Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 2019, 36, 359–377

https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.2018-0145
© 2019 Human Kinetics, Inc. ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Universal Design for Learning

and Differentiated Instruction
in Physical Education
Mey A. van Munster Laureen J. Lieberman
Federal University of São Carlos State University of New York

Michelle A. Grenier
University of New Hampshire

The aim of this case study was to describe the distinct approaches used by physical
education (PE) teachers to accommodate students with disabilities in New York
elementary school PE classes. The participants included 1 adapted PE specialist,
5 PE teachers, and 5 elementary school students with various impairments.
Through thematic analysis, observations and interviews revealed 3 main ap-
proaches: (a) normalized instruction—traditional curriculum with no differentia-
tion in the program; (b) differentiated instruction—adaptations tailored specifically
to the needs of each student with disability; and (c) universally designed instruction
based on the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and accessibility
to all students. Differentiated instruction, entailing modifications in the program
and pedagogical accommodations, was the most prevalent approach at the research
site, but lessons based on UDL principles were also observed. In association, the 2
approaches (differentiated instruction and UDL) represented significant resources
to accommodate students with disabilities in PE.

Keywords: curricular modifications, inclusion, instruction approaches, students

with disabilities

Inclusion of students with disabilities (SWDs) in the context of physical

education (PE) has been widely discussed internationally and addressed in various
studies (Block & Obrusnikova, 2007; Block & Vogler, 1994; Qi & Há, 2012;
Smith & Thomas, 2006; Wilhelmsen & Sorensen, 2017). It is generally understood
as a comprehensive effort that encourages teachers to maintain high expectations
for all students and to ensure flexible groupings in appropriate curricular develop-
ment (Villa & Thousand, 2000). Its philosophical roots support diversity through

Munster is with the Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, Brazil. Lieberman is with The College
at Brockport, State University of New York, Brockport, NY. Grenier is with the University of New
Hampshire, Durham, NH. Munster (munster.mey@gmail.com) is corresponding author.

359
360 Munster, Lieberman, and Grenier

the active participation of all students and a concerted effort to maintain a strong
school culture (Block, 2016; Lieberman & Houston-Wilson, 2018).
Accepting the principle that the same PE classes can accommodate students
with varying abilities, an early study by Block and Vogler (1994) noted the
limited evidence supporting models for the inclusion of SWDs in PE. Since then,
several studies have demonstrated the importance of a broad understanding of the
requisites for including SWDs in PE. Block and Obrusnikova (2007) reaffirmed the
importance of examining various accommodations in the process of including
SWDs in PE settings. Coates and Vickerman (2008) reviewed a range of strategies
for differentiating PE for SWDs and recommended, among other suggestions,
curricular adaptation and instructional modifications. Qi and Há (2012) also
encouraged further research into curricular and instructional approaches that can
effectively meet the needs of SWDs in inclusive PE classes. Examining the
perspectives of SWDs toward experiences in PE, Haegele and Sutherland (2015)
asserted that “meaningful learning experiences can be constructed through mod-
ifications and accommodations during activities” (p. 255). However, scant research
has investigated different instructional approaches in PE.
In recent decades, the emphasis in PE has remained on differentiated
instruction (DI), which is tailored to meet specific needs of the SWD through
curricular modifications and instructional adaptations. Willis and Mann (2000)
described the teaching philosophy of DI based on the concept that “one size does
not fit all.” From this perspective, teachers must recognize that learners differ in
factors such as culture, learning style, and gender and address those differences
with an awareness of the unique readiness, interests, and learning profile of each. In
addition, Tomlinson (2000) defined DI as the efforts of teachers to respond to
variance among learners in the classroom to create the best learning experience
possible. Teachers can manipulate at least four classroom elements: content,
process, products, and learning environment (Tomlinson, 2000).
A recent trend introducing a new perspective to accommodate not only SWDs’
needs but those of a wide range of learners in PE is Universal Design for Learning
(UDL; Block, Klavina, & Davis, 2016; Lieberman & Houston-Wilson, 2018). The
UDL philosophy is based on neuroscientific evidence showing that no two brains
learn in the same way and that learner variability is the norm (Center for Applied
Special Technology [CAST], 2011). The main idea within the UDL approach is to
design a curriculum responsive to students’ neurological variability by providing
multiple means of representation, action and expression, and engagement from the
beginning (CAST, 2011). According to Lieberman and Houston-Wilson (2018),
UDL is a concept, a set of principles, and a framework that supports accessibility
for the widest possible range of individuals, which is achieved not through
uniformity but through flexibility.
Together, the UDL and DI frameworks recognize that each learner is unique
(DI) or variable (UDL), thus offering the flexibility of a learning process that
considers the needs of each (DI) and every (UDL) student. UDL emphasizes
proactive design of the environment and curriculum from the beginning, while DI
emphasizes responding to individual needs (CAST, 2011).
To date, there has been little research on UDL that contextualizes its principles
and discusses its possibilities in the field of PE (Brian, Grenier, Lieberman, Egan,
& Taunton, 2017; Grenier, Miller, & Black, 2017; Lieberman, 2017; Lieberman,

APAQ Vol. 36, No. 3, 2019

 Instructional Approaches in Physical Education 361

Lytle, & Clarcq, 2008; Sherlock-Shangraw, 2013). Although the few such articles
published reaffirmed the idea of bringing UDL concepts into PE classes, they
merely cite examples rather than present data or scientific evidence recommending
this model as an approach to including SWDs in the context of PE.
The present study can be justified by the need to investigate the following
questions: What pedagogical approaches have been used to accommodate SWDs
in PE classes? What principles have guided PE teachers’ practices? Should the PE
curriculum be the same for students with and without disabilities? If not, to what
extent should it be modified? What kinds of accommodations and modifications
have been used in PE to address SWDs’ needs? Accordingly, the purpose of this
case study is to identify the distinct approaches adopted by PE teachers to
accommodate SWDs included in PE and describe the principles that have guided
such practices in a New York school district.

