79–93.
85. Heslin, P. A., & Klehe, U. C. (2006). Self-efficacy. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Industrial/Organizational Psychology, 2 (pp. 705–708).
193
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
86. Hofman, R. H. & Kilimo, J. S. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy
towards inclusion of pupils with disabilities in Tanzanian schools. Journal of
Education and Training, 1(2), 177–198. https://doi.org/10.5296/jet.v1i2.5760
87. Horn, E., Parks, S., & An, Z. (2019). Inclusive special education for
young learners with severe and multiple disabilities. In Festus E.
Obiakor, Jeffrey P. Bakken (Eds.), Special Education for Young
Learners with Disabilities (Advances in Special Education, Volume 34)
(pp. 119–137). Emerald Publishing Limited.
88. Hornby, G. (2014). Inclusive Special Education: Evidence-Based
Practices for Children with Special Needs and Disabilities. Springer,
New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1483-8_1
89. Humphrey, N., & Symes, W. (2013). Inclusive education for pupils with
autistic spectrum disorders in secondary mainstream schools: Teacher
attitudes, experience and knowledge. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 17(1), 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2011.580462
90. Hutzler, Y., & Barak, S. (2017). Self-efficacy of physical education teachers
in including students with cerebral palsy in their classes. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 68, 52–65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2017.07.005
91. Hutzler, Y., & Levi, I. (2008). Including children with disability in physical
education: General and specific attitudes of high-school students. European
Journal of Adapted Physical Activity, 1(2), 21–30.
92. Hutzler, Y., & Shama, E. (2017). Attitudes and self-efficacy of Arabic-
speaking physical education teachers in Israel toward including children with
disabilities. International Journal of Social Sciences Studies, 5(10), 28–42.
https://doi.org/10.11114/ijsss.v5i10.2668
93. Hutzler, Y. (2003). Attitudes toward the participation of individuals with
disabilities in physical activity: A review. Quest, 55(4), 347–373.
94. Hutzler, Y. (2007). A Systematic ecological model for adapting physical
activities: Theoretical foundations and practical examples. Adapted Physical
Activity Quarterly, 24(4), 287–304. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.24.4.287
95. Hutzler, Y., Zach, S., & Gafni, O. (2005). Physical education student’s
attitudes and se towards the participation of children with special needs in
194
regular classes. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 20(3), 309–
327. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250500156038
96. Ilić-Stošović, D., Nikolić, S., & Popadić, M. (2015). Teachers’ sense of
efficacy and implications for implementation of inclusive education.
Specijalna Edukacija i Rehabilitacija, 14(3), 345–365.
https://doi.org/10.5937/specedreh14-9565
97. Jeong, M., & Block, M. E. (2011). Physical education teachers’ beliefs and
intentions towards teaching students with disabilities. Research Quarterly
for Exercise and Sports, 82(2), 239–246.
98. Jerlinder, K., Danermark, B., & Gill, P. (2010). Swedish primary-school
teachers’ attitudes to inclusion: the case of PE and pupils with physical
disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(1), 45–57.
99. Jovanović, L., Kudláček, M., Block, M. E., & Djordjević, I. (2014). Self-
efficacy of pre-service physical education teachers toward teaching students
with disabilities in general physical education classes in Serbia. European
Journal of Adapted Physical Activity, 7(2), 32–46.
100. Kalambouka, A. Farrell, P., Dyson, A., & Kaplan, I. (2007). The impact of
placing pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools on the
achievement of their peer’s. Educational Research, 49(4), 365–382.
101. Karani, K. A. & Skordilis, E. K. (2016). The intentions of Greek primary
education and physical education students to work in an inclusive setting.
Academia Journal of Educational Research, 4(1), 8–22.
https://doi.org/10.15413/ajer.2015.0131
102. Kardelis, K. (2016). Mokslinių tyrimų metodologija ir metodai: edukologija
ir kiti socialiniai mokslai. 5-asis pataisytas ir papildytas leidimas. Vilnius:
Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras.
103. Kennedy, M. (2014). Field of dreams: Sports equality for children with
special needs. Capstone Projects and Theses.
https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1272&contex
t=caps_thes
104. Kiuppis, F. (2018). Inclusion in sport: Disability and participation. Sport in
Society, 21(1), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2016.1225882
195
105. Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality,
and teaching effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review,
12, 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.06.001
106. Klavina, A., Jerlinder, K. Kristén, L. Hammar, L., & Soulie, T. (2014).
Cooperative oriented learning in inclusive physical education. European
Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(2), 119–134.
107. Ko, B., & Boswell, B. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions, teaching practices, and
learning opportunities for inclusion. Physical Educator, 70(3), 223–242.
108. Kodish, S., Kulinna, P. H., Martin, J. Pangrazi, R., & Darst, P. (2006).
Determinants of physical activity in an inclusive setting. Adapted Physical
109. Kudláček, M. (2007). Components of attitudes towards inclusion of students
with physical disabilities in physical education in the revised “ATIPDPE-R”
instrument/scale for prospective Czech educators. Acta Universitatis
Palackianae Olomucensis. Gymnica, 37(1), 13–18.
110. Kudláček, M., Baloun, L., & Ješina, O. (2018). The development and
validation of Revised Inclusive Physical Education Self-efficacy
Questionnaire for Czech Physical Education Majors. International Journal
of Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/1080/13603116.2018.1451562
111. Kudláček, M., Ješina, O., & Wittmannová, J. (2011). Structure of a
Questionnaire on Children’s Attitudes towards Inclusive Physical Education
(CAIPE-CZ). Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis. Gymnica, 41(4),
43–48. https://doi.org/10.5507/ag.2011.025
112. Kwon, E. H., & Block, M. E. (2017). Implementing the adapted physical
education E-learning program into physical education teacher education
program. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 69, 18–29.
https://doi.org/10.1016 / j.ridd.2017.07.001.
113. Kwon, E. H. (2014). Implementing the Adapted Physical Education
E-learning Supplement into Physical Education Teacher Education Program
(Doctoral dissertation). University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
114. LaMaster, K., Gall, K., Kinchin, G., & Siedentop, D. (1998). Inclusion
practices of effective elementary specialists. Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 15, 64–81. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.15.1.64
115. Lancaster, J. (2014). School and classroom indicators of inclusive education.
196
Measuring Inclusive Education, 3, 227–245. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-
363620140000003027
116. Lee, H. M., & Baek, S. Y. (2015). Sport education: Motivating students with
disabilities in physical education. Kentucky Association for Health, Physical
Education, Recreation & Dance Journal, 52(2), 7–17.
117. Lent, R. W., & Hackett, G. (2009). Social Cognitive Theory. In S. J. Lopez
(Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Positive Psychology (pp. 908–912). Malden,
MA: Blackwell Publishing.
http://simbi.kemenag.go.id/pustaka/images/materibuku/the-encyclopedia-of-
positive-psychology.pdf
118. Li, C. Wang, L., Block, M. E., Sum, K. W. R., & Wu, Y. (2018). Validation
of the physical educators’ self-efficacy toward including students with
disabilities-autism for Chinese preservice physical education teachers.
Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 35(2), 159–174.
119. Lithuanian Ministry of Education and Science (2014). 2014–2016 Action
Plan of the Programme for the Development of Vocational Education and
Training approved by resolution, No. V-851, 29/09/2014.
120. Lithuanian Ministry of Education and Science (2013). Dėl Mokinių, turinčių
specialiųjų ugdymosi poreikių, grupių nustatymo ir jų specialiųjų ugdymosi
poreikių skirstymo į lygius tvarkos aprašo patvirtinimo: suvestinė redakcija,
04 July 2013, No. 93-4428.
121. Liu, Y., Kudláček, M., & Jesina, O. (2010). The influence of Paralympic
School Day on children's attitudes towards people with disabilities. Acta
Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis. Gymnica, 40(2), 63–69.
122. Lopez, S. J. (Ed.) (2009). The Encyclopedia of Positive Psychology. Malden,
123. Loreman, T., Forlin, Ch., & Sharma, U. (2014). Measuring indicators of
inclusive education: A systematic review of the literature. Measuring
Inclusive Education, 3, 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-
363620140000003024
124. Lu, C., & Buchanan, A. (2014). Developing students’ emotional well-being
in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance,
197
85(4), 28–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2014.884433
125. MacAllister, J. (2013). The ‘Physically Educated’ person: Physical education
in the philosophy of Reid, Peters and Aristotle. Educational Philosophy and
Theory, 45(9), 908–920. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013.785353
126. Maddux, J. E. (2009). Self-efficacy. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), The Encyclopedia
of Positive Psychology (pp. 874–880). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
127. Marimuthu, S., & Cheong, L. S. (2015). Inclusive education for social
transformation. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 172, 317–322.
128. Martin, J. J., & Kulinna, P. H. (2004). Self-Efficacy Theory and the Theory
of Planned Behavior: Teaching physically active physical education classes.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75(3), 288–297.
129. Martin, J. J. (2014). Adapted physical education. In R. Eklund &
G. Tenenbaum (Eds.), Encyclopedia of sport and Exercise Psychology
(pp. 10–13). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
130. Mauerberg-deCastro, E., Paiva, A. C. S., Figueiredo, G. A., Costa, T. D. A.,
Castro, M. R., & Campbell, D. F. (2013). Attitudes about inclusion by
educators and physical educators: Effects of participation in an inclusive
adapted physical education program. Motriz. Revista de Educação Física,
19(3), 649–661. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1980-65742013000300017
131. McGhie-Richmond, D., Irvine, A., Loreman, T., Cizman, J. L., & Lupart, J.
(2013). Teacher perspectives on inclusive education in rural Alberta,
Canada. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(1), 195–239.
132. McKay, C. (2013). The impact of paralympic school day on student attitudes
toward inclusion in physical education (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from http://libra.virginia.edu/catalog/libraoa:5220
133. McKay, C., Block, M., & Park, J. Y. (2015). The impact of Paralympic
School Day on student attitudes toward inclusion in physical education.
Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 32(4), 331–348.
https://doi.org/10.1123/APAQ.2015-0045
134. McKay, C., Haegele, J., & Block, M. (2018). Lessons learned from
Paralympic School Day: Reflections from the students. European Physical
198
Education Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X18768038
135. Meijer J. W. (Ed.) (1998). Integration in Europe: Provision for pupils with
special educational needs. European Agency for Development in Special
Needs Education.
136. Morgan, J. A. (2013). Factors Influencing Physical Educators’ Inlcusion
Behaviors towards Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from Proquest dissertations and theses database.
(UMI No.3574286)
137. Navarro, S. B., Zervas, P., Gesa, R. F., & Sampson, D. G. (2016).
Developing teachers’ competences for designing inclusive learning
experiences. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(1), 17–27.
138. Obrusnikova, I., & Kelly, L. E. (2009). Caseloads and job demographics of
adapted physical educators in the United States. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 109(3), 737–746. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.109.3.737-746
139. Obrusnikova, I., & Dillon, S. R. (2011). Challenging situations when
teaching children with autism spectrum disorders in general physical
education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 28, 113–131.
140. Obrusnikova, I., & Dillon, S. R. (2012). Students’ beliefs and intentions to
play with peers with disabilities in physical education: Relationships with
achievement and social goals. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,
31, 311–328. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.31.4.311
141. Obrusnikova, I., Dillon, S. R., Block, M. E., & Davis, T. (2012). Validation
of the children’s beliefs and intentions to play with peers with disabilities in
middle school physical education scale. Journal of Developmental and
Physical Disabilities, 24, 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-011-9253-1
142. Obrusníková, I., Válková, H., & Block, M. E. (2003). Impact of inclusion in
general physical education on students without disabilities. Adapted Physical
Activity Quarterly, 20(3), 230–245. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.20.3.230
143. Official Statistics Portal (2018). Retrieved from
https://osp.stat.gov.lt/statistiniu-rodikliu-analize?theme=all#/
144. Olaleye, A., Ogundele, O., Deji, S., Ajayi, O., Olaleye, O., & Adeyanju, T.
(2012). Attitudes of students towards peers with disability in an inclusive
school in Nigeria. Disability, CBR and Inclusive Development, 23(3), 65–75.
https://doi.org/10.5463/DCID.v23i3.136
199
145. Orlić, A., Pejčić, B., Lazarević, D., & Milanović, I. (2016). The predictors of
students’ attitudes towards inclusion of children with disabilities in physical
education classes. Physical Culture, 70(2), 126–134.
https://doi.org/10.5937/fizkul1602126O
146. Osborne, J. W., & Fitzpatrick, D. C. (2012). Replication analysis in
exploratory factor analysis: What it is and why it makes your analysis better.
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(15).
147. Osswald, S., Frey, D., & Greitemeyer, T. (2009). Paragons. In S. J. Lopez
(Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Positive Psychology (pp. 670–671). Malden,
148. Ozyilmaz, A., Erdogan, B., & Karaeminogull, A. (2018). Trust in
organization as a moderator of the relationship between self-efficacy and
workplace outcomes: A social cognitive theory-based examination. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91, 181–204.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12189
149. Panagiotou, A., Kudláček, M., & Evaggelinou, C. (2006). The effect of the
implementation of the “Paralympic School Day” program on the attitudes of
primary school children towards the inclusion of children with disabilities in
physical education. Studia Kinanthropologica, 7(2), 83–87.
150. Papaioannou, C., Evaggelinou, C., Barkoukis, V., & Block, M. (2013).
Attitudes toward inclusion of children with disabilities: Effect of a disability
awareness program in a summer camp. European Journal of Adapted
Physical Activity, 6(2), 19–28.
151. Papaioannou, C.; Evaggelinou, C., & Block, M. (2014). The effect of a
disability camp program on attitudes towards the inclusion of children with
disabilities in a summer sport and leisure activity camp. International
Journal of Special Education, 29(1), 121–129.
152. Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania (1991). Republic of Lithuania Law
on Education, 25 June 1991, No I-1489. Retrieved from https://www.e-
tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.9A3AD08EA5D0/xbPKUCNrMi
153. Peplak, J., Song, J., Colasante, T., & Malti, T. (2017). “Only you can play
with me!” Children’s inclusive decision making, reasoning, and emotions
based on peers’ gender and behavior problems. Journal of Experimental
200
Child Psychology, 162, 134–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.04.019
154. Perlman, D., & Piletic, C. (2012). The influence of an adapted physical
education course on preservice teacher instruction: Using a self-
determination lens. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1).
https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2012v37n1.6
155. Peterman, F., & Petermann, U. (2001). Training mit Aggressiven Kindern
(10te Aufl.) (Training with aggressive children). Weinheim: Beltz.
156. Peterman, U., & Petermann, F. (2003). Training mit Sozial Unsicheren
Kindern (8te Aufl.) (Training with socially insecure children). Weinheim:
Beltz.
157. Polvi, S., & Telama, R. (2000). The use of cooperative learning as a social
enhancer in physical education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 44(1), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/713696660
158. Prince, E. J., & Hadwin, J. (2013). The role of a sense of school belonging in
understanding the effectiveness of inclusion of children with special
educational needs. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(3), 238–
262. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.676081
159. Qi, J., & Ha, A. S. (2012). Inclusion in physical education: A review of
literature. International Journal of Disability. Development and Education,
59(3), 257–281, https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2012.697737
160. Qi, J., Wang, L. J., & Ha, A. S. (2016). Perceptions of Hong Kong physical
education teachers on the inclusion of students with disabilities. Asia Pacific
Journal of Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2016.1169992
161. Reid, A. (1997). Value pluralism and physical education. European Physical
Education Review, 3(1), 6–20.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X9700300102
162. Reina, R., Hemmelmayr, I., & Sierra-Marroquín, B. (2016). Autoeficacia de
Profesores de Educación Física para la Inclusión de Alumnos con
Discapacidad y su Relación con la Formación y el Contacto Previo. [SE of
Physical Education Teachers toward Inclusión of Students with Disabilities
and Regarding their Previous Training and Experiences]. Psychology,
Society & Education, 8(2), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.25115/psye.v8i2.455
163. Rozenfelde, M. (2016). Inclusive learning environment for pupils with special
needs in general educational institution. Social Welfare Interdisciplinary
Approach, 6(2), 148–158. https://doi.org/10.21277/sw.v2i6.257
201
164. Ruijs, N. M., & Peetsma, T. T. D. (2009). Effects of inclusion on students
with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educational Research
Review, 4(2), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.02.002
165. Sarı, H., Çeliköz, N., & Seçer, Z. (2009). An analysis of pre-school teachers’
and student teachers’ attitudes to inclusion and their self-efficacy.
International Journal of Special Education, 24(3), 29–44.
166. Sato, T., & Haegele, J. A. (2017). Physical educators’ engagement in online
adapted physical education graduate professional development. Professional
Development in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2017.1288651
167. Seymour, H., Reid, G., & Bloom, G. A. (2009). Friendship in inclusive
physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 26(3), 201–219.
168. Sharma, U., Shaukat, S., & Furlonger, B. (2014). Attitudes and self-efficacy
of pre-service teachers towards inclusion in Pakistan. Journal of Research in
Special Educational Needs, 15(2), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-
3802.12071
169. Shaukat, S., Sharma, U., & Furlonger, B. E. (2013). Pakistani and Australian
pre-service teachers' attitudes and self-efficacy towards inclusive education.
Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 23(2), 1–16.
170. Sherrill, C. (1998). Adapted Physical Activitv. Recreation and Sport:
Crossdisciplinary and Lifespan (5th ed.). Dubuque, lA: WCB/McGraw-Hill.
171. Shields, N., & Synnot, A. (2016). Perceived barriers and facilitators to
participation in physical activity for children with disability: a qualitative
study. BMC Pediatrics, 16(9), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-016-
0544-7
172. Sierra, B., Garcia-Gómez, B., Hemmelmayr, I., Fernández–Pacheco, Y., &
Reina, R. (2016). Incluye-T: Training program for an inclusive physical
education. In European Congress of Adapted Physical Activity 2016
Olomouc, Czech Republic, June 15–17th: Book of Abstracts (pp. 57–57).
173. Silliman-French, L. (2005). Adapted Physical Education Manual of Best
Practices: Administrative Guidelines and Policies. Austin, TX: TAHPERD.
174. Silliman-French, L., French, R., Kinnison, L., & Stephens, T. (2008).
Eligibility and instructional programs for students with disabilities provided
with adapted physical education services. Texas Association of Health
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance Journal, 77(1), 8–12.
202
175. Siperstein, G. N. (1980). Instruments for Measuring Children’s Attitudes
toward the Handi-capped. Boston, MA: Center for Human Services,
University of Massachusetts
176. Smith, A., & Thomas, N. (2006). Including pupils with special educational
needs and disabilities in National Curriculum Physical Education: A brief
review. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21(1), 69–83.
177. Specialiosios pedagogikos ir psichologijos centras (2016). Ugdymo ir
švietimo pagalbos kokybės specialiosiose mokyklose ir specialiojo ugdymo
centruose tyrimas.
https://www.smm.lt/uploads/documents/Svietimo_bukles_tyrimai/2017%20
02%2027%20Ataskaita%20UGDYMO%20IR%20%C5%A0VIETIMO%20
PAGALBOS%20KOKYB%C4%96S%20SPECIALIOSIOSE%20MOKYK
LOSE%20IR%20SPECIALIOJO%20UGDYMO%20CENTRUOSE%20TY
RIMAS%20(2).pdf
178. Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related
performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240–261.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240
179. Šūmane, I. (2012). Pusaudžu mācību sasniegumus veicinoša mācību vide.
Promocijas darbs pedagoģijas zinātņu doktora grāda iegūšanai skolas
pedagoģijas apakšnozarē.
180. Taliaferro, A., & Pilkington Harris, H. (2014). The effects of a one-day
workshop on physical educators’ self-efficacy toward inclusion of students
with autism. Palaestra, 28(3), 38–43.
181. Taliaferro, A. (2010). Validation of an Instrument to Explore Physical
Educators’ Beliefs toward Inclusion: Application of Self-efficacy Theory
(Doctoral Dissertation). University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
182. Taliaferro, A. R., Hammond, L., & Wyant, K. (2015). Preservice physical
educators’ self- efficacy beliefs toward inclusion: The impact of coursework
and practicum. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 32, 49–67.
183. Taliaferro, A., Block, M., Harris, N., & Krause, J. (2011). Physical
Educators’ Self-effcacy toward Including Students with Disabilities – Autism
Version 8.2 [unpublished survey instrument].
184. Tant, M., & Watelain, E. (2016). Forty years later, systematic literature
203
review on inclusion in physical education (1975–2015): A teacher
perspective. Educational Research Review, 19, 1–17.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.04.002
185. Tekidou, G., Evaggelinou, C., Papaioannou, C., & Block, M. E. (2015). Self-
efficacy of Greek physical education teachers toward inclusion in physical
education classes. In D. Hellerstein-Yehezkel (Ed.), The 20th International
Symposium on Adapted Physical Activity: Book of Abstracts (p. 90).
Netanya, Israel: The Zinman College of Physical Education and Sport
Sciences at the Wingate Institute.
186. Teo, T., Tsai, L. T., & Yang, C. C. (2013). Applying structural equation
modelling (SEM) in educational research: an introduction. In M. S. Khine
(Ed.). Applications of Structural Equation Modelling in Educational
Research and Practice. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
187. The United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Treaty
Series, 1577, 3.
188. The United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities. Treaty Series, 2515, 3.
189. Tindall, D., Culhane, M., & Foley, J. (2016). Pre-service teachers’ self-
efficacy towards children with disabilities: An Irish perspective. European
Journal of Adapted Physical Activity, 9 (1), 27–39.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X14556861
190. Triandis, H. (1971). Attitude and Attitude Change. New York: Wiley.
191. Tripp, A., Rizzo, L. T., & Webbert, L. (2007). Solutions for including
individuals with disabilities. Inclusion in physical education: Changing the
culture. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 78(2), 32–48.
192. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential
antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 236, 944–956.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003
193. Tschannen-Moran, M., & McMaster, P. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy:
Four professional development formats and their relationship to self-efficacy
and implementation of a new teaching strategy. Elementary School Journal,
110(2), 228–245. https://doi.org/10.1086/605771
194. Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher
204
efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68,
195. Tubić, T., & Đorđić, V. (2012). Inclusive physical education in Vojvodina:
The current situation and future prospects. Facta Universitatiss: Physical
Education and Sport, 10(4), 319–327.
196. Umhoefer, D. L., Vargas, T. M., & Beyer, R. (2015). Adapted physical
education service approaches and the effects on the perceived efficacy
beliefs of general physical education teachers. The Physical Educator, 72,
361–381.
197. UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on
Special Needs Education. Salamanca, Spain.
http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF
198. UNESCO (2001). The Open File on Inclusive Education. Paris: UNESCO.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001252/125237eo.pdf
199. UNESCO (2008). Inclusive Education: The Way of the Future. General
Presentation of the 48th Session of the ICE. Paris: UNESCO.
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Policy_Dialogue/48th_IC
E/General_ Presentation-48CIE-English.pdf.
200. UNESCO (2015). SDG4-Education 2030, Incheon Declaration (ID) and
Framework for Action. For the Implementation of Sustainable Development
Goal 4, Ensure Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education and Promote
Lifelong Learning Opportunities for All, ED-2016/WS/28.
201. Unianu, E. M. (2012). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education.
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 33, 900–904.
202. Urton, K., Wilbert, J., & Hennemann, T., (2014). Der Zusammenhang
zwischen der Einstellung zur Integration und der Selbstwirksamkeit von
Schulleitungen und deren Kollegien. Empirische Sonderpädagogik, 6(1), 3–16.
https://www.pedocs.de/volltexte/2014/9242/pdf/ESP_2014_1_Urton_ua_Zus
ammenhang_zwischen_Einstellung.pdf
203. Vallerand, R. J. (1989). Vers une méthodologie de validation trans-culturelle
de questionnaires psychologiques: Implications pour la recherche en langue
française [Toward a Methodology for the Transcultural Validation of
Psychological Questionnaires: Implications for Research in the French
Language]. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 30(4), 662–680.
205
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079856
204. Van Biesen, D., Busciglio, A., & Vanlandewijck, Y. (2006). Attitudes
towards the inclusion of children with disabilities: The effect of the
implementation of A Paralympic School Day on Flemish elementa-ry
children. In Proceedings of the 8th European Con-ference of Adapted
Physical Activity, Faculty of Physical Culture, Palacký University, Olomouc.
http://www.eufapa.upol.cz/www/EUCAPA2006/full/vanbiesen1.pdf.
205. Van Daal, T., Donche, V., & De Maeyer, S. (2014). The impact of
personality, goal orientation and self-efficacy on participation of high school
teachers in learning activities in the workplace. Vocations and Learning, 7,
21–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-013-9105-5
206. Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., & Williams, A. A. (2001). The
changing signs in the relationships among self-efficacy, personal goals, and
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 605–620.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.4.605
207. Vaz, S., Wilson, N., Falkmer, M., Sim, A., Scott, M., Cordier, R., &
Falkmer, T. (2015) Factors associated with primary school teachers’
attitudes towards the inclusion of students with disabilities. PLoS ONE,
10(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137002
208. Vickerman, P. (2007). Training physical education teachers to include
children with special educational needs: Perspectives from physical
education initial teacher training providers. European Physical Education
Review, 13(3), 385–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X07083706
209. Vogler, E. W., Koranda, P., & Romance, T. (2000). Including a child with
severe cerebral palsy in physical education: A case study. Adapted Physical
210. Wang, C. L., & Ha, A. S. (2013). The theory of planned behaviour:
predicting pre-service teachers’ teaching behaviour towards a constructivist
approach. Sport, Education and Society, 18(2), 222–242.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2011.558572
211. Wang, L., Qi, J., & Wang, L. (2015). Beliefs of Chinese physical educators
on teaching students with disabilities in general physical education classes.
Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 32, 137–155.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/APAQ.2014-0140
212. Winnic, J. P., & Porretta, D. L. (2017). Adapted Physical Education and
206
Sport, 6th ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
213. World Conference on Education for All: Meeting Basic Learning Needs.
(1990). World Declaration on Education for all and Framework for Action
to Meet Basic Learning Needs adopted by the World Conference on
Education for All: Meeting Basic Learning Needs, Jomtien, Thailand, 5–9
March 1990. New York, N.Y: Inter-Agency Commission (UNDP,
UNESCO, UNICEF, World Bank) for the World Conference on Education
for All.
214. Xafopoulos, G., Kudlacek, M., & Evaggelinou, C. (2009). Effect of the
intervention program “Paralympic School Day” on attitudes of children
attending international school towards inclusion of students with disabilities.
Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis. Gymnica, 39(4), 63–71.
215. Yada, A., & Savolainen, H. (2017). Japanese in-service teachers’ attitudes
toward inclusive education and self-efficacy for inclusive practices.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 222–229.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.02.005
207
APPENDICES
208
Results of Pre-test analysis of Physical EducationTeachers and Groups of Students Participating in Educational Experiment
by personal Attributes
Appendix 1
209
Appendix 2. Comparison of Educational Experiment Groups According to the
self-efficacy of the Physical Education Teachers and the Attitudes of the Students
Comparison of physical education teachers groups according to the self-efficacy value

