Including Students who are Deaf-Blind into Physical Education:
Barriers to Overcome

Kerstin Kindinger
Graduate Teaching Assistant
Oregon State University
E-mail: kindingk@onid.orst.edu

Introduction

Inclusion is a major trend in today's education for students with a disability. It focuses on multiple components, including an appropriate setting, services, and the development of educational objectives for the child (Stinson & Lang, 1994). These trends indicate that inclusion is more than just placement. It includes an education in an age-appropriate class within the home school community as well as proper support to make education meaningful and successful. Today's inclusion goes beyond the legal requirements of the Individual with Disability Education Act (IDEA) and the American with Disability Act (ADA), which only mandate inclusion for school-based education. It especially considers inclusion in a community setting, which covers the whole lifespan (Horvat, 2003). Teachers within an inclusive setting, in particular, have the task of preparing all students for life after school through a comprehensive curriculum that includes life skills. Therefore, they have a significant role in each individual's social, physical, and emotional development. This increases the importance for teachers in staying current with the latest education movements and legislation changes and to be aware of the needs and challenges students in their classes face in daily living situations.

Commonly, inclusion is associated with subjects that emphasize writing and calculating, not with physical activity (Butterfield, 1991). The current legislation in the United States has mandated physical education for all students since 1975, with the latest trends moving towards inclusive physical education. The legislation states as follows: "Physical education services, specially designed if necessary, must be made available to every child with a disability receiving [Families and Advocates Partnership for Education] FAPE" (Council of Exceptional Children, n/a). Based on this definition, physical education should be considered a subject for inclusion. But reality shows that physical education is often a subject that is not integrated into an Individual Education Plan (IEP); it is considered unnecessary. The focus of this paper is a review of the current practices that create barriers for the inclusion of students who are deaf-blind into physical education.

Rationale

The U.S. Federal Education Law, Individuals with a Disability Education Act of 1997 (IDEA) considers 13 categories of disability eligible for Special Education support (Council of Exceptional Children, n/a). Within the last decade the numbers of supported students increased enormously. However, there is only one category of disability that showed a decrease in IDEA support. Data published by the U.S. Department of Education (2002) indicated that 1,427 students between the ages of 6 to 21 were served under the IDEA category deaf-blindness, whereas in 2000/2001 only 1,320 students between the same age range were served under the same IDEA category. The National Deaf-Blind Count Summary indicates that more children are deaf-blind than were served under this category. Their count from December 2001 shows an incidence of deaf-blindness of 10,627 children between birth to 21 years of age, of which 9,126 children were funded through various categories under IDEA Part B, assistance for education of all children with disabilities.

Deaf-Blindness is defined as "concomitant hearing and visual impairments, the combination of which causes such severe communication and other developmental and educational needs that they cannot be accommodated in special education programs solely for children with deafness or children with blindness" (Council of Exceptional Children). There are varied levels of deaf-blindness; not all are covered under this definition. This factor makes the difference in the numbers between deaf-blind students categorized by the IDEA and deaf-blind students counted by state and multi-state deaf-blind projects.

There are four major classes of deaf-blindness (McInnes, 1999; Glidden Prickett & Rafalowski Welch, 1998):

1. being blind and becoming deaf
2. being deaf and becoming blind
3. becoming deaf and blind
4. other.

In addition to those four classes, another factor that must be considered is that deaf-blindness can occur with multiple disabilities. This defines deaf-blindness as a unique disability that requires a specific and individual approach in most daily life activities. Since it is such a unique disability with a relatively low incidence, knowledge of it within the community is minimal, and the need for intervention is often underestimated. The lack of understanding of this unique disability results in fewer research studies and a much smaller base of supportive material for people living and working with, or otherwise being involved in the life of, people who are deaf-blind.

There is a combined need to both increase opportunities for inclusion of students who are deaf-blind into physical education activities and to increase awareness of the specifics of deaf-blindness, and the challenges deaf-blind people face with regard to physical activity, especially physical education. Additionally, it is essential that those working with people who are deaf-blind are fully aware of the benefits that come with active participation in physical activity for this population. By knowing the challenges and benefits it is anticipated that a new level of enthusiasm for overcoming these challenges might be generated, and a change of perspective regarding the inclusion of students who are deaf-blind into physical education can be developed.