Methods
Yin (2002) asserted that a case study is a comprehensive research strategy that
“investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context” (p. 13),
“relies on multiple sources of evidence, and benefits from prior development of
theoretical propositions to guide data collection and analysis” (p. 14). A case study
of a specific topic may reveal variations in the definition, depending on the
perspective of different actors (Yin, 2002). The unit of analysis focused on the use
of different instructional approaches in PE classes to accommodate SWDs’ needs,
within a particular school district of New York State. As the analysis included
outcomes from several participants in a single setting—an adapted PE (APE)
specialist, PE teachers, and SWDs—it can be considered an embedded case study
design.

Setting and Participants

As a case study involves exploring a bounded system (Brantlinger, Jimenez,
Klinger, Pugach, & Richardson, 2005), purposive sampling was used to select a
school district. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (a) SWDs must be enrolled
in PE at elementary levels and (b) an APE specialist must support the PE teacher.
Located in a suburban area of New York State, the district included five schools
buildings (three elementary, one middle, and one high school). Among the 3,650
enrolled students, 495 (13.56%) were eligible for special education services,
presenting a diverse range of disabilities.
Creswell (1998) suggested using “maximum variation” as a purposeful
sampling strategy to fully display multiple perspectives in a case study. Potential
patterns of successful inclusion that consider different ages, grade levels, and
assorted types and levels of disabilities were recommended by the coordinator of
the school’s Committee on Special Education from the school district. PE teachers
(both the generalists and APE specialist) and their respective groups of students
were consulted concerning their interest and willingness to participate in the study.
Invitation letters were sent to the teachers, students, and parents/guardians along
with consent forms. To protect the participants’ identities, pseudonyms were used.

APAQ Vol. 36, No. 3, 2019

 362 Munster, Lieberman, and Grenier

In accordance with the school board, all ethical procedures were followed prior to
data collection, and the research was submitted and approved by the institutional
review board from The College at Brockport—State University of New York (IRB
# 2013–17).
The participants included an APE specialist (n = 1), PE teachers (n = 5), and
SWDs (n = 5) enrolled in five different classes from kindergarten to fifth grade.
The APE specialist (Mike) was hired by the district 2 years beforehand. He
held a B.S. in PE. During his B.S. program, he took a semester course specifically
on APE, including hands-on experience with SWDs. The year the research took
place, he had 12 classes involving SWDs in various formats: pushed in or fully
included (n = 5), self-contained groups (n = 2), preteaching (n = 2), and one-on-one
settings (n = 3). The research followed the APE specialist in his PE classes where
the SWDs were fully included.
Five elementary PE teachers (one male and four females) were recruited for
the study. Their time of service in this district varied from 12 to 31 years. All were
certified in PE with the exception of one (Beth), who has a dual major in Health
Education and Athletic Training. Except for Beth, all teachers had taken mandatory
courses or concentrated in APE, including “hands-on experiences” or a practicum
involving SWDs during undergraduate studies. Four of the PE teachers had
master’s degrees: two in the area of APE (Lily and James), one in health education
(Kathy), and one in athletic administration (Emily).
The characteristics of each SWD (gender, age, grade, and type of disability)
are presented in Table 1.

Data Collection
The case study, which provides flexibility in data gathering and involves collecting
and analyzing many information sources (Thomas & Nelson, 2001), involves the
widest array of data collection for constructing an in-depth picture of the case.
Observations and interviews are central to such research (Creswell, 1998).
Following Brantlinger et al. (2005), to increase trustworthiness, two experts in
the field reviewed the observation and interview scripts prior to the data collection
process. The scripts were revised according to feedback.

Table 1 Allocation and Characteristics of the Participants

Participants
School PE teacher Student Gender Age Grade/level Type of disability
A Lily Sophia Female 5 Kindergarten Low vision—albinism
A Kathy Karen Female 6 First grade Down syndrome
B Emily Joe Male 8 Second grade Cerebral palsy
C Beth Grace Female 9 Fourth grade Spina bifida
C James Bob Male 10 Fifth grade Autism spectrum disorder
ABC Mike—APE Male
specialist
Note. APE = adapted physical education; PE = physical education.

APAQ Vol. 36, No. 3, 2019

 Instructional Approaches in Physical Education 363

Observations. The direct observations were collected over a period of 2 months,

9 weeks, or 31 days using systematically recorded field notes. Nonparticipant
observations were guided by preestablished criteria, along 72 classes. The script
involved topics such as students’ skills and difficulties related to PE, types of
support required during activities, participation and interaction with peers and PE
teachers, curricular and content modifications, teaching styles, instructional strate-
gies, equipment and material adaptations, and types of assessment.
Interviews. The first author conducted semistructured interviews with the APE
specialist and PE teachers shortly after the end of the observation period. Inter-
views were conducted individually and audiotaped with the respondent’s permis-
sion. The interview guide included questions related to demographic information;
the teaching program; curricular modifications (goals, contents, strategies, and
assessment); pedagogical accommodations (instruction, materials and equipment,
environment, and rules); support required; and engagement of SWDs in proposed
activities. The interviews lasted a mean of 38′29″.

Data Analysis
Data were treated through thematic analysis, which is a method for identifying,
analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) in qualitative research (Braun & Clarke,
2006). According to Braun and Clarke (2006), this technique organizes and
describes the data set in detail, based on six phases. (a) Familiarization with
the data: field notes and interview transcripts were read and re-read in order to
familiarize the researchers with the data and note initial assumptions and ideas.
(b) Generating initial codes: the data were reduced through coding and analytic
processing, and labels were created for important features. Initial codes were
generated based on collating relevant data extracts, such as field notes or quotes,
highlighted in the transcripts. (c) Searching for themes: the codes were organized
into meaningful groups, based on patterns of similarity and recurrence of data, as
potential and provisory themes. (d) Reviewing themes (or data reduction): each
provisory theme was checked according to its meaning, establishing connections
among themes and enabling to discard, group, or split some of them to generate
definitive themes. (e) Defining and naming themes: after a detailed analysis, the
“essence” of each theme generated its denomination. (f) Writing up: the writing
process involved weaving together the analytic narrative and data extracts,
contextualizing it in relation to existing literature.
To enhance internal validity, the following strategies were used: triangulation
using multiple and varied sources of data, member checking of the interviews to
ensure credibility, long-term observation at the research site with multiple in-
vestigators, and peer examination to establish rigor (Merriam, 2009). To increase
data reliability, observations were conducted simultaneously by the first and
second researchers at the same research site. Peer debriefing was used to review
and provide critical feedback on descriptions and interpretations obtained from
observations in field notes (Brantlinger et al., 2005). The interview transcription
was emailed to each interviewee; the participants were asked to proceed to member
checking to revise and confirm the accuracy of the interview transcription
(Brantlinger et al., 2005). All respondents confirmed the transcribed content of
their interviews prior to the analysis.