Autism
Physical Visual
Comparative Intellectual spectrum
disability impairment
Groups disability scale disorders
scale scale
scale
Group II 40 h and
p = .98 p = .06 p = .36 p = .49
group I 18 h
Group II 40 h and
p = .18 p = .26 p = .31 p = .12
control group
Group I 18 h and
p = .07 p = .68 p = .99 p = .58
control group
Note. The independent samples t-Test was used to evaluate the difference
between the averages of the self-efficacy values
Comparison of student groups according to the attitude value
Visual
Intellectual Physical
Comparative Groups impairment
disability scale disability scale
scale
Group II 40 h and group
p = .08 p = .07 p = .31
I 18 h
Group II 40 h and
p = .07 p = .06 p = .10
control group
Group I 18 h and control
p = .07 p = .06 p = .08
group
Note. Mann-Whitney U test was used to estimate the differences between
the averages of the values
210
Appendix 3. Self-Efficacy Scale for Physical Education Teacher Education Majors
towards Children with Disabilities (SE-PETE-D)
211
Situational-Specific Self-Efficacy and Inclusion Students with
Disabilities in Physical Education
Directions: This survey is designed to investigate your self-efficacy towards
including a student with an intellectual, physical, or visual disability into your high
school general physical education program. We define self-efficacy as your
personal judgment of your competence or your confidence in your ability to carry
out a goal or task (Bandura, 1986). In this case, we want to find your personal
judgment of how confident you are in your ability to accommodate a student with
an intellectual, physical, or visual disability who is included in your general
physical education classes. The competency scale for each question is from 1 (no
confidence) to 5 (complete confidence). There are no right or wrong answers, and
every physical educator will answer these questions differently. We only want to
find out how confident you feel in your ability to accommodate a student with an
intellectual, physical, or visual disability like the ones described below into your
general physical education class. The survey ends with some demographic
questions. We are not asking for your name or any identifying information, so
your participation is completely anonymous.
Part 1 – Intellectual Disability