Literature Search Methods

In defining the content of the paper, articles and sections of books where used, which either directly addressed the issue of physical activity and deaf-blindness or included information that could be related to the topic.

Barriers -- A Study Review

Only one research article was found that evaluates the barriers to inclusion into physical education for students who are deaf-blind. For this article Lieberman and Houston-Wilson (1999) used data from surveys, which have been completed by over 170 physical education teachers within New York State. These teachers already acquired knowledge regarding including students who are blind or deaf-blind into physical education. Their findings on barriers are divided into teachers' barriers, students' barriers, and administrative barriers. To comprehensively examine and review the barriers of those three categories, two related studies were found, examined, and incorporated. In the category "student's barriers", resources from McInnes' book A Guide to Planning and Support for Individuals who are Deaf-Blind (1999) are integrated.

Teachers' Barriers:

Lieberman and Houston-Wilson (1999) concluded that the lack of professional preparation, the general physical education curriculum, the pace of the lesson, and attitudes are main barriers to inclusion. Teachers often do not receive the necessary information about deaf-blindness, which causes poor preparation and hinders deaf-blind students being included in physical education appropriately. This lack of information is also a key reason for not being aware of opportunities that exist to modify games and equipment and the curriculum to overcome or eliminate activities that act as barriers to participation by students who are deaf-blind.

The lack of knowledge for adaptation and the low awareness of appropriate programming ideas, which relates to modification, are also indicated as barriers experienced in the study from Lieberman and MacVicar (2003), which analyzes the recreational barriers 54 students who are deaf-blind faced. A study by Lieberman and Stuart (2002) that evaluates the self-determined recreational and leisure choices of 51 adults who are deaf-blind came to the conclusion that adequate recreational programs are missing and, thereby, produce a barrier.

Teachers' attitudes that influence inclusion are fear, overprotection, and limited expectations (Lieberman & Houston-Wilson, 1999). Because of their unfamiliarity with the disability, teachers often do not know how to interact with deaf-blind students and have problems in identifying the student's abilities. This again has consequences on the teacher's expectations for the deaf-blind child.

Negative attitudes of activity providers were reported by 23% of adults in the 2002 study (Lieberman & Stuart). Even though this study focuses on adults, it can be used to support identification of this barrier to inclusion of students who are deaf-blind of all ages into physical education, because the survey's interview questionnaire contained questions on perceived barriers, which includes previous experience with negative attitudes.

Students' Barriers:

The second barrier category contains parental overprotection, lack of opportunities, and lack of confidence as barriers to successful involvement in inclusive physical education (Lieberman & Houston-Wilson, 1999). It needs to be considered that in this study it is the teachers' perception which leads to that result. The authors of the study support their findings with information from Sherrill's study (Sherrill, C., 1998) that it is a common and reasonable behavior from the parent's perspective to want to guarantee their child's well-being. However, they might not recognize that this overprotection puts restrictive boundaries on their child's physical, emotional, and social development.

This lack of opportunity for those experiencing loss of hearing and vision often results in late intervention with appropriate resources and adaptive equipment. This aspect is supported by McInnes (1999), who lists several problems the deaf-blind child faces with regard to the disability. People who are deaf-blind have a decreased ability to interact and communicate with others and, therefore, go through long periods of isolation. This isolation causes socialization problems. Loss of vision plays a primary role in that they have an imprecise perception of the world, including low body awareness. This limits their understanding of actions and outcomes as well as their understanding of future events. These aspects put burdens on physical education for this population and illustrate the need for adaptation and special approaches. Other aspects mentioned by McInnes, which should be considered by physical educators, are the disadvantage of not being able to use common motivation opportunities and the challenge of developing a long-term learning style for this population. In the most recent study by Lieberman and MacVicar (2003), play and recreational barriers are primarily attributed to the disability itself, which supports the results of the other two studies.

Parental and teachers' overprotection combined with negative attitudes and fewer opportunities in several areas of life are foundations for low self-confidence. This will increase the fear of participating in unknown activities and lower the desire to interact and communicate.