APAQ Vol. 36, No. 3, 2019

364 Munster, Lieberman, and Grenier

Findings
To identify the distinct approaches used by PE teachers to accommodate SWDs
included in PE classes, the results were organized into three main themes of
analysis, according to the thematic map (Figure 1): (a) normalized instruction (NI):
same curriculum with no differentiation in the program; (b) DI: accommodations
tailored to the needs of each SWD; and (c) universally designed instruction (UDI):
based on the principles of accessibility to all students.

Normalized Instruction
This theme encompasses situations where the SWDs access the traditional
curriculum with no program adjustments or instructional differentiation. NI
requires equal educational conditions to be provided to students with and without
disabilities, based on the assumption that the learning program should be as
close as possible to the “norm.” Some PE teachers affirm that in most situations,
SWDs are capable of taking advantage of regular, standardized curricular
programming.
Based on the belief that SWDs should have access to the same learning
opportunities as their peers, teacher Lily remarked: “We try to align everything
as mirror-image as we can.” Teacher Beth stated that, in most cases, it is possible to
have the same expectations and offer the same educational conditions to students
with and without disabilities: “That’s definitely our goal: to get them (SWDs) on
the same page. Grace is doing what everybody else is, without really a lot of
changes. What we expect her and want her to take from the class is the same.”
Teacher Emily affirmed that it is quite possible to assess the performance of SWDs
based on the same evaluation parameters: “On the report cards and on my
assessment sheets, the assessments are the same, and I try to get every kid to
the same spot before they leave here because I think that it’s pretty possible, in
most cases.”
Grounded in normalization theory, the field notes recorded that SWDs were
sometimes provided with the same opportunities as their peers, without any

Figure 1 — Thematic map. Source: Developed by the authors based on Braun and Clarke
(2006).

APAQ Vol. 36, No. 3, 2019

 Instructional Approaches in Physical Education 365

adjustments or modifications. In most situations, the absence of DI did not prevent

SWDs from taking full advantage of the proposed activities. In these research
extracts, it is important to recognize that the usual educational conditions were
sufficient to allow SWDs to participate in the general program without adaptations.
As will be highlighted in subsequent themes, all teachers supplied their respective
SWDs with both DI and UDI. Thus, it is imperative to highlight that each SWD is
unique and that an appropriate examination of each situation is required.

Differentiated Instruction
Based on the assumption that every student is unique and that the PE program
must address individual differences, this theme involves modifications and ac-
commodations tailored specifically to the needs of each SWD. Textbooks on APE
often reinforce the importance of using adaptations to properly adapt the activities
to SWDs’ needs (Block, 2016; Lieberman & Houston-Wilson, 2018; Winnick &
Porretta, 2017). According to Sherrill (2003), “adaptation is an umbrella process
that encompasses related services, and such supports as accommodations (small
changes), modifications (large changes), and supplementary resources or aids”
(p. 85). The majority of the codes in this theme were collated under two subthemes:
“modifications in the program,” which involves adaptations of the core elements of
the curriculum (goals, content, and assessment) and “pedagogical accommoda-
tions,” which encompasses adaptations in elements such as instruction, environ-
ment, rules and roles, and equipment.
Modifications in the Program. When asked whether the curriculum was differ-
ent for the SWDs, PE teachers unanimously reported trying to use the same
program as much as possible, differentiating and making adjustments only when
necessary. Mike noted: “I try to follow the same curriculum, and then, whenever I
feel it’s necessary, I try to insert some new activities or content.” Emily affirmed:
“We try to use the same program, and we just try to differentiate as we go.”
Likewise, Kathy added: “The program is pretty much set the same. We’d just adapt
the equipment, maybe, and the activity slightly, but not anything major.”
According to the teachers, program adjustments were made through either the
goals, content, or assessment procedures and criteria. Emily stated that she may
adjust the level of requirements of the program goals slightly: “I think that they’re
all working toward the same goal, but maybe not at the same level. There’s ways to
differentiate to make that work.”
The teachers’ discourse revealed that the program content tends to be the same
for students with or without disabilities, indicating minor differentiation in the way
that activities are developed in the units. These small changes will be detailed in the
next subtheme “pedagogical accommodations.” In this regard, Emily said: “The
content itself does not differ for our included kids. Just maybe how it’s presented is
a little bit different.” Beth reiterated: “I don’t think the content differs as much.
I would say the way she (Grace) receives the information and the way she practices
it might be a little bit different.” Along the same lines, Kathy added: “The content
is always the same for them; it’s just the modification that we make within the
activities. We’re giving them the opportunity to do the same things that the other
children are doing.” Kathy complemented: “If they’re successful with it, they’re