Below you will see a description of a student with an intellectual disability. This
will be followed by a series of questions about how competent/capable you feel
about making certain accommodations for this student. You will then see a
description of a student with a physical disability followed by another series of
questions. Answer these questions as if this student is going to be in your general
physical education class next week. The competency scale for each question is
from 1 (cannot do at all) to 5 (highly certain can do).
********************
Description of Student with an Intellectual Disability
Noah is a high school student with an intellectual disability, so he doesn't learn as
quickly as his classmates. Because of his intellectual disability he also doesn't talk
very well, so sometimes it is hard to understand what he is saying. However, he
will point or gesture to help people know what he wants. He also has trouble
understanding verbal directions, particularly when the directions have multiple
steps. Noah likes playing the same sports as his classmates, but he does not do
very well when playing actual games. Even though he can run, he is slower than
212
his peers and tires easily. He can throw, but not very far, and he can catch balls
that are tossed directly to him. He likes soccer, but he cannot kick a ball very far,
and he never can remember where to go on the field. He also likes basketball, but
he does not have enough skill to dribble without losing the ball, and he is not
coordinated enough to make a basket. He also does not really know the rules for
basketball or other team sports, and he easily gets distracted and off task during
the game.
********************
Please rate how certain you are that you can do the things listed below by
writing the appropriate number from 1–5 using the scale given below after each
question.
1 2 3 4 5
No Low Moderate High Complete
Confidence Confidence Confidence Confidence Confidence
Questions a-c: You are conducting physical fitness testing with your 9th grade
physical education class of 30 students that includes Noah.
Confidence (1–5)
a. How confident are you in your ability to keep Noah on task during fitness
testing? _____
b. How confident are you in your ability to modify the test for Noah?
_____
c. How confident are you in your ability to instruct peers to help Noah during
fitness testing? _____
Questions d-h: You are conducting a team sport unit such as volleyball, basketball,
or soccer to your 9th grade physical education class of 30 students that includes
Noah. You are in the first week of the unit, and you are teaching the basic skills of
the sport (ex, the bump, set, and serve in volleyball).
Confidence (1–5)
d. How confident are you in your ability to modify your instructions to help Noah
understand what to do when teaching sport skills? _____
e. How confident are you in your ability to help Noah stay on task when teaching
sport skills? _____
f. How confident are you in your ability to modify equipment to help Noah when
teaching sport skills? _____
213
g. How confident are you in your ability to modify the actual skills to help Noah
when teaching sport skills? _____
h. How confident are you in your ability to instruct peers to help Noah when
Questions i–k: You are conducting a team sport unit such as volleyball, basketball,
Noah. You are in the last week of the unit, and you are now having your students
play the actual game.
Confidence (1–5)
i. How confident are you in your ability to modify rules of the game for Noah?
_____
j. How confident are you in your ability to help Noah stay on task during the
game? _____
k. How confident are you in your ability to instruct peers to help Noah during
the game? _____
Situational-Specific Self-Efficacy and Inclusion Students

with Disabilities in Physical Education
Part 2 – Physical Disability
Below you will see a description of a student with a physical disability. This will be
followed by a series of questions about how competent/capable you feel about
making certain accommodations for this student. As was the case above, answer
these questions as if this student is going to be in your general physical education
class next week. The competency scale for each question is from 1 (cannot do at
all) to 5 (highly certain can do).
********************
Description of a Student with a Physical Disability
Ashton is a high school student with a spinal cord injury. He cannot walk, so
instead he pushes himself in his wheelchair to get around. Ashton likes playing the
same sports as his classmates, but he does not do very well when playing the
actual game. Even though he can push his wheelchair, he is slower than others
and tires after pushing his chair for only 1–2 minutes. He can pass and serve a
volleyball, but not far enough to get it over the net. He can catch balls tossed
straight to him. However, he does not have the upper body strength to shoot a
basketball high enough to make a regulation basket. Because he cannot use his
legs, he cannot kick a soccer ball, but he can push the ball forward with his chair.
214
writing the appropriate number from 1–5 using the scale given below after
each question.
1 2 3 4 5
********************
Questions a–d: You are conducting physical fitness testing with your 9th grade
physical education class of 30 students that includes Ashton.
Confidence (1–5)
a. How confident are you in your ability to create individual goals for Ashton
during fitness testing? _____
b. How confident are you in your ability to modify the test for Ashton? _____
c. How confident are you in your ability to instruct peers to help Ashton during
d. How confident are you in your ability to make the environment safe for
Ashton during fitness testing? _____
Questions e–h: You are conducting a team sport unit such as volleyball,
basketball, or soccer to your 9th grade physical education class of 30 students that
includes Ashton. You are in the first week of the unit, and you are teaching the
basic skills of the sport (ex, the bump, set, and serve in volleyball.
Confidence (1–5)
e. How confident are you in your ability to make modifications to sports skills if
Ashton cannot perform like his peers when you are teaching sport skills? _____
f. How confident are you in your ability to make the environment safe for
Ashton when teaching sport skills? _____
g. How confident are you in your ability to modify equipment to help Ashton
h. How confident are you in your ability to instruct peers to help Ashton when
Questions i–l: You are conducting a team sport unit such as volleyball, basketball,
Ashton. You are in the last week of the unit, and you are now having your
students play the actual game.
215
Confidence (1–5)
i. How confident are you in your ability to modify rules of the game for Ashton?
_____
j. How confident are you in your ability to modify equipment to help Ashton
during the game? _____
k. How confident are you in your ability to make the environment safe for
Ashton during the game? _____
l. How confident are you in your ability to instruct peers to help Ashton when

Part 3 – Visual Disability
Below you will see a description of a student with a visual disability. This will be
followed by a series of questions about how competent/capable you feel about
making certain accommodations for this student. As was the case above, answer
these questions as if this student is going to be in your general physical education
class next week. The competency scale for each question is from 1 (cannot do at
all) to 5 (highly certain can do).
********************
Description of a Student with a Visual Disability
Sofia is a high school student. She has severe visual impairment, so she can only
see people and objects when they are really close to her. She likes physical activity,
and her fitness level is comparable to her peers. She needs physical assistance to
safely move around physical education settings. For example, she holds onto a
peer’s elbow and listens to her peer’s auditory cues when she does the mile run.
Also, her vision is not good enough to see demonstrations, so she needs verbal
instructions and someone guiding her through the movement to understand how
to perform a skill. When playing a team sport (e.g., basketball, volleyball, soccer),
she needs someone with her for safety and to make sure she knows where she is
on the field, and she needs a ball with auditory cues to know where the ball is
during the game. Regarding her skill level, she cannot catch a ball, but she can
throw or kick the ball towards an auditory target.
********************
216
writing theappropriate number from 1–5 using the scale given below after
each question.
1 2 3 4 5
Questions a–c: You are conducting physical fitness testing with your 9th grade
physical education class of 30 students that includes Sofia.
Confidence (1–5)
a. How confident are you in your ability to make the environment safe for Sofia
b. How confident are you in your ability to instruct peers to help Sofia during
c. How confident are you in your ability to modify the fitness testing
requirements for Sofia during fitness testing? _____
Questions d–g: You are conducting a team sport unit such as volleyball,
basketball, or soccer to your 9th grade physical education class of 30 students that
includes Sofia. You are in the first week of the unit, and you are teaching the basic
skills of the sport (ex, the bump, set, and serve in volleyball.
Confidence (1–5)
d. How confident are you in your ability to modify instructions to help Sofia
e. How confident are you in your ability to instruct peers to help Sofia when
f. How confident are you in your ability to modify equipment to help Sofia when
g. How confident are you in your ability to make the environment safe for Sofia
Questions h–j: You are conducting a team sport unit such as volleyball, basketball,
Sofia. You are in the last week of the unit, and you are now having your students
play the actual game.
Confidence (1–5)
h. How confident are you in your ability to make the environment safe for Sofia
during the game? _____
217
i. How confident are you in your ability to instruct peers to help Sofia during the
game? _____
j. How confident are you in your ability to modify rules of the game for Sofia?
_____

