The German discourse  on Primary School education is characterized by a strong belief that didactic theory and practice must move away from teacher-centered lessons towards “open education” and the “individualization” of learning. (These concepts are not easy to translate, in the English speaking discussion they might relate to the tradition of “open classroom education” and “child-centered learning”.) This is considered to be the best  way of acknowledging the heterogenity of learners: Each child should be able to learn in his or her own time and follow his or her own way of learning. Within this discussion mixed-aged school classes became popular insofar they seem to be suitable to welcome the heterogenity  of learners, e.g. by enabling children of different ages to learn from one another. Although these concepts are rather popular in the German pedagogical literature, empirical evidence is rare. Most notably missing are studies on the micro-level of teaching and learning itself (Klieme&Warwas 2011; Bohl et. al. 2012, but see e.g. Wiesemann 2000, Huf 2006, Wagener 2010, Reh&Berdelmann 2012).

Our research  aims at the level of practices and practical demands: What does is mean for  teachers as well as pupils when school lessons are organised around the ideas of the self-reliant and self-regulated activities of pupils? How is “self-reliance” of pupils established as practical accomplishment in the sense of ethnomethodology (see Breidenstein/Tyagunova 2013)? What is the teacher`s job like in this setting? The theoretical framework of the research is settled by the “studies of work” (Garfinkel 1986) and the “theory of social practices” (Schatzki et. al. 2001) which enable the analysis of situated practices in their own dynamics and effects without  asking for intentions or motives of actors, but looking at practices as object of investigation and a matter in itself.

Bohl, T., Batze, A. & Richey, P. (2012): Öffnung – Differenzierung – Individualisierung – Adaptivität. In: Bohl, T. et al. (Hrsg.): Binnendifferenzierung: Teil 1: Didaktische Grundlagen und Forschungsergebnisse zur Binnendifferenzierung im Unterricht. Immenhausen, 40-69. Breidenstein, G., Hirschauer, S., Kalthoff, H. & Nieswand, B. (2013): Ethnografie. Die Praxis der Feldforschung, Konstanz: UVK (UTB) Breidenstein, G. & Tyagunova, T. (2013): Ethnomethodologie und Konversationsanalyse, in: Bauer, U., Bittlingmayer, U. & Scherr, A.: Handbuch Bildungs- und Erziehungssoziologie, Wiesbaden: VS, 387-404 Breidenstein, G. (2014): Die Individualisierung des Lernens unter den Bedingungen der Institution Schule, in: Kopp, B. et.al. (ed.): Individuelle Förderung und Lernen in der Gemeinschaft, Wiesbaden: VS, 35-50 Breidenstein, G. & Menzel, C. (2014): „Arbeitszeit ist zum Arbeiten da!“ Zur Arbeits-Terminologie im individualisierten Unterricht, in: Zeitschrift für Grundschulforschung 7. Jg. H. 2, 179-193 Garfinkel, H. (1986) (ed.): Ethnomethodological studies of work. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1995): Ethnography. Principles in Practice (second edition), London, NewYork: Routledge Klieme, E.&Warwas, J. (2011): Konzepte der individuellen Förderung, in: Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 57. Jg., H. 6, 805-818 Reh, S.& Berdelmann, K. (2012): Aspects of Time and Space in Open Classroom Education. In: Tacit Dimensions of Pedagogy. Bergstedt, B., Herbert, A., Kraus, A., Wulf, C. (Hrsg.), S. 97–110, Waxmann, Münster, New York. Schatzki, T.R., Knorr-Cetina, K. & Savigny, E.v. (eds.) (2001): The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London & New York. Wagener, U. (2010) (Hrsg.): Young children and self-regulated learning. A qualitive classroom study. Beiträge zur Didaktischen Rekonstruktion, Bd.34. Didaktisches Zentrum Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg. Wiesemann, J. (2000): Lernen als Alltagspraxis. Lernformen von Kindern an einer Freien Schule. Bad Heilbrunn.