APAQ Vol. 36, No. 3, 2019

366 Munster, Lieberman, and Grenier

going to keep going with it. If they’re not successful with it, we move on to
something else.”
Field notes registered that sometimes SWDs were taught differently than their
peers. In these situations, content modification or differentiation for the SWDs
were carried out by the APE specialist, while the PE teacher was in charge of the
other students:
In the 4th grade, Grace spent 90% of the time with her classmates, having the
same content and activities as her peers, under the supervision of the PE
teachers and the APE specialist. Sometimes, during short periods of class time
(usually during the warm-up), she received individualized and/or differenti-
ated exercises from Mike. Due to spina bifida, Grace was unable to move her
lower limbs. Instead of doing lower-body exercises, Mike provided her with
upper-body strength exercises. (field notes)
The APE specialist and PE teachers mentioned using different parameters of
assessment, differentiating evaluation criteria and grading procedures based on
modified expectations. Mike said: “On the report card, the grade is based on modified
expectations. So, you may put in a specific grade, but you put in those comments that
say either ‘Grade is based on modified expectations’ or ‘Curriculum is modified
according to a student’s need.’” Continuing, Mike reported that sometimes he may
resort to a different evaluation procedure: “I’ve found that instead of a formal
checklist, many times, I’m taking observational notes constantly and then making
assessments based off those.” Similarly, Emily referred to alternative criteria to
evaluate the SWDs’ outcomes: “Perhaps instead of looking to the standard, look at
the growth. [ . . . ] I try to evaluate every student based on two things: a basic
standard, but also a growth, like a growth continuum, maybe you could call it.”
Pedagogical Accommodations. This subtheme encompasses a large number of
codes related to minor adjustments in the class, such as instructional adaptations,
small changes in the games and activities’ rules, and environment and equipment
differentiation.
Instructional adaptations. Both the interviews and the field notes show that
all teachers and the APE specialist offered DIs to the SWDs, varying the ways of
providing the information to them. Kathy illustrated this by saying: “I think we
modify it giving them more repetitive cues than just saying it once to the class,
maybe going over and instructing them one-on-one. You know, more visual aids,
like communication boards.” Field notes recorded:
The GPE teacher, and especially the APE specialist, provided extra and
individualized explanations to SWDs. In addition, Mike provided a short
orientation session (pre-teaching) before the class to Bob. Lily and Emily
checked if the SWDs understood the transitions between exercises, asking
them to point to the next station to go to. Sometimes Beth provided written
instructions on a board, as well as verbal explanation to Grace. Lily used
pictures from a book to illustrate part of the lesson for Sophia. (field notes)
Rules and roles. Understanding the strengths and limitations of the SWDs
allows the teachers to alter the rules or modify roles in a game in order to favor/

APAQ Vol. 36, No. 3, 2019

 Instructional Approaches in Physical Education 367

maximize their participation in the activity. Mike said that sometimes changing a
rule may favor students’ participation: “Maybe you’ll allow the ball to bounce once
before you make contact with it, as opposed to having to keep it up in the air the
entire time, changing the actual rules of the game.” Kathy exemplified: “If we’re
doing a game that she (Karen) might not completely understand, I always try to
make her in a role where she’s going to be successful.” Kathy continued
explaining: “Rather than be a tagger, she might be a saver because it’s easier
for her to find people who are sitting and touch them to get them free, rather than
chasing kids that are moving all over the place.”
Environment. In the interviews, the teachers described using various environ-
mental adaptations in this research. Lily pointed out: “Changing the environment,
you might need to change the distance to be shorter, or move them back farther,
depending on what their needs are.” Lily exemplified: “You want the child to throw
five yards. Well, the target’s going to be too far; you move it up. Maybe it’s too
easy, so you move it back.” Beth said: “We have to make adjustments ourselves,
with the net height and things. We’ll change it, we’ll lower the net, or use a different
ball for Grace.” Positioning the SWD suitably in a strategic place, adding visual
cues in a transition spot, or varying the distance between the SWD and the target are
some examples of environment modifications recorded in the field notes: “The
personal poly spots and other demarcations on the floor and walls helped to
distribute the students in the environment and provide spatial references to them.”
Equipment. Whenever necessary, teachers (especially Mike) modified the
characteristics of the equipment to accommodate the SWDs’ needs. Mike said:
“We have things that allow students to play the same game or activity, but we can
modify it just by altering the equipment that we’re using, whether it just be a larger
ball or something that the students with disabilities can grip.” Lily commented that:
“Speaking in general, just changing out the color or the size of a ball, the shape of
the equipment. Some kids are very tactile defensive, when you’re using Koosh
balls, they don’t like the feel of it, so you change it to a fleece ball.” Emily
corroborated: “There are a lot of different ways that you can adapt equipment:
I have a kid who is visually impaired, and so I used table tennis balls, and I would
color them bright yellow, because that was a color he could see better.” Emily
provided another example: “We have badminton racquets with shortened handles
for kids with poor gross motor skills; the end of their arm is here, but they don’t
know where the racquet ends, and so when you bring it closer they find more
positive reinforcement there.” Field notes also acknowledged several initiatives of
PE teachers and the APE specialist, registering constant use of adapted equipment
for the SWDs. Adapting equipment was the most recurrent code.

Universally Designed Instruction

Universal design in PE means that the physical, social, and learning environments
are designed so that diverse learners are supported through powerful possibilities
for teaching and learning (Lieberman & Houston-Wilson, 2018). UDI is based on
variations to suit a wide range of learners, regardless of their level of (dis)abilities,
as Lily affirmed: “There are not too many great modifications made because they’re
kind of global modifications, things in the gym that help all students, whether they
have a disability or not.”