Part 4 – Demographic Questions
1. __________ Your age
2. __________ Your gender
3. __________ Your year in college (e.g., 2nd year, 3rd year, 4th year)
4. __________ Have you had a general physical education internship in a
middle or high school?
5. __________ Coursework in adapted physical education (APE) (e.g., 1
course, 2 courses, etc.)
6. __________ Are you enrolled in an undergraduate minor or concentration in
APE?
7. __________ Did your APE course have a practicum? (yes/no)
8. __________ If yes to #5 above, was the practicum (check all that apply):
a. ___ working with a student with a disability 1-on-1 at your
college/university?
b. ___ working with a small group of students with disabilities at your
college/university?
c. ___ working with a student with a disability 1-on-1 in a local school?
d. ___ working with a small group of students with disabilities in a local school?
e. ___ assisting a student being included in a general physical education class?
f. ___ volunteering for community sport such as Special Olympics?
9. What are your experiences with the following students with physical,
intellectual, or visual disabilities in physical education or community sports?
No experience Once or twice Several times
Intellectual disability _____ _____ _____
Physical disability _____ _____ _____
Visual disability _____ _____ _____
10. What are your personal experiences with people with intellectual, physical, or
visual disabilities?
Family member A friend Someone at school
Intellectual disability _____ _____ _____
Physical disability _____ _____ _____
Visual disability _____ _____ _____
218
Appendix 4. Physical Educators’ Self-Efficacy Toward Including Students
with Disabilities-Autism (PESEISD-A)
219
Physical Educators’ Self-Efficacy Toward Including Students
with Disabilities-Autism (PESEISD-A)
Do you currently teach physical education?
____Yes ____ No (please do not continue)
Please provide your e-mail address:______________________
Directions: This survey is designed to assess your judgment of confidence in your

ability to safely, successfully, and meaningfully include a student with autism into
your general physical education classes.
Below you will see a description of a student with autism. The description is
followed by a series of questions about how you feel about performing certain
tasks to accommodate this student. Answer these questions as if this student will
participate in your general physical education class next week. There are no
correct answers, and each person will answer these questions differently. We just
want to know how confident you feel in your ability to safely, successfully, and
meaningfully include a student with autism like the one described below into your
general physical education class next week. The survey continues with questions
about your past experiences including students with autism in general physical
education classes, and ends with some demographic questions.
Description of Autism
*A student with autism is someone who has:
(a) significant difficulties in social interactions with peers and teachers,
(b) significant difficulties in communication both in understanding what
is said and producing verbal language, and
(c) unique, repetitive behaviors that interfere with learning and
attending.
In physical education, most students with autism may have difficulties

relating to peers, understanding directions, following changes in class
routines, playing appropriately with equipment, and tolerating the noise
level and space in the gym. In addition, students with autism may
display inappropriate behaviors such as hand flapping, rocking, and
wandering around the space.
*Modified from the DSM-IV-TR definition of autism (2000).
220
Physical Educators Self-Efficacy Toward Including
Students with Disabilities-Autism
This survey is designed to help us gain a better understanding of the things that
create difficulties for teachers in including students with autism in general
physical education activities. Please rate how certain you are that you can do the
tasks listed below by writing the appropriate number after the question.
Please rate your degree of confidence by recording a number from 0 to 10 using

the scale given below:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cannot Moderately highly
do at can do certain
all can do
Confidence
I am confident in my ability to: (0–10)
1. Modify equipment for students with autism who are included

in my general physical education classes. ___
2. Modify activities for students with autism who are included in

my general physical education classes. ___
3. Create a safe environment for students with autism who are

included in my general physical education classes. ___
4. Promote social interactions with peers for students with

autism who are included in my general physical education ___
classes.
5. Manage behaviors of students with autism who are included in
my general physical education classes. ___
6. Modify instructions for students with autism who are included

in my general physical education classes. ___
221
7. Assess the motor skills of students with autism who are
8. Modify rules to games for students with autism who are

9. Collaborate effectively with other teachers/professionals

regarding students with autism who are included in my ___
general physical education classes.
10. Motivate students with autism who are included in my
general physical education classes. ___
Mastery Experiences
Please rate the level of success you have experienced in doing the tasks listed
below when including a student with autism in your general physical education
classes by placing a check in the appropriate box.
How successful have you I do not Not at all Not very Some- Moder- Very
been at performing the have any succes- succes- what ately succes-
following tasks for students exper- sful (Less sful succes- succes- sful
with autism who are ience than 15% (15–39% sful sful (61– (More
included in your general doing of the of the (40–60% 85% of than 85%
physical education classes? this time) time) of the the time) of the
time) time)
11. Modifying equipment
12. Modifying activities
13. Creating a safe
environment
14. Promoting social
interactions
15. Managing behaviors
16. Modifying instructions
17. Assessing motor skills
18. Modifying rules
19. Collaborating effectively
with others
20. Motivating the student
222
Vicarious experiences:
Pease rate the level of success of other PE teachers you have observed at doing
the tasks listed below when including a student with autism in their general
physical education classes by placing a check in the appropriate box.
How successful are other I have Not at all Not very Some- Moder- Very
PE teachers you have not seen succes- succes- what ately succes-
observed at performing other PE sful sful succes- succes- sful
the following tasks for teachers (Less (15–39% sful sful (61– (More
students with autism who do this than of the (40–60% 85% of than
are included in general 15% of time) of the the time) 85% of
physical education the time) time) the time)
classes?
21. Modifying equipment
22. Modifying activities
23. Creating a safe
environment
24. Promoting social
interactions
25. Managing behaviors
26. Modifying
instructions
27. Assessing motor skills
28. Modifying rules
29. Collaborating
effectively with others
30. Motivating the
student
223
Social Persuasion
Please rate what others (e.g. teachers, parents, colleagues, supervisors,
principals) have told you regarding your capabilities to do the tasks listed below
when including a student with autism in your general physical education classes
by placing a check in the appropriate box.
What have others told I have not Not at Not Both Moderately Very
you about your been told all very capable capable capable
capabilities to perform anything capable capable and not
the following tasks for about my capable
students with autism capabilities
who are included in
your general physical
education classes?
31. Modify equipment
32. Modify activities
33. Create a safe
environment
34. Promote social
interactions
35. Manage behaviors
36. Modify instructions
37. Assess motor skills
38. Modify rules
39. Collaborate
effectively with
others
40. Motivate the
student
224
Behaviors
Please rate how often you do the tasks listed below by placing a check in the
appropriate box.
How often do you perform the following tasks for students with autism who are
included in your general physical education classes?
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

41. Modify equipment
42. Modify activities
43. Create a safe environment
44. Promote social interactions
45. Manage behaviors
46. Modify instructions
47. Assess motor skills
48. Modify rules
49. Collaborate effectively with
others
50. Motivate the student
Physiological States
Please rate how including a child with autism in your general physical education
class makes you feel by placing a check in the appropriate box.
Definitely Moderately Neither Moderately Definitely

false false true nor true true
false
51. Including a student with
autism in my general
physical education class
makes me feel stressed.
52. Including a student with
autism in my general
physical education class
makes me feel nervous.
225
Challenges
A number of situations are described below that can make it difficult for you to
include students with disabilities in your general physical education classes. Please
rate the extent to which each situation makes it difficult for you to meaningfully
include a student with autism into your general physical education program.
To what extent do the following Not at all Not Sometimes Somewhat Very
situations make it difficult for an issue much of an issue, of an issue much
you to meaningfully include a an issue sometimes an issue
student with autism into your not an
general physical education issue
program?
53. I am not sure how to modify
activities
54. I do not have time to make
modifications
55. I do not have appropriate
equipment
56. I have large class sizes
57. There are multiple classes in
the gym
58. The student’s skill level is
very different than peers in
the class
59. I have no aid or support to
help
60. I do not have information
about the student
61. I have limited training on
autism
62. The student has behavior
problems
63. The student has problems
staying on task
226
Now, tell us:
1. How old are you? __________________
2. What is your gender? _______________
3. What state do you currently teach in? __________________
4. Are you certified to teach PE in your state (yes/no)_____________________
5. How many years of experience teaching physical education do you have?
(e.g., 1yr, 2r., etc.)__________
6. What grade level(s) do you currently teach? (e.g., elementary, middle, high
school)__________
7. How many undergraduate courses have you completed in adapted physical
education? __________
8. How many graduate courses have you completed in adapted physical education?
_________
9. How many undergraduate or graduate courses have you completed in special
education? ________
10. How many in-services have you attended that had information on autism?
__________
11. Does your school district have an adapted physical education specialist (yes/no)?
__________
12. If yes to #11 above, this APE person (check all that apply):
a. ____ teaches the student in a separate adapted physical education class
setting.
b. ___ consults with me on how to better work with this student in my PE class.
c. ___ pulls student out of my class to work one on one in a different
environment.
d. ___ comes into my PE class and works with the student on a monthly basis.
e. ___ comes into my PE class and works with the student on a weekly basis.
13. In the past 5 years, approximately how many students with autism have been
included in your general physical education classes? _____________
14. Do you feel you have support from the following:
Yes No Don’t know
Adapted PE specialist ___ ___ ___
Teacher assistants ___ ___ ___
Special Ed. teacher ___ ___ ___
Physical therapist ___ ___ ___
15. How well do you think your undergraduate PE program prepared you to include
students with autism in general physical education?
______ Not at all ______ Fairly well ______ Very well
Thank you so much!
227
Appendix 5. The Children's Attitudes Toward lntegrated Physical
Education-Revised (CAIPE-R)
(Student with wheelchair)
Martin E. Block
University of Virginia
1995
[The picture of a student in a wheelchair]
Jimmy [pseudonym] is the same age you are. However, he cannot walk, so he uses
a wheelchair to get around. Jimmy likes playing the same games you do, but he
does not do very well in the games. Even though he can push his wheelchair, he is
slower than you and tires easily. He can throw a ball, but not very far. He can catch
balls that are tossed straight at him, and he can hit a baseball off a tee, but he
cannot shoot a basketball high enough to make a basket. Because his legs do not
work, he cannot kick a ball. When listening to the sentences, think about Jimmy.
1. I live in Illinois
2. We eat lunch at 8:30 a.m.
General Statements
3. It would be OK having Jimmy in my P.E. class.
4. Because Jimmy needs help to play sports, he would slow down the game.
5. If we were playing a team sport such as basketball, it would be OK having
Jimmy on my team.
6. P.E.would be fun if Jimmy were in my P.E. class.
7. If Jimmy were in my P.E. class, I would talk to him and be his friend.
8. If Jimmy were in my P.E. class, I would like to help him practice and play the
games.
Sport-Specific Statements (referenced to sofball for this particular school)
9. Jimmy could hit a ball placed on a tee.
10. Jimmy could have someone help him run to first base.
11. The distance between home and first base could be shorter for Jimmy.
12. Someone could help Jimmy when he plays in the field.
13. If the ball was hit to Jimmy, the batter could only run as far as second base.
228
Answer sheet
Age ___________
Circle one:
Boy Girl
Circle one:
YES, someone in my NO, I do not
family or a close have any
friend of mine has a family members
disability or friends who have a disability
Circle one:
YES, I had someone NO, I never had
in one of my regular someone in my
classes who had a regular classes
disability who had a disability
Circle one:
YES, I had someone NO, I never had
In one of my P.E. someone in my
Classes who had a P.E. classes
Disability who had a disability
Circle one:
Very competitive Kind of competitive Not competitive
(I like to win, and I get (I like to win, but it is OK if I (no matter whether
very upset if I lose) lose sometimes) they win or
lose; they like the
game itself)
-- PLEASE TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE--
229
NOW LISTEN TO THE MONITOR AND CIRCLE YOUR ANSWER.
1. YES PROBABLY YES PROBABLY NO NO