Administrative Barriers:

Administrative barriers are the last major category Lieberman and Houston-Wilson (1999) identified in their study. This category includes the challenges of time, lack of appropriate equipment, and covered medical excuses. One of the areas teachers mentioned as a barrier was time problems for scheduling physical education experiences for student who are deaf-blind. The validity of this as a legitimate barrier has been denied by the authors and defined as an excuse. Because law mandates physical education it should be considered within the IEP. And time should be made if it is appropriate to complement physical activity with related services, but this incidental activity should not be used to meet physical education requirements. There is no other study supporting not finding extra time as a legitimate barrier. A national transition follow-up study by Petroff (2001) included 102 deaf-blind students between the ages of 18 to 24 who finished school 18 months prior to the assessment date. This study identified an alarming practice within transition planning. Out of 95 students, 40% did not have a written transition plan, and only 23% were engaged in transition planning for more than two years. For Petroff this is a sign that educational practices with respect to students who are deaf-blind are questionable. If such a high number of students did not have a written transition plan, the concern arises that a similar number of students might not have had physical education included in their IEP. Such a conclusion would support the results from Lieberman and Houston-Wilson.

The lack of appropriate equipment seems to correlate with the earlier mentioned lack of knowledge. Lieberman and Houston-Wilson point out the fact that in the IEP requested equipment should be provided by the school district and, therefore, should not present a problem. Another study supports the equipment barrier but also relates it to a lack of knowledge (Lieberman & MacVicar, 2003).

Attitude Barriers:

The last barrier is only mentioned in the 1999 study (Lieberman & Houston-Wilson). Teachers state in their surveys that physicians prohibited students who are deaf-blind from participating in physical activities due to fear for students' safety and overprotective attitude towards the disability. The authors raise the concern that through denying physical activity the physicians hinder the quality of life of these students.

Conclusion

Minimal research has been done in the area of including students who are deaf-blind in physical education. The four studies reviewed (Lieberman & Houston-Wilson, 1999; Lieberman & Stuart, 2002; Lieberman & MacVicar, 2003; Petroff, 2001) are based on different age groups as well as different aspects and interests of life. The 1999 study focuses on students and the barriers to inclusive physical education. The 2001 study by Petroff takes young adults and their transition from school to adult-life into consideration. In the 2002 study, the main aspect of the research was self-determination by adults who are deaf-blind. The most recent study from 2003 looks at students again, but it is related to their recreational habits, not physical education. Although the studies differ in age of participants and purpose, it still can be concluded that the barriers that people who are deaf-blind are facing in participating in physical activity over the life span are similar. The main barriers can be summarized as a lack of knowledge of the needs and requirements of people who are deaf-blind and attitudes towards this population that result in exclusion rather than inclusion. These studies strongly indicate the need for greater awareness and knowledge within the group of physical education teachers and professionals in fields related to physical education. In addition, an increase of awareness within the community would bring the purpose and goal of inclusion together, resulting in an understanding that inclusion goes beyond placement and provides opportunities and experiences that prepare all students for a life after school.

In order to prepare students for life after school, teachers and professionals working with the deaf-blind population must first consider the individual's needs, including a perspective on increasing the quality of life. In order to accomplish this, the benefits of physical education must be considered as part of an ecological approach. Three main objectives of physical education cited by Block (2000) are the development of psychomotor, affective, and cognitive skills. Psychomotor skills include the development of motor-skills as well as increasing the overall fitness-level. The utterance affective skills cover social interaction skills as well as feelings toward and interest in physical activity. Cognitive skill or intellectual development provides a broader understanding of the surrounding environment, activity, and body-awareness. Active participation in physical education will provide development of these three skills and will have both a positive effect on the quality of life and decrease student-related barriers, such as social isolation, less communication opportunities, lack of confidence, and low awareness of the body and environment (McInnes, 1999). To plan and reach an active participation level in physical education, the ecological approach provides an effective means of identifying the ability of a student with respect to his/her interests, needs, and environment (Block, 2000). These will vary from student to student, especially among students who are deaf-blind, since deaf-blindness has varying degrees often coupled with multiple disabilities, which may have an additional influence on the functional abilities level.