APAQ Vol. 36, No. 3, 2019

368 Munster, Lieberman, and Grenier

Following UDL principles (CAST, 2011), in this theme, the codes were
collated under three subthemes: means of representation (the “what” of learning),
means of action and expression (the “how” of learning), and means of engagement
(the “why” of learning).
Means of Representation. Based on the assumption that learners differ in the
ways that they perceive and comprehend information (CAST, 2011), it is important
to present several options and multiple means of representation. In order to
establish several neural connections and optimize learning, the PE teacher must
provide information that can be apprehended by different perceptual channels,
through visual, auditory, or tactile means. Mike reported: “I’ve found that
providing both visual and writing and a visual picture, that’s really what I’ve
tried to go with, demonstrations and having that dry-erase marker ready to be able
to write a note to the student.” Along with verbal explanations and visual
demonstrations, Emily relied on auditory cues during the station circuit: “We’ll
do things like, ‘You’re at that station for a song.’ And then they have an ending cue
and they move. When the next song begins, they start their next station.” Beth
provided different evaluation procedures and means of assessment to enhance the
student’s opportunities to represent themselves: “I do a lot of checklists. I do a lot
of observing. When we do more skill-based things, I do a little bit more of a written
assessment.”
Means of Action and Expression. Since learners differ in the ways that they can
navigate a learning environment and express what they know (CAST, 2011),
various options should be open to them to act and express themselves. To
overcome learner’s significant sensory impairments, movement disorders, lan-
guage barriers, and other issues, the PE teacher must explore different strategies,
making various types of equipment available and offering several possibilities for
the students to express themselves and accomplish tasks. Many times during PE
classes, PE teachers used a wide range of materials—conventional, adapted or
alternative, manufactured, or handcrafted—which enrich the learning opportu-
nities of all students. Lily said: “When it comes down to equipment, we do have a
big storage of it.” Emily corroborated: “Especially at this level (second grade),
there are so many different pieces of equipment that we could use.” PE teachers
explain how they offer varied equipment to their students, including the ones that
do not have disabilities. Lily affirmed: “We have some balls that are hexagons,
open squares, and when learning to catch, those are great for kids that can’t always
get the mechanics of a catch because of all the open holes in it.” Emily added:
“When I teach a unit like volleyball, I get out all the different kinds of balls. I have
certain groups that can move to a small, heavier, harder ball. And I have another
group that will have a beach ball.”
The field notes also recorded the use of different equipment and environment
modification to increase the student’s opportunities to act and express themselves:
During the fourth-grade volleyball unit, Beth and James (teachers) used three
courts with different heights and various sizes and sorts of ball, allowing all the
students to position themselves according to their preferences. These accom-
modations not only favored Grace’s participation (spina bifida) but also the
performance of a student with dwarfism and other less skillful students. In one

APAQ Vol. 36, No. 3, 2019

 Instructional Approaches in Physical Education 369

of the classes involving object-control skills, Lily provided a piece of equipment

to each one of the students, regardless of their level of ability. She used metallic
balloons, which are slower than conventional balls, and allowed the students to
self-regulate their movements during the task execution. As it was made of
shiny material, the metallic balloons favored the visual perception of Sophia,
who has low vision. Furthermore, as it is a latex-free product, there are fewer
risks of allergies. Kathy also used the same metallic balloons with the first-grade
students, favoring the participation of Karen who has Down syndrome and has a
slower reaction rate than her classmates. (field notes)

Means of Engagement. Affect is a crucial element in learning, and learners

differ markedly in the ways in which they can be engaged or motivated to learn
(CAST, 2011). PE teachers must be attentive to individual variations in learners’
personalities, background knowledge, neurological and cultural aspects, and a
wide range of other factors that may interfere in their engagement. PE teachers
may optimize a student’s level of engagement by searching for motivational
techniques, providing encouragement, and varying the class arrangement, among
other possibilities. The teacher’s choice of avoiding elimination games, appropri-
ate class management, or introducing an alternative rule may ensure continuous
participation and provide opportunity for the students, including those with
disabilities, to be engaged with their peers in the activities. As an example from
field notes, Lily proposed a tag game with a twist to avoid students being excluded
from the game. After being caught by their classmates, students went to a given
space, where they performed predetermined tasks and were then allowed to return
to the game. Furthermore, during a volleyball game, Beth proposed that every
student would have up to two chances to serve the ball, also increasing Grace’s
possibilities of success (field notes). In order to facilitate Sophia’s interaction with
peers and engagement with the activity, Lily said: “Sometimes it’s just strategically
placing Sophia either with a certain group of students that will help her focus and
learn, and peer tutor her a bit.” Means of engagement are related to how members
of the class are organized (Block et al., 2016). Field notes recorded that the PE
teachers utilized different class organizations, such as those cited by Tripp, Rizzo,
and Webbert (2007): “The class arrangement can vary to include one-to-one
instruction, partner work or small groups, teaching stations, large groups, and self-
paced work” (p. 34), such as obstacle courses. The PE teachers also adopted
different group formations or classroom arrangements to favor the participation of
SWDs. The best class format may vary according to each situation, but using
multiple formats or a combination of them is most effective (Block et al., 2016).
Diversifying classroom organization and switching/changing the constitution of
groups of students helps to promote interaction between the SWD and his or her
peers (Lavay, 2011).

Discussion
It was possible to identify three distinct approaches adopted by PE teachers to
accommodate SWDs included in their classes: NI, DI, and UDI. The principles that
have been guided such practices in this New York State school district can be

APAQ Vol. 36, No. 3, 2019

 370 Munster, Lieberman, and Grenier

summarized as follows: while NI disregards differences in the learning process, DI

makes use of adaptations to modify/reform the curriculum, and the UDI approach
is based on variations to suit a wide range of learners, regardless of their level of
(dis)abilities. From a DI perspective, some adaptations are tailored specifically to
an individual need, which could be understood as a “differentiation” to amend the
curriculum, to render it more flexible, or to customize the instruction, equipment,
environment, or activity for a particular SWD. Based on UDL principles, instead,
these sorts of adjustments should not target a specific student but rather consider
the variability among all the students, not exclusively the ones with disabilities.
Considering the great range of skills and abilities in a PE class, it would be
preferable to employ “variations” instead of “adaptations.” Such variations consist
in diversified means of representation, action and expression, and engagement.
According to Block et al. (2016), “the difference between the use of UDL
instruction and making adaptations for specific populations is in the planning”
(p. 96). The main particularities and distinctions of each approach which will be
addressed in Table 2.
Based on equality of opportunities, the normalization theory provides SWDs
with educational conditions that are as close as possible to the ones normally
provided for students without disabilities (Sherrill, 2003). According to Lieberman
and Houston-Wilson (2018), this model is central to introducing SWDs to
traditional and culturally acceptable games and activities. From this perspective,
it is expected that the SWD will adjust to fit into the common curriculum, instead of
adapting the program to ensure the SWD’s participation. In certain situations,
modifications in the standard/general PE program may be dispensed without
affecting the SWD’s participation. However, with NI, caution should be