Thank you! You are finished!
230
Appendix 6. Lithuanian version of Self-Efficacy Scale for Physical Education
Teacher Education Majors towards Children with Disabilities (SE-PETE-D-LT)
231
Kūno kultūros mokytojų savaveiksmiškumo skalė dirbtant su
negalią turinčiais mokiniais bendroje kūno kultūros pamokoje
Šiuo tyrimu siekiame ištirti Jūsų savaveiksmiškumą įtraukti intelekto, fizinę ir

regėjimo sutrikimų turinčius moksleivius į Jūsų mokyklos (gimnazijos) kūno
kultūros programą. Savaveiksmiškumą mes apibrėžiame kaip Jūsų asmeninį savo
kompetencijų vertinimą arba pasitikėjimą savo gebėjimais atlikti užduotį arba
pasiekti tikslą (Bandura, 1986). Šiuo konkrečiu atveju mes norime, kad Jūs pati(-s)
įvertintumėte savo pasitikėjimą gebėjimu dirbti su intelekto, fizinę ir regėjimo
negalią turinčiu moksleiviu bendroje kūno kultūros pamokoje. Kiekvienu klausimu
kompetencija vertinama balais nuo 1 (nepasitikiu) iki 5 (visiškai pasitikiu). Nėra
teisingų ar klaidingų atsakymų – mes tik norime sužinoti, kiek Jūs pasitikite savo
gebėjimu dirbti pagal pateiktą situaciją, apibūdinančią intelekto, fizinę arba
regėjimo negalią turinčius moksleivius bendroje kūno kultūros pamokoje. Tyrimo
pradžioje pateikti keli klausimai demografinei informacijai surinkti. Mes
neprašome Jūsų nurodyti savo vardo ir pavardės ar kitos asmenį identifikuoti
leidžiančios informacijos, tad Jūsų dalyvavimas yra visiškai anonimiškas. Jūsų
atsakymai Jums tiesiogiai jokių pasekmių neturės. Gautų tyrimo duomenų
anonimiškumą ir konfidencialumą garantuojame. Labai prašome Jūsų kiek galima
tiksliau atsakyti į anketoje pateiktus klausimus. Jei sutinkate dalyvauti tyrime,
atsakymus įrašykite arba pažymėkite tam skirtuose langeliuose. Iškilus
neaiškumams dėl anketos galite kreiptis į tyrimo vykdytoją Dovilę Selickaitę (mob.
tel. +370 662 53706 ir el. paštu [email protected]).
Nuoširdžiai dėkojame už bendradarbiavimą.
232
Demografinė informacija
1. Amžius __________________ 2. Lytis _______________

3. Jūsų kaip kūno kultūros mokytojo darbo stažas? (įrašykite) __________metai
4. Ar studijų ir (ar) po studijų esate išklausęs Taikomosios fizinės veiklos kursą*
(Taip / Ne)? __________ Jei „taip“, kokios trukmės _____________ val.
*Taikomosios fizinės veiklos kursas – tai kursas, kurio metu nagrinėjamos temos apie įvairias
negalias turinčių asmenų įtraukimą į kūno kultūros pamokas, sportą ir kitas fizines veiklas. Šie
kursai(seminarai) neapima šių asmenų kineziterapijos ir kitų terapinių veiklų.
5. Ar studijų ir (ar) po studijų esate išklausęs Specialiojo ugdymo kursą (Taip/Ne)?

________ Jei „taip“, kokios trukmės _____________ val.
6. Kiek mokinių, turinčių negalią, per paskutinius 5 metus buvo į traukta į Jūsų
bendrą kūno kultūros pamoką? (įrašykite)
Intelekto negalia ________ Fizinė negalia________ Regos sutrikimai________
7. Ar Jūs gaunate (turite) galimybę gauti šių specialistų paramą?
Taip Ne Nežinau
Taikomosios fizinės veiklos specialisto ___ ___ ___
Mokytojo asistento ___ ___ ___
Specialiojo pedagogo ___ ___ ___
Kineziterapeuto ___ ___ ___
Kita_______ ___ ___ ___
8. Kokia Jūsų asmeninė patirtis su asmenimis, turinčiais negalią?

Neturiu patirties Draugas Šeimos narys
Intelekto negalia ___ ___ ___
Fizine negalia ___ ___ ___
Regos negalia ___ ___ ___
233
1 dalis – Intelekto negalia
Toliau apibūdintas moksleivis, turintis intelekto negalią. Po apibūdinimo yra
keletas klausimų apie Jūsų kompetenciją (gebėjimą) sudaryti tam tikras sąlygas
šiam moksleiviui bendroje kūno kultūros pamokoje. Klausimai pateikiami po
moksleivio su negalia apibūdinimo. Atsakykite į klausimus, lyg šis moksleivis kitą
savaitę dalyvautų Jūsų kūno kultūros pamokoje. Kiekviename klausime
kompetencijos skalė vertinama balais nuo 1 (nieko negaliu padaryti) iki 5 (tikrai
galiu kai ką padaryti).
********************
Moksleivio su intelekto negalia apibūdinimas
Nojus yra progimnazijos moksleivis su intelekto negalia, todėl mokosi lėčiau nei jo
bendraklasiai. Dėl intelekto negalios jis blogai kalba, todėl kartais sunku suprasti,
ką jis sako, tačiau Nojus gestais parodo, ko nori. Jam taip pat sunku suprasti
žodinius nurodymus, ypač kai nurodymas apima daugiau nei vieną veiksmą. Nojui
patinka tie patys žaidimai kaip ir jo bendraklasiams, tačiau žaisti pagal taisykles
jam sunkiai sekasi. Jis gali bėgti, tačiau bėga lėčiau už savo bendraamžius ir greitai
pavargsta. Jis gali mesti, bet nelabai toli, ir gali pagauti tiesiai jam metamą
kamuolį. Jam patinka futbolas, bet jis nenuspiria kamuolio toli ir niekad
neprisimena, kur reikia bėgti futbolo aikštėje. Jam patinka ir krepšinis, bet jis
nesugeba varytis kamuolio jo nepamesdamas ir neturi pakankamos koordinacijos
įmesti kamuolį į krepšį. Jis taip pat nesupranta krepšinio bei kitų komandinių
žaidimų taisyklių ir žaisdamas neišlaiko dėmesio.
********************
Prašome įvertinti, kiek Jūs esate įsitikinęs, kad galite atlikti toliau išvardytas
užduotis, vertinimo skalėje po kiekvieno klausimo įrašydami skaičių nuo 1 iki 5.
1 2 3 4 5
Jokio Mažas Vidutinis Didelis Visiškas
pasitikėjimo pasitikėjimas pasitikėjimas pasitikėjimas pasitikėjimas
234
a–c klausimai: Per kūno kultūros pamoką Jūs tikrinate 30 šeštokų, tarp kurių yra
Nojus, fizinį pajėgumą.
Pasitikėjimas (1–5)
a. Kiek pasitikite savo gebėjimu nenukrypti nuo užduoties per fizinio pajėgumo
patikrinimą? _____
b. Kiek pasitikite savo gebėjimu pritaikyti užduotis Nojui? _____
c. Kiek pasitikite savo gebėjimu paaiškinti bendraklasiams, kaip padėti Nojui per
fizinio pajėgumo patikrinimą? _____
d–h klausimai: Per kūno kultūros pamoką 30 šeštokų, tarp kurių yra Nojus,
mokote žaisti komandinį žaidimą, pvz., tinklinį, krepšinį arba futbolą. Dabar
pirmoji modulio savaitė ir Jūs mokote žaidimo technikos pagrindų, pvz.,
smūgiavimo, perdavimo, padavimo (tinklinyje).
d. Kiek, mokydami žaidimo technikos, pasitikite savo gebėjimu pritaikyti užduotis
Nojui, kad jis suprastų, ką reikia daryti? _____
e. Kiek, mokydami žaidimo technikos, pasitikite savo gebėjimu padėti Nojui
nenukrypti nuo užduoties? _____
f. Kiek, mokydami žaidimo technikos, pasitikite savo gebėjimu pritaikyti įrangą
Nojui? _____
g. Kiek, mokydami žaidimo technikos, pasitikite savo gebėjimu modifikuoti
Nojaus jo turimus įgūdžius, kad jam padėtumėte? _____
h. Kiek, mokydami žaidimo technikos, pasitikite savo gebėjimu paaiškinti
bendraklasiams, kaip padėti Nojui? _____
i–k klausimai: Per kūno kultūros pamoką 30 šeštokų, tarp kurių yra Nojus, mokote
žaisti komandinį žaidimą, pvz., tinklinį, krepšinį arba futbolą. Dabar paskutinė
modulio savaitė ir moksleiviai žaidžią tikrą žaidimą.
i. Kiek pasitikite savo gebėjimu pritaikyti žaidimo taisykles Nojui? _____
j. Kiek pasitikite savo gebėjimu padėti Nojui nenukrypti nuo užduoties žaidimo
metu? _____
k. Kiek pasitikite savo gebėjimu paaiškinti bendraklasiams kaip padėti Nojui
žaidimo metu? _____
235
2 dalis – Fizinė negalia
Toliau apibūdintas moksleivis su fizine negalia. Po apibūdinimo yra keletas
klausimų apie Jūsų kompetenciją (gebėjimą) sudaryti tam tikras sąlygas šiam
moksleiviui kūno kultūros pamokoje. Kaip ir ankstesnėje dalyje, atsakykite į
klausimus taip, lyg šis moksleivis kitą savaitę dalyvautų Jūsų kūno kultūros
pamokoje. Kiekviename klausime kompetencijos skalė vertinama balais nuo 1
(nieko negaliu padaryti) iki 5 (tikrai galiu kai ką padaryti).
Moksleivio su fizine negalia apibūdinimas

Audrius – gimnazijos moksleivis su trauminiu nugaros smegenų pažeidimu. Jis
negali vaikščioti ir juda vežimėliu. Audriui patinka tie patys žaidimai, kaip ir jo
bendraklasiams, tačiau žaisti jam sekasi sunkiai. Stumdamas savo vežimėlį jis juda
lėčiau nei kiti ir pavargsta po 1–2 minučių. Tinklinyje jis gali perduoti ir paduoti
kamuolį, tačiau ne taip toli, kad permestų per tinklą. Jo viršutinė kūno dalis nėra
taip stipriai išsivysčiusi ir jam neužtenka jėgos įmesti kamuolį į standartiniame
aukštyje kabantį krepšį. Nevaldydamas kojų jis negali spirti futbolo kamuolio,
tačiau gali savo vežimėliu varyti jį į priekį.
1 2 3 4 5
a–d klausimai: Per kūno kultūros pamoką Jūs tikrinate 30 šeštokų, tarp kurių yra
Audrius, fizinį pajėgumą.
a. Kiek pasitikite savo gebėjimu nustatyti Audriui individualius tikslus per fizinio
pajėgumo patikrinimą? _____
b. Kiek pasitikite savo gebėjimu pritaikyti užduotis Audriui? _____
c. Kiek pasitikite savo gebėjimu paaiškinti bendraklasiams, kaip padėti Audriui
per fizinio pajėgumo testavimą? _____
d. Kiek pasitikite savo gebėjimu sukurti saugią aplinką Audriui testuojant fizinį
pajėgumą? _____
236
e–h klausimai: Per kūno kultūros pamoką 30 šeštokų, tarp kurių yra Audrius,
pirmoji modulio savaitė ir Jūs mokote pagrindinių žaidimo technikos pagrindų,
pvz.: smūgiavimo, perdavimo, padavimo (tinklinyje).
e. Kiek mokydami žaidimo technikos pasitikite savo gebėjimu modifikuoti
Audriaus turimus sportinius įgūdžius, jei jis negali atlikti veiksmų taip gerai,
kaip jo bendraamžiai? _____
f. Kiek mokydami žaidimo technikos pasitikite savo gebėjimu sukurti saugią
aplinką Audriui? _____
g. Kiek mokydami žaidimo technikos pasitikite savo gebėjimu pritaikyti įrangą
Audriui? _____
h. Kiek mokydami žaidimo technikos pasitikite savo gebėjimu paaiškinti
bendraklasiams, kaip padėti Audriui? _____
i–l klausimai: Per kūno kultūros pamoką 30 šeštokų, tarp kurių yra Audrius,
paskutinė modulio savaitė ir moksleiviai žaidžią tikrą žaidimą.
i. Kiek pasitikite savo gebėjimu pritaikyti žaidimo taisykles Audriui? _____
j. Kiek pasitikite savo gebėjimu žaidimo metu pritaikyti įrangą Audriui? _____
k. Kiek pasitikite savo gebėjimu žaidimo metu sukurti saugią aplinką Audriui?
_____
l. Kiek pasitikite savo gebėjimu paaiškinti bendraklasiams, kaip padėti Audriui
237
3 dalis – Regėjimo sutrikimas
Toliau apibūdinta moksleivė su regėjimo sutrikimu. Po apibūdinimo yra keletas
klausimų apie Jūsų kompetenciją (gebėjimą) sudaryti tam tikras sąlygas šiai
moksleivei kūno kultūros pamokoje. Kaip ir ankstesnėse dalyse, atsakykite į
klausimus taip, lyg ši moksleivė kitą savaitę dalyvautų Jūsų kūno kultūros
pamokoje. Kiekviename klausime kompetencijos skalė vertinama balais nuo 1
(nieko negaliu padaryti) iki 5 (tikrai galiu kai ką padaryti).
Moksleivės su regėjimo sutrikimu apibūdinimas

