Disability Simulation Design and Implementation in Adapted Physical Activity Coursework – Reports from Faculty

ABSTRACT

Despite wide use in adapted physical activity (APA) courses, disability simulations are heavily critiqued for not being culturally responsive and for perpetuating negative stigmas. The present study explored the extent to which critiques have been addressed. Specifically, we aimed to appraise the design of disability simulations. A convenience sample of 14 APA instructors were surveyed and 8 opted-in for follow-up, semi-structured interviews. Adopting a pragmatic, interpretivist lens, we critically evaluated course artifacts and instructors’ descriptions of their assignments. Four assignment types were identified: evaluating accessibility of facilities, experiencing adaptations for activities of daily living, participating in disability sport, and practicing effective teaching modifications. While instructors agreed on a general definition of disability simulations, they were often hesitant to identify their assignments as such, especially disability sport-types. As teacher-researchers, who ourselves employ disability simulations in our courses, we confronted this ambiguity to explore implications for our teaching practices.

KEYWORDS:

• Adapted physical education
• collaborative qualitative approach
• kinesiology
• higher education

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Ann Richards for her contributions to the initial conceptions of this research. We further thank Dennis Clemons for his assistance with data collection, and Cindy Tucker and Kathryn Judge for their contributions of this project. Their support and shared insights are greatly appreciated. The third and fourth author acknowledge the development of this manuscript was partially supported by grants from the US Department of Education [grant number: H325H190001]. However, the contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the US Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. Project Officers Louise Tripoli and Richelle Davis.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. We adopt the term “disabled person” in recognition of disability as an aspect of identity, and advocacy from disability communities to pridefully represent their culture. We acknowledge that person-first language, ‘person with a disability’, has historically dominated academic scholarship, and that there is no consensus among the disability community on preference for this or identify-first language. Readers are directed to full discussions of disability terminology from Andrews et al. (2019), Gernsbacher (2017), and Peer et al. (2013), and build teaching and advocacy skills related to modifying or accommodating for individual needs in sport and school contexts (Hutzler, 2003; Leo & Goodwin, 2014; McNamara et al., 2022).