Experiential Learning and Inclusion Through Service-Learning: Recommendations for Kinesiology to Support Students and People with Impairments

ABSTRACT

Adapted physical activity-based service-learning programs that pair kinesiology and physical education preservice professionals alongside people with impairments are common across college and university settings. It is critical, however, that these programs be developed in a way that meets the needs and educational interests of both university and community stakeholder groups. Grounded in experiential learning theory and an inclusion framework based on relational ethics, the purpose of this paper is to propose empirically- and theoretically-informed recommendations to guide the development, implementation, and ongoing evaluation of adapted physical activity-based service-learning programs for people with impairments. In presenting our conceptual understanding through a new model, we pose three generative questions related to the requirements of service-learning and developing programs for and with both preservice kinesiology professionals and members of the community being served. We conclude with recommendations for research related to the model that is presented.

KEYWORDS:

• Adapted physical activity
• physical education
• experiential learning theory
• subjective feelings of inclusion
• conceptual framework

Notes

1. We adopt a social model of disability in which we abandon conceptualization of disability as an individualistic, biological trait. Rather, we acknowledge the “social structures, attitudes, and relations that disable classes of people” within the field of adapted physical activity (Peers et al., 2014, p. 273). Accordingly, we use terminology that reflects this position such as people with impairments or who experience disability, which situates an ableist society as the disabler.

2. In line with our inclusion framework (Stainback & Stainback, 1996), such adapted physical activity spaces should elicit feelings of belongingness, acceptance, and value among community participants (Spencer-Cavaliere & Watkinson, 2010).

3. Inclusion as we have conceptualized it based on Stainback and Stainback (1996).