Sofija yra gimnazijos moksleivė. Ji turi sunkų regėjimo sutrikimą ir mato tik labai
arti esančius žmones bei daiktus. Jai patinka sportuoti ir jos fizinis pajėgumas
panašus į bendraamžių. Jai reikia fizinės pagalbos judėti sporto salėje. Pavyzdžiui,
bėgdama ji laikosi už bendraklasio parankės ir klausosi bendraklasio žodinių
užuominų (įspėjimų). Dėl blogo regėjimo ji nemato rodomų judesių, todėl jai reikia
žodinių instrukcijų ir liečiamųjų judesių, kad suprastų, kaip atlikti judesį. Žaidžiant
komandinius žaidimus (pvz., tinklinį, krepšinį, futbolą), saugumo sumetimais reikia,
kad šalia jos kas nors būtų ir pasakytų, kurioje aikštės vietoje jie yra, taip pat reikia
kamuolio su garsu, kad ji žinotų, kur žaidimo metu yra kamuolys. Ji neturi
kamuolio gaudymo įgūdžių, tačiau gali mesti arba spirti kamuolį į taikinį su
garsiniu signalu.
1 2 3 4 5
a–d klausimai: Per kūno kultūros pamoką Jūs tikrinate 30 šeštokų, tarp kurių yra
Sofija, fizinį pajėgumą.
a. Kiek pasitikite savo gebėjimu sukurti Sofijai saugią aplinką per fizinio
pajėgumo testavimą? _____
b. Kiek pasitikite savo gebėjimu paaiškinti bendraklasiams, kaip padėti Sofijai
per fizinio pajėgumo testavimą? _____
238
c. Kiek pasitikite savo gebėjimu pakeisti fizinio pajėgumo testavimo
reikalavimus Sofijai per fizinio pajėgumo patikrinimą? _____
d–g klausimai: Per kūno kultūros pamoką 30 šeštokų, tarp kurių yra Sofija,
pirmoji modulio savaitė ir Jūs mokote pagrindinių žaidimo technikų, pvz.,
d. Kiek, mokydami žaidimo technikos, pasitikite savo gebėjimu pritaikyti užduotis
Sofijai? _____
e. Kiek, mokydami žaidimo technikos, pasitikite savo gebėjimu paaiškinti
bendraklasiams, kaip padėti Sofijai? _____
f. Kiek, mokydami žaidimo technikos, pasitikite savo gebėjimu pritaikyti įrangą
Sofijai? _____
g. Kiek, mokydami žaidimo technikos, pasitikite savo gebėjimu sukurti saugią
aplinką Sofijai? _____
h–j klausimai: Per kūno kultūros pamoką 30 šeštokų, tarp kurių yra Sofija,
paskutinė modulio savaitė ir Jūs mokote pagrindinių žaidimo technikų, pvz.,
h. Kiek pasitikite savo gebėjimu žaidimo metu sukurti saugią aplinką Sofijai?
_____
i. Kiek pasitikite savo gebėjimu paaiškinti bendraklasiams, kaip padėti Sofijai
j. Kiek pasitikite savo gebėjimu pakeisti žaidimo taisykles pagal Sofijos įgūdžius?
_____
239
Appendix 7. Lithuanian version of Physical Educators’ Self-Efficacy Toward
Including Students with Disabilities-Autism (PESEISD-A-LT)
240
Kūno kultūros mokytojų savaveiksmiškumas įtraukti mokinius
su autizmo spektro sutrikimais į bendrą kūno kultūros pamoką
Tikslas: Šiuo tyrimu siekiame ištirti jūsų pasitikėjimą savimi vertinant gebėjimą
saugiai, sėkmingai ir prasmingai įtraukti mokinius, turinčius autizmo spektro
sutrikimų, į jūsų mokyklos (gimnazijos) kūno kultūros programą.
Žemiau pateikiame apibūdinimą mokinio, turinčio autizmo spektro sutrikimą. Po

apibūdinimo pateikti klausimai apie tai, kaip Jūs jaučiatės atlikdami tam tikras
užduotis, siekiant jas pritaikyti šiam mokiniui. Atsakykite į klausimus taip, lyg šis
mokinys dalyvautų Jūsų kūno kultūros pamokoje kitą savaitę. Čia nėra teisingų ir
klaidingų atsakymų, kiekvienas Jūsų į klausimus atsakys skirtingai. Mes tiesiog
norime sužinoti, kaip Jūs vertinate savo pasitikėjimą gebėjimu saugiai, sėkmingai ir
prasmingai įtraukti mokinius, turinčius autizmo spektro sutrikimų, į kitą savaitę
Jūsų vedamą bendrą kūno kultūros pamoką. Toliau anketoje yra klausimai apie
Jūsų patirtį įtraukti mokinius, turinčius autizmo spektro sutrikimų, į bendras kūno
kultūros pamokas. Tyrimo pabaigoje yra keli klausimai demografinei informacijai
surinkti.
Autizmo apibūdinimas
*Mokinys su autizmo spektro sutrikimu yra tas, kuris turi:
a) reikšmingų socialinio bendravimo su bendraamžiais ir mokytojais
sunkumų,
b) reikšmingų sunkumų komunikuojant, tiek suprantant, kas yra
sakoma, tiek kalbant,
c) specifinį, pasikartojantį elgesio modelį, kuris trukdo mokymuisi ir
dalyvavimui.
Kūno kultūros pamokoje dauguma mokinių su autizmo spektro sutrikimu

gali turėti sunkumų bendraujant su bendraamžiais, suprantant kryptis,
sekant pokyčius pamokos eigoje, naudojant įrangą ir priemones pagal
paskirtį, toleruojant esamą triukšmą sporto salėje. Taip pat mokiniai su
autizmo spektro sutrikimu gali elgtis netinkamai: plaikstytis, pliaukšėti
rankomis, linguoti, be tikslo blaškytis po salę.
*Remtasi DSM-IV-TR autizmo aprašymu (2000).
241
Kūno kultūros mokytojų savaveiksmiškumas įtraukti mokinius
su autizmo spektro sutrikimais
Šis tyrimas skirtas geriau suprasti, kokios kylančios problemos labiausiai trukdo
kūno kultūros mokytojams įtraukti mokinius su autizmo spektro sutrikimais (ASS) į
bendras veiklas per kūno kultūros pamokas.
Prašome įvertinti, kiek Jūs esate įsitikinęs, kad galite atlikti išvardytas užduotis,
po kiekvieno klausimo įrašydami atitinkamą vertinimą.
Prašome įvertinti pasitikėjimą savimi naudodami šią vertinimo skalę, įrašydami
skaičius nuo 0 iki 10:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Visiškai Vidutiniškai Visiškai
negaliu galėčiau tikras/-a,
atlikti kad galiu
tai atlikti
242
Aš pasitikiu savo gebėjimu: Pasitikėjimas
(0–10)
1. Pritaikyti priemones mokiniams su ASS, kurie dalyvauja mano

vedamose bendrose kūno kultūros pamokose. ___
2. Pritaikyti veiklas mokiniams su ASS, kurie dalyvauja mano

vedamose bendrose kūno kultūros pamokose ___
3. Sukurti saugią aplinką mokiniams su ASS, kurie dalyvauja

mano vedamose bendrose kūno kultūros pamokose. ___
4. Skatinti bendradarbiavimą su bendraamžiais mokiniams su

ASS, kurie dalyvauja mano vedamose bendrose kūno kultūros ___
pamokose.
5. Valdyti elgesį mokinių su ASS, kurie dalyvauja mano vedamose

bendrose kūno kultūros pamokose. ___
6. Pritaikyti nurodymus atliekant užduotis mokiniams su ASS,

kurie dalyvauja mano vedamose bendrose kūno kultūros ___
pamokose.
7. Įvertinti judėjimo įgūdžius mokinių su ASS, kurie dalyvauja

mano vedamose bendrose kūno kultūros pamokose. ___
8. Modifikuoti žaidimų taisykles mokiniams su ASS, kurie

dalyvauja mano vedamose bendrose kūno kultūros ___
pamokose.
9. Efektyviai bendradarbiauti su kitais mokytojais (specialistais)

dėl mokinių su ASS, kurie dalyvauja bendrose kūno kultūros ___
pamokose.
10. Motyvuoti mokinius su ASS, kurie dalyvauja mano vedamose

bendrose kūno kultūros pamokose. ___
243
Patirties meistriškumas
Prašome įvertinti, kaip Jums patiems, remiantis savo asmenine patirtimi, pavyko
sėkmingai atlikti išvardytas užduotis, įtraukiant mokinius su ASS į bendras kūno
kultūros pamokas. Pažymėkite Jums tinkamą variantą, padėdami varnelę
atitinkamame langelyje.
Kaip sėkmingai Jūs atlikote Aš Visiškai Nelabai Kažkas Viduti- Labai

šias užduotis mokiniams su neturiu nesėk- sėkmin- pavyko niškai sėkmin-
ASS, kurie dalyvauja Jūsų patirties mingai gai sėkmin- sėkmin- gai
vedamose bendrose kūno tai (mažiau (15– gai gai (daugiau
kultūros pamokose? atlikti nei 39 % (40– (61–85 % nei 85 %
15 % viso 60 % viso viso
viso laiko) viso laiko) laiko)
laiko) laiko)
11. Pritaikant priemones
12. Pritaikant veiklas
13. Kuriant saugią aplinką
14. Skatinant
bendradarbiavimą
15. Valdant elgesį
16. Pritaikant instrukcijas
17. Vertinant judėjimo
įgūdžius
18. Modifikuojant taisykles
19. Efektyviai
bendradarbiaujant
su kitais
20. Motyvuojant mokinius
244
Netiesioginė patirtis:
Prašome įvertinti, kaip kitiems kūno kultūros mokytojams, kuriuos Jums teko
stebėti, pavyko sėkmingai atlikti išvardytas užduotis, įtraukiant mokinius su ASS į
bendras kūno kultūros pamokas. Pažymėkite Jums tinkamą variantą, padėdami
varnelę atitinkamame langelyje.
Kaip sėkmingai kiti kūno Neteko Visiškai Nelabai Kažkas Viduti- Labai
kultūros mokytojai atliko matyti nė nesėk- sėkmin- pavyko niškai sėkmin-
šias užduotis mokiniams vieno kito mingai gai sėkmin- sėkmin- gai
su ASS, kurie dalyvavo mokytojo (mažiau (15– gai gai (61– (daugiau
bendrose kūno kultūros tai nei 15 % 39 % (40–60 % 85 % nei 85 %
pamokose? atliekant viso viso viso viso viso
laiko) laiko) laiko) laiko) laiko)
21. Pritaikant priemones
22. Pritaikant veiklas
23. Kuriant saugią
aplinką
24. Skatinant
bendradarbiavimą
25. Valdant elgesį
26. Pritaikant instrukcijas
27. Vertinant judėjimo
įgūdžius
28. Modifikuojant
taisykles
29. Efektyviai
bendradarbiaujant
su kitais
30. Motyvuojant
mokinius
245
Visuomenės nuomonė
Prašome įvertinti, kaip kiti (pvz., mokytojai, tėvai, kolegos, vadovai, konsultantai)
atsiliepia apie Jūsų gebėjimus atlikti išvardytas užduotis, įtraukiant mokinius su
ASS, į bendras kūno kultūros pamokas. Pažymėkite Jums tinkamą variantą,
padėdami varnelę atitinkamame langelyje.
Ką kiti Jums sakė apie Jūsų Niekada Visiškai Nelabai Sakė, Vidutiniškai Labai
gebėjimus atlikti šias niekas negebu sugebu tiek sugebu sugebu
užduotis mokiniams su ASS, nesakė sugebu,
kurie dalyvauja Jūsų apie tiek
vedamose bendrose kūno mano negebu
kultūros pamokose? gebėjimus
31. Pritaikyti priemones
32. Pritaikyti veiklas
33. Kurti saugią aplinką
34. Skatinti
bendradarbiavimą
35. Valdyti elgesį
36. Pritaikyti instrukcijas
37. Vertinti judėjimo
įgūdžius
38. Modifikuoti taisykles
39. Efektyviai
bendradarbiauti
su kitais
40. Motyvuoti mokinius
Elgesys
Prašome įvertinti, kaip dažnai Jūs atliekate išvardytas užduotis, padėdami varnelę
langelyje.
Kaip dažnai Jūs atliekate išvardintas užduotis mokiniams su ASS, kurie yra įtraukti į
Jūsų vedamas kūno kultūros pamokas?
Niekada Retai Kartais Dažnai Nuolat