Table 2 Particularities of and Distinctions Between the Approaches

Normalized Differentiated Universal Design
instruction instruction for Learning
Designed for Average student; Each student All students
uniformity, Every student is unique Variability of learners
disregarding learner’s
differences
Emphasis Equality of Responds to the Attends to/deals with a
opportunities individual (specific) wide range of abilities
needs
Curriculum Traditional and fixed Flexible and adjustable Accessible from the
beginning
Makes use of Usual resources, Adaptations such as Variations and diverse
oriented to the norm curricular means of
or the average modifications and representation, action
pedagogical and expression, and
accommodations engagement
(instructions,
equipment,
environment, and rules)

APAQ Vol. 36, No. 3, 2019

 Instructional Approaches in Physical Education 371

considered: there is a major difference between dismissing the use of unnecessary

adaptations and neglecting to offer accommodations that are indispensable to
SWDs’ achievement.
Unfortunately, research has shown that most SWDs may not benefit from the
“normalized practices” that are prevalent in PE (Fitzgerald, 2005). A normalized
approach involves “changing the student’s movement forms to fit an idealized
or ‘normal’ model,” which may consist of a barrier to including SWDs (Rizzo,
Davis, & Toussaint, 1994, p. 24). Normalized PE may establish unattainable
patterns which, when associated with inadequate accommodations, may cause the
SWD to experience a sense of failure and a lack of competence (Bredahl, 2013).
Smith and Thomas (2006) reported that some PE teachers from England expected
SWDs to adapt themselves to existing PE programs rather than accommodate the
curriculum to the children, which affected their engagement and accomplishment.
Thus, it is important to examine and screen each circumstance to determine the best
approach for each situation, based on constant and continued assessment.
Differentiated instruction involves specific adaptations tailored to the indi-
vidual needs of each SWD, including program modifications and pedagogical
accommodations, which were the most recurrent codes registered both in inter-
views and field notes. Based on the principle that students with varying abilities
can be accommodated in the same PE classes, Block and Vogler (1994) describe
curricular adaptations (or modifications in the program) as referring to “any
modification to the curriculum used to prevent a mismatch between a student’s
skill level and the lesson content to promote student success in learning appropriate
skills” (p. 41). Thus, the curriculum must be flexible and adjustable in response to
the individual demands of every SWD. Curricular adaptations are not necessarily
the same for any two different students, as they must be aligned with the student’s
Individualized Educational Plan, taking into consideration the SWD’s present level
of performance, objectives, and goals. Consistent with Costa and Munster (2017),
the use of curricular adaptations should aim for the least variation from the
common curriculum in order to ensure accessibility and equitable learning
opportunities for the SWD. Curricular adaptations are about differentiating the
program and the instruction to address the needs of a particular SWD, which is
different from an individualized program.
The data showed no significant modifications in the PE program’s objectives
or goals. The program’s content, however, according to the intensity/level of
support required by each student, was sometimes presented in different ways to
SWDs. Among the modifications to the program, the most substantial aspect was
the differentiation of assessment criteria and procedures, which is considered a
positive feature. Regarding assessment, Tripp et al. (2007) concurred with the
findings of this research, stating that “physical educators need to make changes
in the evaluation criteria and the system of assessing performance in order to
equitably evaluate each student’s contribution to the success of inclusion” (p. 34).
Even though different assessment strategies and flexible grading criteria were
allowed for assessing SWDs in Hong Kong, Li and Chen (2011) reported that most
PE teachers applied the same assessment criteria for students with and without
disabilities, which was considered inadequate by the authors. Duchane and French
(1998) reported that PE teachers used different evaluation criteria for SWDs than
for students without disabilities. In their study, SWDs were graded mostly on

APAQ Vol. 36, No. 3, 2019

372 Munster, Lieberman, and Grenier

participation, dressing, and effort, while students without disabilities were graded
more on written, fitness, and skill tests. Thus, the principle of DI prescribes that the
assessment parameters be centered on the learning process, not on the product.
Emphasis should be placed on evaluation parameters referenced to the criteria
(based on an evolution curve having the student as his/her own reference) rather
than parameters oriented to the norm (comparison of results among students or
performance ranking based on standardized measures). In determining evaluation
procedures and criteria, the range of diversity among the students should be
considered, thus opening up possibilities of differentiation whenever necessary.
The findings of this research are in accordance with Block (2016), who stated
that modifying the instruction, environment, tasks, and/or equipment are the
principal strategies (or adaptations) implemented in inclusive settings. There
are several accommodations regarding how information can be presented to
students in PE settings. SWDs may have the instruction delivery modified
according to their special needs, communication preferences, and different learning
styles (Block et al., 2016). Lavay (2011) affirmed that effective instruction includes
a multisensory teaching approach that considers the student’s preferred learning
style, which may vary from one individual to another. These adaptations can be
implemented without changing the way instruction is delivered to all students
(Block, 2016; Lieberman & Houston-Wilson, 2018). Consistent with Lieberman
and Houston-Wilson (2018), SWDs may need to have the activity adapted or game
rules modified so that they can be successfully included in PE. It can involve any
deviation from the original or culturally accepted rules of the game, creating an
atmosphere of flexibility among all participants.
To improve the student’s level of engagement with activities, it may be
necessary to use differentiated equipment or adapted materials. In this study,
equipment adaptation was the most recurrent subcategory noted and reported by
PE teachers and the APE specialist. Field notes revealed several teachers’
initiatives in this direction. All teachers used a wide range of materials: conven-
tional, adapted or alternative, manufactured, or handcrafted, which enriches
SWDs’ learning opportunities. “SWDs may need to have equipment adapted
for any number of reasons, including limited mobility, limited grip strength, lack of
vision or hearing, decreased cognitive function, and inability to maintain their
attention for a long period” (Lieberman & Houston-Wilson, 2018, p. 70). When-
ever necessary, teachers (especially the APE specialist) modified the characteristics
of the equipment to best accommodate the SWDs’ needs, according to the “five Ss”
of equipment adaptations proposed by Healy (2013): surface (altering texture
or adding color to balls or targets); speed (deflating balls, altering weight to
make them lighter or heavier); size (different dimensions of balls, shortening
striking implements); sound (addition of auditory cues like beepers or bells to balls,
targets, and other materials); and support (suspending a ball or placing it on a tee).
As teachers described in their interviews, many of these equipment modifications
were used to accommodate the SWDs’ needs. Lieberman, Haibach, and Wagner
(2014) developed a study testing how the use of equipment modified for students
with visual impairment would affect the gross motor skill performance of sighted
children. The findings indicated that the use of modified equipment, compared
with nonmodified equipment, did not interfere with the performance of sighted
children.