The results of the study review indicates a need for greater awareness within the community to overcome the main barriers for including students who are deaf-blind in physical education, and additional findings indicate the need for focusing more on the benefits of active participation in physical activity, resulting in an increase in the quality of life for these students. It takes commitment from both the teachers and the parents to develop an approach that will successfully include a student who is deaf-blind into physical education in a way that he/she can benefit from it and experience fewer barriers to successful and meaningful participation

Future Research

With respect to the review of the studies presented in this paper, one aspect has been completely omitted. That aspect involves the role of peers in successful inclusion. The question must be asked: Will attitudes of peers without a disability create a barrier for inclusion of students who are deaf-blind into physical education or not? Indications are that the impact of peers' attitudes have not been identified or experienced as a barrier to this point. It would be difficult but important to assess peers' attitude towards students who are deaf-blind and their participation in physical education.

Another point for future research attention is the relationship between IEP meetings, the integration of physical education into the IEP, and how the planned goals and objectives would actually have been implemented during physical education class. What barriers might present themselves in each step, and what suggestions would be made by teachers as well as students and IEP meeting members? There is some evidence that the current practice followed in developing the IEP are questionable and should be taken into account as an administrative barrier. A thorough, person-centered assessment and planning of the IEP might diminish inclusion barriers for all three of the categories mentioned (teachers, students, and administrative). Such research could be extended through the thoughtful, studied development of intervention training programs and/or strategies.

Reference

Block, M.E. (2000).

A teacher's guide to including students with disabilities in general physical education (2 ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

 

Butterfield, S.A. (1991).

Physical education and sport for the deaf: Rethinking the least restrictive environment. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 8, 95-102.

 

Council of Exceptional Children. (1997).

IDEA'97 Final Regulations. Retrieved February 19, 2004, from http://www.ideapractices.org/law/regulations/searchregs/300subpartA /Asec300.7. php.

 

Glidden Prickett, J., Rafalowski Welch, T. (1998).

Educating Students Who are Deafblind. In: Sacks, S.Z., Silberman, R.K. (Ed.). (1998). Education students who have visual impairments with other disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

 

Horvat, M., Eichstaedt, C., Kalakian, L., Croce, R. (2003).

Developmental/adapted physical education: Making ability count. San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings.

 

Lieberman, L.J., Houston-Wilson, C. (1999).

Overcoming the barriers to including students with visual impairment and deaf-blindness in physical education. RE:View, 31(3), 129-139.

 

Lieberman, L.J., MacVicar, J.M. (2003).

Play and recreational habits of youths who are deaf-blind. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 97, 755-768.

 

Lieberman, L.J., Stuart, M. (2002).

Self-determined recreational and leisure choices of individuals with deaf-blindness. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96, 724-736.

 

McInnes, J. (Ed.). (1999).

A guide to planning and support for individuals who are deaf-blind. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

 

Petroff, J.G. (2001).

A national transition follow-up study of youth identified as deafblind: Perspectives. National Technical Assistance Consortium for Children and Young Adults who are Deaf-Blind. Monmouth, OR: NTAC Briefing Paper.

 

Sacks, S.Z., Silberman, R.K. (Ed.). (1998).

Education students who have visual impairments with other disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

 

Sherrill, C. (1998).

Adapted physical activity, recreation and sport: Cross-disciplinary and lifespan (5th ed.). Madison, WI: WCB/ McGraw-Hill.

 

Stinson, M.S., Lang, H.G. (1994).

Full inclusion: A path for integration or isolation?. American Annals of the deaf, 139, 156-159.

 

U.S. Department of Education. (2004).

24^th Annual report to congress: Student characteristics -- Students 6 through 21 served under IDEA. Retrieved February 15, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2002/section-ii.pdf.

Academic Exchange Extra invites reader response to any writings in this issue--especially articles advancing the scholarly debate of issues raised.

Copyright © Academic Exchange - EXTRA
- Web Editor

------------------------------  Page Citation Reference: AE-Extra. (2005).  AE-Extra. September. Available Online. [URL: < >. Created: 2 September 2005. Updated: --. Accessed: ]