41. Pritaikote priemones
42. Pritaikote veiklas
43. Kuriate saugią aplinką
44. Skatinate bendradarbiavimą
45. Valdote elgesį
46. Pritaikote instrukcijas
47. Vertinate judėjimo įgūdžius
48. Modifikuojate taisykles
49. Efektyviai bendradarbiaujate su kitais
50. Motyvuojate mokinius
246
Psichologinė būsena
Prašome įvertinti, kaip jaučiatės, kai Jums reikia įtraukti mokinį su ASS į bendrą
kūno kultūros pamoką? Pažymėkite Jums tinkamą variantą, padėdami varnelę
atitinkamame langelyje.
Visiškai Labiau Nei Labiau Visiškai

nesutinku nesutinku sutinku, sutinku sutinku
nei ne
51. Jaučiu stresą, kai man reikia
įtraukti mokinį su ASS į bendrą
kūno kultūros pamoką
52. Labai nervinuosi, kai man reikia
įtraukti mokinį su ASS į bendrą
kūno kultūros pamoką
Iššūkiai
Žemiau aprašytos situacijos, kurios labiausiai gali Jus apsunkinti siekiant sėkmingai
įtraukti mokinius su negalia į bendras kūno kultūros pamokas. Prašome įvertinti,
kaip kiekviena aprašyta situacija Jus asmeniškai apsunkina vykdant bendrą kūno
kultūros pamokos programą, į ją prasmingai įtraukiant mokinius su ASS?
Kaip šios situacijos Jums apsunkina Tai Ne Kai kada Dažnai Tai
prasmingą mokinių su ASS įtraukimą į visai esminė tai sukelia tai gali tikrai
bendrą kūno kultūros ugdymo ne prob- problemų, būti esminė
programą? prob- lema kai kada prob- prob-
lema ne lema lema
53. Aš nežinau, kaip pritaikyti veiklas
54. Aš neturiu laiko atlikti pritaikymus
55. Aš neturiu reikiamų priemonių
56. Klasėje per daug mokinių
57. Salėje per pamoką vienu metu yra
kelios klasės
58. Mokinių gebėjimai ir įgūdžiai labai
skiriasi nuo kitų klasės bendraamžių
59. Aš negaunu reikiamų priemonių ir
paramos jiems padėti
60. Aš neturiu informacijos apie mokinį
61. Aš neturiu pakankamai žinių apie
autizmą
62. Moksleiviai turi elgesio problemų
63. Moksleiviai negeba iki galo atlikti
užduotį
247
Demografinė informacija
1. Amžius __________________ 2. Lytis_______________
3. Jūsų kaip kūno kultūros mokytojo darbo stažas? (įrašykite)
__________ metai
4. Ar studijų ir (ar) po studijų esate išklausęs Taikomosios fizinės veiklos
kursą* (Taip/ Ne)? ________ Jei „taip“, kokios trukmės ___________ val.
*Taikomosios fizinės veiklos kursas – tai kursas, kurio metu nagrinėjamos temos apie
įvairias negalias turinčių asmenų įtraukimą į kūno kultūros pamokas, sportą ir kitas
fizines veiklas. Šie kursai (seminarai) neapima šių asmenų kineziterapijos ir kitų
terapinių veiklų.
5. Ar studijų ir (ar) po studijų esate išklausęs Specialiojo ugdymo kursą

(Taip/Ne)? ________ Jei „taip“, kokios trukmės _____________ val.
6. Kiek mokinių, turinčių autizmo spektro sutrikimų, per paskutinius 5 metus
buvo įtraukta į Jūsų bendrą kūno kultūros pamoką? (įrašykite)
__________
7. Ar Jūs gaunate (turite galimybę gauti) šių specialistų paramą:
Taip Ne Nežinau
Taikomosios fizinės veiklos
specialisto ___ ___ ___
Mokytojo asistento ___ ___ ___
Specialiojo pedagogo ___ ___ ___
Kineziterapeuto ___ ___ ___
Kita_______ ___ ___ ___
8. Kokia Jūsų asmeninė patirtis su asmenimis, turinčiais autizmo spektro
sutrikimų:
Nuturiu patirties Draugas Šeimos narys
__ ___ ___
248
Appendix 8. Lithuanian version of The Children's Attitudes Towards lntegrated
Physical Education-Revised (CAIPE - LT)
(CAIPE – R – Vaikų nuostatos dėl integruotos kūno kultūros

pamokos – peržiūrėta versija)
Martin E. Block., Virdžinijos universitetas
Apklausos instrukcija tyrėjui

Pažymėkite žodį berniukas arba mergaitė (palaukite).
Įrašykite savo amžių (palaukite).
Įrašykite, kurioje jūs klasėje (palaukite).
Pažymėkite taip arba ne, jei jūsų šeimos ar artimų žmonių rate (pvz., brolis,
pusbrolis, kiemo draugas) naudoja neįgaliojo vežimėlį, negirdi, nemato arba turi
intelekto negalią (palaukite).
Pažymėkite, ar jūsų klasės bendrose pamokose yra arba nėra buvę vaikų su
negalia, t. y. tokių, kuriems reikia dažnesnės pagalbos nei jums, negirdi, nemato,
vaikšto su vaikštyne arba juda neįgaliojo vežimėlyje (palaukite).
Pažymėkite atsakymą, ar jūsų klasės kūno kultūros pamokoje kada nors buvo
vaikų su negalia.
Pabaigoje pažymėkite atsakymą, kokiu save laikote:
Labai siekiantis pergalės (visada norite laimėti, kremtatės dėl pralaimėjimo);
Šiek tiek siekiantis pergalės (norite laimėti ir stengiatės gerai žaisti, bet
nesikremtate dėl pralaimėjimo);
Nesiekiantis pergalės (svarbiausia – žaidimas, o ne pergalė).
249
Demografiniai klausimai
Jūsų amžius:_________________ Klasė:___________________
Pažymėkite vieną: žymėjimo pavyzdys: □

□ BERNIUKAS □ MERGAITĖ
Pažymėkite vieną:
□ TAIP, jei mano □ NE, mano šeimoje ir
šeimos narys arba tarp draugų nėra
draugas turi negalią žmonių su negalia
□ TAIP, jei jūsų klasės □ NE, jei jūsų klasės
pamokose buvo vaikų pamokose nebuvo
su negalia vaikų su negalia
□ TAIP, jei jūsų kūno □ NE, jei jūsų kūno
kultūros pamokose kultūros pamokose
buvo vaikų su negalia nebuvo vaikų su
negalia
□ LABAI SIEKIANTIS □ ŠIEK TIEK SIEKIANTIS □ NESIEKIANTIS
PERGALĖS PERGALĖS PERGALĖS
(aš visada noriu laimėti, (aš noriu laimėti, bet (man nesvarbu, laimėsiu,
labai kremtuosi dėl labai nesikremtu dėl ar pralaimėsiu, man
pralaimėjimo) pralaimėjimo) patinka pats žaidimas)
VERSKITE KITĄ LAPĄ →
250
Dabar verskite kitą atsakymų lapą. Aš užduosiu jums klausimus, o jūs atsakysite, ką apie tai
manote. Tai klausimai apie berniuką (mergaitę) vardu ________, kuris/-i gali ateiti į jūsų
kūno kultūros pamoką. Atsakymų lape matote sunumeruotas eilutes su atsakymais taip,
tikriausiai taip, tikriausiai ne ir ne. Kiekvienai atsakymų eilutei aš garsiai perskaitysiu
sakinį. Tie, kurie sutiksite su šiuo sakiniu, atsakymų eilutėje apibraukite žodį „taip“. Tie,
kurie nesutiksite su šiuo sakiniu, atsakymų eilutėje apibraukite žodį „ne“. Jei iš dalies
sutinkate su perskaityto sakinio teiginiu, bet nesate tikri, atsakymų eilutėje apibraukite
žodžius „tikriausiai taip“. Jei su perskaitytu teiginiu nesutinkate, bet nesate dėl to tikri,
atsakymų eilutėje apibraukite žodžius „tikriausiai ne“.
Į sakinius (teiginius), kuriuos jums perskaitysiu, nėra teisingų ar neteisingų atsakymų.

Viskas priklauso nuo to, ką jūs manote apie tą teiginį. Pateiksiu pavyzdį: „Aš mėgstu žaisti
krepšinį.“ Jei jums tikrai labai patinka krepšinis, tuomet atsakymo vietoje apie šį teiginį
apibrauksite „Taip“. Jei jums patinka futbolas, tuomet atsakymo eilutėje apibrauksite „Ne“.
Jei jums patinka krepšinis, bet taip pat patinka ir kiti žaidimai, atsakyme apibrauksite
„Tikriausiai taip“. Jei manote, kad krepšinis nėra jūsų mėgiama sporto šaka, nes jums
labiau patinka futbolas, tačiau krepšinis taip pat visai nieko, tuomet apibraukite „Tikriausiai
ne“.
Atsakant į tokius klausimus nebūna teisingų ir neteisingų atsakymų. Nepamirškite, kad

atsakymas į kiekvieną klausimą priklauso tik nuo jūsų ir jūsų atsakymai skirsis nuo kitų
vaikų atsakymų. Kai įvertinsite visus išgirstus teiginius, atsakymų lape dalis atsakymų bus
„taip“, dalis „tikriausiai taip“, dalis „tikriausiai ne“ ir dalis „ne“. Gali būti ir taip, kad visi
jūsų atsakymai bus vienodi.
Ar turite klausimų (palaukite klausimų)?
Tuomet pradėkime. Iš pradžių noriu jums šiek tiek papasakoti apie ....
1. Situacija
[Slapyvardis] yra jūsų bendraamžis, tačiau jis mokosi lėčiau nei jūs. Dėl negalios jis taip
pat blogai kalba, todėl kartais sunku suprasti, ką jis sako, tačiau [Slapyvardis] gestų pagalba
padeda suprasti, ko nori. Jam taip pat sunku suprasti žodinius nurodymus, ypač kai
nurodymas apima daugiau nei vieną veiksmą. [Slapyvardis] patinka tie patys žaidimai kaip
ir jums, tačiau žaisti pagal žaidimo taisykles jam sunkiai sekasi. Jis gali bėgti, tačiau lėčiau
ir greitai pavargsta. Jis gali mesti, bet nelabai toli, gali pagauti tiesiai jam metamą kamuolį.
Jam patinka futbolas, bet jis nenuspiria kamuolio toli ir niekada neprisimena, kur reikia
bėgti futbolo aikštėje. Jam taip pat patinka krepšinis, bet jis nesugeba varytis kamuolio jo
nepamesdamas ir neturi pakankamos koordinacijos įmesti kamuolį į krepšį. Jis nesupranta
krepšinio ir kitų komandinių žaidimų taisyklių, žaisdamas neišlaiko dėmesio.
Dabar imkite atsakymų lapą, žiūrėkite į 1 eilutę ir klausykite mano skaitomo sakinio.
Pasakykite sakinio numerį ir iš karto perskaitykite sakinį. Palaukite, kol vaikai apibrauks
251
atsakymus ir tik tuomet pereikite prie kito sakinio. Kas kelis sakinius patikrinkite, ar visose
eilutėse vaikai apibrėžia atsakymą. Pakartokite nurodymus skliausteliuose prieš sakinius.
Perskaitę sakinį padarykite pauzę. Prieš skaitydami kitą sakinį, perskaitykite nurodymą.
(Pirmiausia atsakysime į du paruošiamuosius teiginius, susijusius su jumis. Apibraukite

„taip“, jei sutinkate su mano sakiniu, „tikriausiai taip“, jei sutinkate, bet nesate tikri,
„tikriausiai ne“, jei nesutinkate, bet nesate tikri, ir „ne“, jei nesutinkate).
1. Aš mėgstu žaisti krepšinį.
2. Man patinka žaisti kvadratą.
(Dabar galvokite apie [Slapyvardis] ir apibraukite „taip“, jei sutinkate su mano sakiniu,
„tikriausiai taip“, jei sutinkate, bet nesate tikri, „tikriausiai ne“, jei nesutinkate, bet nesate
tikri, ir „ne“, jei nesutinkate).
3. [Slapyvardis] galėtų dalyvauti mūsų kūno kultūros pamokoje.
4. Dėl [Slapyvardis] žaisčiau lėčiau, nes jis negali taip greitai žaisti.
5. Jei žaistume komandinį žaidimą, pvz., futbolą aš sutikčiau, kad [Slapyvardis] žaistų
mano komandoje.
6. Jei [Slapyvardis] ateitų į mūsų kūno kultūros pamoką, būtų smagu.
7. Jei [Slapyvardis] lankytų mūsų kūno kultūros pamokas, aš su juo kalbėčiau ir

draugaučiau.
8. Jei [Slapyvardis] lankytų mūsų kūno kultūros pamokas, aš padėčiau jam treniruotis ir
mokytis žaisti.
9–13 teiginiai susiję su futbolo taisyklių pakeitimais. Primenu, kad apibraukiate „taip“ jei
sutinkate, „tikriausiai taip“, jei sutinkate, bet nesate tikri, „tikriausiai ne“, jei nesutinkate,
bet nesate tikri, ir „ne“, jei nesutinkate.
9. Žaidžiant futbolą noriai atlikčiau kamuolio perdavimą [Slapyvardis].