APAQ Vol. 36, No. 3, 2019

 Instructional Approaches in Physical Education 373

Environmental adaptations can also greatly increase the degree of SWDs’

involvement in PE. It may include decreasing distractions, increasing visual cues,
limiting noise, changing lighting, or providing accessibility (Lieberman &
Houston-Wilson, 2018). Mosston and Ashworth (2008) mentioned different
factors affecting the degree of difficulty of an activity. One of them is the range
of space between the point of minimum and maximum distance, which offers many
levels of difficulty to learners who perform tasks with ball skills (throwing,
catching, and shooting). Likewise, Mosston and Ashworth (2008) affirmed that
varying the height of the equipment creates various degrees of difficulty that serve
as entry points for different learners.
DI is in accordance with Hutzler’s (2007) perspective, when the author
defended the viewpoint that adaptations in PE should not be prescribed according
to a specific type of disability but should consider the relationship between the
student (individual), the activities (task), and the context (environment), which
may enhance or limit the educational opportunities. The author suggested a
rationale for an individually tailored teaching-learning process rather than pre-
determined instructions. Physical educators should make their pedagogical deci-
sions based on critical thinking related to challenging SWDs and promoting their
participation in a variety of settings (Hutzler, 2007).
Universal Design for Learning considers the range of students’ abilities at the
design stage of the curriculum, designing and incorporating accommodations at
this phase. This built-in access for a wide range of users, with and without
disabilities, is the underlying principle of UDL (Rapp & Arndt, 2012). In terms of
curriculum design, UDL implies an approach to using and arranging instructional
materials and activities that allows learning goals to be attained by individuals with
wide differences in their abilities to see, hear, speak, move, read, write, understand,
attend, organize, engage, and remember. Such a varied, yet challenging, curricu-
lum gives teachers the ability to provide each student with access to the PE content
without having to adapt the curriculum repeatedly to meet various needs
(Lieberman & Houston-Wilson, 2018). This variation supports motivation to
learn by offering multiple ways of engaging with the lesson content, thus providing
learners with various preferences and styles to find avenues that increase chances
for success (Lieberman & Block, 2016). Variations in the curriculum are not just
for one or two students. Every child could take advantage of activities that are
universally designed (Lieberman, 2017). This is not individualized instruction;
rather, this is instruction that can be accessed by every child in the class, regardless
of previous experience or ability (Brian et al., 2017).

Limitations of the Study

The terms DI or UDL were purposefully not included on the interview scripts in order
to not induce answers and to avoid bias. Although the teachers did not specifically
mention DI or UDL approaches, they did describe and implement modifications that
fit these models. Thus, it was not possible to infer whether the teachers made these
arrangements based on DI or UDL concepts or whether it was incidental. Teachers
were asked to present their teaching programs prior to the observation period in order
to determine if the modifications were predicted and anticipated. As they never

APAQ Vol. 36, No. 3, 2019

374 Munster, Lieberman, and Grenier

presented them, it was not possible to infer if the accommodations were planned since
the beginning or established according to necessity.

Considerations for Future Research

This case study took into consideration the accommodations and distinct ap-
proaches tailored to the SWDs from the teachers’ perspective. Consistent with
Coates and Vickerman (2008) and Haegele and Sutherland (2015), such research
must consider the SWDs’ perspectives. A suggestion for further investigations
could be to examine the impact of these accommodations and approaches from
the SWDs’ viewpoint by exploring in greater depth the experiences of the people
primarily involved with the subject. Furthermore, a complementary document
analysis (such as teaching programs or syllabi) would help the researcher to
determine if the accommodations were planned from the beginning or introduced
when needed and to comprehend how or why there were designed.

Conclusion
The findings of this research are in accordance with Block et al. (2016), who affirmed
that “two of the most popular models for accommodating the needs of diverse learners”
(p. 95) are DI and UDL. Both value diversity and thus focus on the maximum
development of human potential through different strategies and varied means. While
UDL emphasizes a proactive design of the environment and curriculum for all
students, DI focuses on responding to the individual needs of each student. Together,
it is believed that the two approaches can provide valuable tools for SWDs to
successfully engage with their learning environment and effectively achieve educa-
tional goals. The presented data showed that both approaches offer effective and
appropriate resources to accommodate SWDs in PE classes, provided that the decision
between using one or the other is based on prior analysis of the learning context.
Physical education can be compared with a complete and diverse menu. In some
situations, it may be possible to serve a tasty meal common to all students in the most
differentiated conditions: vegan, low-calorie diet, lactose intolerance, gluten-free
diet, and so forth (UDL). At other times, it may be more appropriate to serve a type of
dish more enriched in specific nutrients according to individual demands (DI). What
is most important is to invite everyone to sit at the table, enjoy the food, and be
satisfied. By analogy, PE classes should be accessible to each (DI) and every (UDL)
student and offer diversified instruction, resources, means, and teaching strategies to
ensure a stimulating, safe, and appropriate learning environment.

Acknowledgments
CAPES Foundation, Process No. BEX 257/13-5.

