ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Inclusive service learning: contributions from an acrosport programme for university students with and without intellectual disabilities.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In an increasingly globalised and diverse world, inclusion is a crucial pillar of social development. Creating environments where everyone feels valued, respected, and supported is important for personal and social development. This article analyses the possibilities for training and inclusion provided by an acrosport service learning project based around shared learning by all participants. University students from a physical activity and sports sciences (PASS) programme participated in this project, implementing an inclusive acrosport training programme for students with intellectual disabilities from the university's own Training for Labour Market Inclusion (TLMIC) and for students from the bachelor's degree in primary education with a specialisation in physical education (BPE-PE). This research used a qualitative methodological design that made it possible to approach the participants' perspective. A variety of information collection instruments were used: individual interviews, a focus group, field journals, and learning journals. The results showed that participating in inclusive environments, which promote the active, equitable, and meaningful participation of all students within a shared learning environment, benefited the participating students with intellectual disabilities and the future PE teachers. The former group learned about acrosport and positively valued the sessions' inclusiveness as this enabled them to meet new people and make connections outside class in a university setting with people who do not have disabilities, and they experienced feelings that they identified as positive. As for the students without disabilities who played the role of teachers, they felt that their learning of the content was more meaningful and they felt more self-confident when designing and implementing inclusive sessions. Finally, the participants without disabilities (in the roles of teacher and student) felt that they had transference at an academic and professional level of what they learned and that the inclusive experience made them reject stereotypes about people with disabilities. They also regarded having established links with people from various programmes as being positive and experienced positive feelings from having participated in the project. The findings of this research suggest that the development of the inclusive acrosport service learning programme generates relevant benefits for all those involved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.