10. Kas nors nuolat trumpais žodiniais raginimais padėtų [Slapyvardis] nubėgti į reikiamą
aikštės vietą.
11. Reiktų būti arčiau [Slapyvardis], kad jis galėtų perduoti kamuolio iki jūsų.
12. Jei kamuolys perduodamas [Slapyvardis], palaukti kol jis jį priims.
13. Padėčiau sudaryti sąlygas [Slapyvardis] spirti kamuolį į vartus.
252
1 situacija: Atsakymų lapas
KLAUSYKITE SKAITOMŲ SAKINIŲ IR APIBRAUKITE ATSAKYMĄ
1. TAIP TIKRIAUSIAI TAIP TIKRIAUSIAI NE NE

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________
253
2 situacija
[Sapyvardis] yra jūsų bendraamžis, tačiau negali vaikščioti ir juda neįgaliojo vežimėliu.
[Slapyvardis] patinka tokie patys žaidimai kaip ir jums, tačiau jam sunkiai sekasi žaisti.
Vežimėliu jis juda lėčiau nei jūs ir greitai pavargsta. Jis moka mesti kamuolį, tačiau numeta
netoli. Jis gali pagauti jam tiesiai metamą kamuoliuką, tačiau negali mesti krepšinio
kamuolio taip aukštai, kad šis pasiektų krepšį. Žaidžiant kvadratą jis gali perduoti kamuolį
už galinės linijos esantiems komandos draugams, tačiau ne taip aukštai. [Slapyvardis]
nevaldo kojų, todėl negali spirti kamuolio, tačiau gali savo vežimėliu varyti jį į priekį. Kai
klausysitės mano skaitomų sakinių, galvokite apie [Slapyvardis].
(Dabar galvokite apie Slapyvardis ir prisiminkite, apibraukiate „taip“, jei sutinkate su

sakiniu, „tikriausiai taip“, jei sutinkate, bet nesate tikri, „tikriausiai ne“, jei nesutinkate,
bet nesate tikri, ir „ne“, jei nesutinkate).
2. Dėl [Slapyvardis] žaisčiau lėčiau, nes jis negali žaisti greitai.
3. Jei žaistume komandinį žaidimą, pvz., krepšinį, aš sutikčiau, kad [Slapyvardis] žaistų
mano komandoje.
5. Jei [Slapyvardis] lankytų mūsų kūno kultūros pamokas, aš su juo kalbėčiau ir

draugaučiau.
6. Jei [Slapyvardis] lankytų mūsų kūno kultūros pamokas, aš padėčiau jam treniruotis ir
mokytis žaisti.
7–11 teiginiai (sakiniai) susiję su krepšinio taisyklių pakeitimais. Primenu, kad

apibraukiate „taip“, jei sutinkate, „tikriausiai taip“, jei sutinkate, bet nesate tikri,
„tikriausiai ne“, jei nesutinkate, bet nesate tikri, ir „ne“, jei nesutinkate.
7. Žaidžiant krepšinį noriai perduočiau kamuolį [Slapyvardis].
8. Žaidžiant krepšinį sutikčiau, kad [Slapyvardis] galėtų mesti į žemesnį krepšį.
9. [Slapyvardis] galėtų ilgiau stovėti trijų sekundžių zonoje (pvz., 5 sekundes vietoje 3).
10. Žaidžiant krepšinį nebūtų galima perimti kamuolio iš [Slapyvardis], kai jis atlieka
perdavimą.
11. Aš pasiruošęs padėti [Slapyvardis] pelnyti taškus.
254

_____________________________________________________________
255
3 situacija
[Slapyvardis] yra jūsų bendraamžė. Ji turi sunkų regėjimo sutrikimą ir mato tik labai arti
esančius žmones bei daiktus. Jai patinka sportuoti ir žaisti tokius pačius žaidimus kaip ir
jums. Jai reikia pagalbos judėti sporto salėje. Pavyzdžiui, bėgant jai rėkėtų jūsų pagalbos:
pasilaikyti už jūsų ir jums reikėtų dažniau sakyti žodines užuominas (įspėjimus). Dėl blogo
regėjimo ji nemato rodomų judesių, todėl jai reikia žodinių instrukcijų ir liečiamųjų judesių,
kad suprastų, kaip atlikti judesį. Žaidžiant komandinius žaidimus (pvz., kvadratą, futbolą),
saugumo sumetimais reikia, kad šalia jos kas nors būtų ir pasakytų, kurioje aikštės vietoje ji
yra, taip pat kamuolio su garsu, kad žinotų kur žaidimo metu yra kamuolys. Ji neturi
kamuolio gaudymo įgūdžių, tačiau ji gali mesti arba spirti kamuolį į taikinį su garsiniu
signalu. Kai klausysitės mano skaitomų sakinių, galvokite apie [Slapyvardis].
(Dabar galvokite apie [Slapyvardis] ir prisiminkite, kad apibraukiate „taip“, jei sutinkate
su sakiniu, „tikriausiai taip“, jei sutinkate, bet nesate tikri, „tikriausiai ne“, jei nesutinkate,
bet nesate tikri, ir „ne“, jei nesutinkate).
2. Dėl [Slapyvardis] žaisčiau lėčiau, nes ji negali žaisti greitai.
3. Jei žaistume komandinį žaidimą, pvz., kvadratą, aš sutikčiau, kad [Slapyvardis] žaistų
mano komandoje.
5. Jei [Slapyvardis] lankytų mūsų kūno kultūros pamokas, aš su ja kalbėčiau ir

draugaučiau.
6. Jei [Slapyvardis] lankytų mūsų kūno kultūros pamokas, aš padėčiau jai treniruotis ir
mokytis žaisti.
7–11 teiginiai (sakiniai) susiję su kvadrato taisyklių pakeitimais kūno kultūros pamokose
jums tiktų, jei kartu žaistų [Slapyvardis]? Nepamirškite apibraukti „taip“, jei sutinkate,
„tikriausiai taip“, jei sutinkate, bet nesate tikri, „tikriausiai ne“, jei nesutinkate, bet nesate
tikri, ir „ne“, jei nesutinkate.
7. Žaidžiant kvadratą sutikčiau, kad būtų naudojamas kamuolys su garsu.
8. Žaidžiant kvadratą norint išmušti [Slapyvardis] kamuolys būtų ridenamas.
9. Laikyčiau [Slapyvardis] už rankos ir dažniau sakyčiau žodines užuominas (įspėjimus).
10. Sutikčiau, kad [Slapyvardis] nebūtų galima išmušti, jei ji būtų arti vidurio linijos.
11. Padėčiau [Slapyvardis] atlikti permetimą.
256

_____________________________________________________________
KLAUSIMYNO PABAIGA

AČIŪ UŽ SKIRTĄ LAIKĄ!
257
INFORMATION ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Education 2006–2010, Lithuanian Academy of Physical Education,

Adapted Physical Activity (Bachelor of Science)
2010–2012, Lithuanian Academy of Physical Education,
Adapted Physical Activity (Master of Science)
2014–2018, Lithuanian Sports University, Doctoral studies in
Social Sciences, Education
Professional January 2011 to July 2011, Lithuanian Academy of Physical
experience Education, Department of Recreation, Tourism and Sports
Management, administrator
October 2012 to March 2015, Kaunas Clinical Hospital, Unit I
of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, massage therapist
October 2014 to July 2017, Lithuanian Sports University,
Department of Sports Coaching, administrator
October 2014 to July 2017, Lithuanian Sports University,
Department of Applied Biology and Rehabilitation, lecture
March 2018 to June 2018-06, Kaunas Educational Centre of the
Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing, educator
Traineeships April–June 2016, Participated in the Erasmus+ program for
higher education. Scientific Practice was done at the
Department of Special Education in Stockholm University,
Sweden
Participation April–August 2010, The Nordplus project: Applied behaviour
in projects analysis, systems theory and developmental disabilities such as
autism (Stockholm University)
2012 to 2016, Social Art Project. 12-BR-20 “Art of human
well-being”, funded by the Ministry of Culture of the Republic
of Lithuania
January 23–27, 2017, “Erasmus+” program financed project
557067-EPP-1-2014-1-NL-SPO-SCP “Sport Empowers
Disabled Youth” (SEDY) group meeting at Loughborough
university (United Kingdom)
December 2018 – present, “Erasmus+” program financed
project 2018-1-SE01-KA203-039079 “Up & Go”
258
Volunteering May 2010, “Healthy athlete” program, Lithuania, voluntary
testing of athletes with intellectual disabilities
2015–2017, volunteering in summer camps organized by
Lithuanian Community for Persons with Intellectual Disabilities
“Viltis” [Hope]
2018 – present, Lithuanian Community for Persons with
Intellectual Disabilities “Viltis” [Hope] (Vilnius)
Research Inclusive education for children with special educational needs;
interests self-efficacy of physical education teachers; children’s attitudes
towards peer with disability participation in physical education
lessons; adapted physical activity
Email [email protected]
259
View publication stats

Disertacija Selickaite 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Disertacija Selickaite 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Disertacija Selickaite 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Doctoral Dissertation: DEVELOPING PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHERS’

Thesis · June 2019

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

DEVELOPING PHYSICAL EDUCATION

The study was supported by Research Council of Lithuania in 2016–2018.

Prof. Dr. Yeshayahu HUTZLER

© Dovilė Selickaitė, 2019

Nuoširdžiai dėkoju Jums, kurie žengėte drauge šiuo prasmingu, iššūkių

I am sincerely grateful to those who have accompanied me in this

Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s conviction (or confidence) about his or

ADHD – attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

Table 1. Sample sizes of physical education teachers for each stage

Figure 1. Distribution of students with SEN by SEN group, form of education

Appendix 1. Results of Pre-test analysis of Physical EducationTeachers

Relevance of the research. Inclusive education is a process that takes into

List of publications on the dissertation topic:

Publications in international scientific database journals

1.1. Inclusive education of children with special education needs

In the Law on Education of the Republic of Lithuania, special educational

1008 915 929 909 964

2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018

Students with difficulties

29950 29785 29388 29567 29714

45 273 43 271 53 205 112 231 145 255

2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018

Academic school year

Yet despite international consensus on the rights of students with SEN,

1.2. Conceptions of inclusive education and inclusive special education

Hornby (2014) suggests that inclusive education is a multidimensional

1.3. Inclusive learning environment

In inclusive education, it is important to create an inclusive learning

The research in this paper is based on the Bandura Self-Efficacy Theory

1.4.1. Theoretical assumptions of the self-efficacy concept

Self-Efficacy Theory (1977) constitutes the conceptual basis for changing

Figure 4. The difference between efficacy expectations and outcome expectations

The term Outcome expectance was defined as personal self-assessment, when

Figure 6. Learning processes in terms of triadic, dynamic and reciprocal interactions

1.4.2. Conception of teacher’s self-efficacy in the class context

The teachers’ psychological characteristic such as self-efficacy to teaching

Figure 7. Triadic model in a class context (Source: Bembenutty et al., 2016)

1.5. Physical education teachers’ self-efficacy for including students

Physical education is considered an important vehicle for the promotion of

1.6. Attitudes of students towards the participation of peers with special

Attitude is defined as individual’s positive or negative feeling associated

1.7. The ways for development of the self-efficacy of physical education

1.8. Construction assumptions of the Theoretical model of developing

The methodology of the research was based on the Self-Efficacy Theory

INSTRUMENT VALIDATION RESEARCH

Study I Pilot Study I Pilot Study I Pilot

Self-Efficacy Scale for Physical Physical Educators’ Self-Efficacy

Children’s without disabilities

Figure 9. Logical sequence of empirical research

PE teachers’ recruitment was conducted between years 2015–2017, using

Figure 10. Stages of empirical research

Sample size (n)

Table 2. Stage of study and sample size of students

Participants of experiment. PE teachers were informed about the planned

Intervention 1 included an 18-hour online course for PE teachers