Inclusion in Physical Education was analyzed from the need to move beyond responses focused solely on the subsequent adaptation of activities and to consider student variability from the planning stage. The objective was to analyze the scientific literature on Universal Design for Learning, inclusive pedagogical strategies, and motor participation in order to identify principles that could guide the universal design of motor experiences. A narrative review with a critical and conceptual orientation was conducted through the selection, comparison, and interpretation of theoretical and empirical studies related to inclusion, adaptation, differentiation, and participation in Physical Education. The findings showed that barriers depended not only on student characteristics but also on tasks, materials, space, rules, groupings, and peer relationships. The analysis organized the proposal into six components: a common motor purpose, access alternatives, adjustable challenge, social participation, student choice, and different ways of demonstrating learning. It was discussed that anticipatory design did not replace individualized adjustments but reduced foreseeable barriers before such adjustments were required. It was concluded that the universal design of motor experiences constituted a conceptual proposal that required empirical validation in school settings.
Inclusion in Physical Education was analyzed from the need to move beyond responses focused solely on the subsequent adaptation of activities and to consider student variability from the planning stage. The objective was to analyze the scientific literature on Universal Design for Learning, inclusive pedagogical strategies, and motor participation in order to identify principles that could guide the universal design of motor experiences. A narrative review with a critical and conceptual orientation was conducted through the selection, comparison, and interpretation of theoretical and empirical studies related to inclusion, adaptation, differentiation, and participation in Physical Education. The findings showed that barriers depended not only on student characteristics but also on tasks, materials, space, rules, groupings, and peer relationships. The analysis organized the proposal into six components: a common motor purpose, access alternatives, adjustable challenge, social participation, student choice, and different ways of demonstrating learning. It was discussed that anticipatory design did not replace individualized adjustments but reduced foreseeable barriers before such adjustments were required. It was concluded that the universal design of motor experiences constituted a conceptual proposal that required empirical validation in school settings. Read More