References
Block, M.E. (2016). Curricular modifications. In M.E. Block (Ed.), A teacher’s guide to
adapted physical education: Including students with disabilities in sports and recrea-
tion (4th ed., pp. 125–136). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

APAQ Vol. 36, No. 3, 2019

 Instructional Approaches in Physical Education 375

Block, M.E., Klavina, A., & Davis, R. (2016). Instructional modifications. In M.E. Block
(Ed.), A teacher’s guide to adapted physical education: Including students with
disabilities in sports and recreation (4th ed., pp. 93–115). Baltimore, MD: Paul H.
Brookes.
Block, M.E., & Obrusnikova, I. (2007). Inclusion in physical education: A review of the
literature from 1995–2005. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 24, 103–124. doi:10.
1123/apaq.24.2.103
Block, M.E., & Vogler, E.W. (1994). Inclusion in regular physical education: The research
base. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 65(1), 40–44. doi:10.1080/
07303084.1994.10606830
Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klinger, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative
studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195–207. doi:10.1177/
001440290507100205
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bredahl, A. (2013). Sitting and watching the others being active: The experienced
difficulties in PE when having a disability. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly,
30(1), 40–58. PubMed ID: 23283025 doi:10.1123/apaq.30.1.40
Brian, A., Grenier, M., Lieberman, L.J., Egan, C., & Taunton, S. (2017). 50 million strong
for all: Universally designing CSPAPs to align with APE best practices. Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 88(7), 30–36. doi:10.1080/07303084.2017.
1340206
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2011). Universal Design for Learning guidelines,
version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author.
Coates, J., & Vickerman, P. (2008). Let the children have their say: Children with special
educational needs and their experiences of physical education—A review. Support
for Learning, 23(4), 168–175. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9604.2008.00390.x
Costa, C.M., & Munster, M.A.V. (2017). Adaptações curriculares nas aulas de educação
física envolvendo estudantes com deficiência visual. Revista Brasileira de Educação
Especial, 23(3), 361–376. doi:10.1590/s1413-65382317000300004
Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Duchane, K.A., & French, R. (1998). Attitudes and grading practices of secondary physical
educators in regular education settings. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 15(4),
370–380. doi:10.1123/apaq.15.4.370
Fitzgerald, H. (2005). Still feeling like a spare piece of luggage? Embodied experiences
of (dis)ability in physical education and school sport. Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy, 10(1), 41–59. doi:10.1080/1740898042000334908
Grenier, M., Miller, N., & Black, K. (2017). Applying Universal Design for Learning
and the inclusion spectrum for students with severe disabilities in general physical
education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 88(6), 51–56. doi:
10.1080/07303084.2017.1330167
Haegele, J.A., & Sutherland, S. (2015). Perspectives of students with disabilities toward
physical education: A qualitative inquiry review. Quest, 67(3), 255–273. doi:10.1080/
00336297.2015.1050118
Healy, S. (2013). Adapting equipment for teaching object control skills. Palaestra, 27(4),
37–42.
Hutzler, Y. (2007). A systematic ecological model for adapting physical activities:
Theoretical foundations and practical examples. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly,
24, 287–304. PubMed ID: 18042967 doi:10.1123/apaq.24.4.287
Lavay, B.W. (2011). Specific learning disabilities. In J.P. Winnick (Ed.), Adapted physical
education and sport (5th ed., pp. 215–232). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

APAQ Vol. 36, No. 3, 2019

376 Munster, Lieberman, and Grenier

Li, C., & Chen, S. (2011). Implementation of curriculum planning on inclusive physical
education in primary schools in Hong Kong. Asian Journal of Physical Education &
Recreation, 17(2), 57–65.
Lieberman, L.J. (2017). The need for Universal Design for Learning. Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation & Dance, 88(3), 5–7. doi:10.1080/07303084.2016.1271257
Lieberman, L.J., & Block, M.E. (2016). Inclusive settings in adapted physical activity:
A world reality? In C. Ennis (Ed.), Handbook of physical education (pp. 262–276).
New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Lieberman, L.J., Haibach, P., & Wagner, M. (2014). Let’s play together: Sports equipment
for children with and without visual impairment. Palaestra, 28(2), 13–15.
Lieberman, L.J., & Houston-Wilson, C. (2018). Strategies for inclusion: A handbook for
physical educators (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Lieberman, L.J., Lytle, R., & Clarcq, J.A. (2008). Getting it right from the start: Employing
the Universal Design for Learning approach to your curriculum. Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 79(2), 32–39. doi:10.1080/07303084.2008.
10598132
Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (2008). Teaching physical education (1st online ed.).
Buckeystown, MD: Spectrum Institute for Teaching and Learning.
Qi, J., & Há, A.S. (2012). Inclusion in physical education: A review of literature.
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 59(3), 257–281.
doi:10.1080/1034912X.2012.697737
Rapp, W., & Arndt, K. (2012). Teaching everyone: An introduction to inclusive education.
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Rizzo, T.L., Davis, W.E., & Toussaint, R. (1994). Inclusion in regular classes: Breaking
from traditional curricula. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 65(1),
24–47. doi:10.1080/07303084.1994.10606826
Sherlock-Shangraw, R. (2013). Creating inclusive youth sport environments with the
Universal Design for Learning. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance,
84(2), 40–46. doi:10.1080/07303084.2013.757191
Sherrill, C. (2003). Adapted physical activity, recreation and sport: Crossdisciplinary and
lifespan (6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
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. doi:10.1080/08856250500491849
Thomas, J.R., & Nelson, J.K. (2001). Research methods in physical activity (4th ed.).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Tomlinson, C.A. (2000). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades. ERIC
Digest (ERIC_NO: ED443572). Retrieved from http://ericir.syr.edu/plweb-cgi/
obtain.pl
Tripp, A., Rizzo, T.L., & Webbert, L. (2007). Inclusion in physical education: Changing
the culture. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 78(2), 32–48. doi:
10.1080/07303084.2007.10597971
Villa, R., & Thousand, J. (2000). Restructuring for caring and effective education.
Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Wilhelmsen, T., & Sorensen, M. (2017). Inclusion of children with disabilities in physical
education: A systematic review of literature from 2009 to 2015. Adapted Physical
Activity Quarterly, 34, 311–337. PubMed ID: 28727510 doi:10.1123/apaq.2016-0017
Willis, S., & Mann, L. (2000). Differentiating instruction: Finding manageable ways to meet
individual needs (excerpt). Curriculum Update. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/
readingroom/cupdate/200/1win.html

APAQ Vol. 36, No. 3, 2019

 Instructional Approaches in Physical Education 377

Winnick, J.P., & Porretta, D.L. (2017). Adapted physical education and sports (6th ed.).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Yin, R.K. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

APAQ Vol. 36, No. 3, 2019

Copyright of Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly is the property of Human Kinetics
Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.