Problems in written language acquisition (WLA) have resulted in scientific discourse. Many findings on how to deal with it, however, are hardly ever focusing on the school setting. Inclusion (in the broader sense means), which i.a. deals with heterogeneity, shows that the role of the institutions is to ensure that all individuals have equal access to education, irrespective of individual characteristics or attributions to certain groups. Therefore, it is important to point out the pedagogical intervention that is important to support individuals who have problems in reading and writing, in their individual development.  

State of research

In the scientific discourse on dyslexia contrarian views can be found, which are explained by a medical-psychological and a pedagogical perspective. In the medical-psychological perspective, a clear diagnosis of dyslexia and the associated criteria is required, which is also repeatedly discussed and researched scientifically. The description of the causes, which are not mentioned here, shows that problems in WLA are complex. This disease or disorder term in relation to dyslexia is generally rejected by some scientists and practitioners (Bühler-Niederberger 1991, Scheerer-Neumann 2002, Zimmermann 1980). The pedagogical perspective tries to meet the needs by providing individualized learning opportunities to the person with reading and writing difficulties. It is written in the decree of the compulsory school for reading and writing difficulties that the care and support measures for affected children focus on the preventive promotion and creation of individual learning programs by the classroom teacher (Gröpel 2014 a), 2; Gröpel 2014 b), 3). There are principles of developmental psychology and the resulting didactic methods and pedagogical aspects that support students who have problems in WLA. Students with different qualifications enter the school system and are at different stages of development in the reading and writing acquisition process, it is important to be aware of this as a teacher. Depending on the stage of development different methods are useful to support the child in its development. The choice of method has a direct impact on the course of the reading and writing process. Children can develop dyslexic symptoms through didactic deficiencies. Despite the findings from the field of research (Balhorn, Vieluf 1995, Hofmann 2016, May 1995) and the resulting pedagogical possibilities for the promotion of pupils with reading and writing difficulties in the classroom, the support and encouragement to a large extent held outside the classroom either in the form of courses or in extracurricular facilities. Theoretical framework Inclusion offers an approach to rethink the heterogeneity of reading literacy development in school education. Everyday teaching for people holding problems in reading and writing are a massive problem in that the performance assessment, which primarily uses the cultural techniques of reading and writing as a basis for scholastic achievement. The resulting risk of disadvantage must therefore also be discussed in the context of inclusion. From the explanations given to those who have problems in WLA and the associated responsibilities to the school institution, and the inclusion explication, it can be concluded that the demands for individual support of persons with reading and writing problems are reflected in the inclusive school setting. From this the following research questions can be formulated:  

Research Questions

• How do students who have problems with written language acquisition experience learning in an inclusive setting?
• Which forms can inclusive-pedagogical intervention take between the actors?

This study will initially select four secondary schools that will present inclusion in different forms in the school profiles. This results in learning in an inclusive setting. The following forms can take inclusion in the school profile, which is ideally represented by one school at a time: Inclusion in the sense of a profiling in the sense of the study by Feyerer 2011; Inclusion in the sense of the principle of normalization (Feyerer 2011); schools that explicitly focus on inclusion; schools which use an extended inclusion term in their school profile. In order to be able to establish contact with the actors in the classroom, observations in German lessons would be considered. Thus, on the one hand, the inclusive pedagogical action between the actors could be described, and on the other hand, this first contact provides a first approach to the pupils. In order to find pupils with problems in WLA without any categorization on the part of the actors, pupils should be analyzed for spelling mistakes. In a next step, the pupils thus obtained should reflect their experiences in the form of narrative interviews. The proposed study attempts to analytically understand participants' words and to construct a theory through participation. To achieve this, the proposed study will use Constructivist Grounded Theory, interpreting the stories and the meanings of the interviewed persons that connect them to their experiences. Charmaz (2014) suggests constructivist grounded theory allows us to gather data to understand in a flexible way what is happening in the research world. Based on the selection of pupils with problems in WLA, the research questions can be answered in different inclusive setting. Furthermore, interviews with parents, teachers and extra-curricular experts will be used for the study. Since a theoretical saturation is in the foreground, the sample size cannot be specified exactly before the examination. Between data collection and writing drafts, the researcher also uses memos that can be viewed as comments by the researcher to comment, discuss or ask questions, and to generate new hypotheses and ideas (Charmaz 2014). In data analysis, the data is coded to interpret the meaning of the perspectives resulting from the participants' experiences and narratives. In this case, a distinction is made between open, axial and selective coding. The theories thus obtained can demonstrate pedagogical interventions in relation to persons, who have problems in reading and writing, relevant to the school setting.

Since people who have problems in reading and writing are seen in most studies as an object of study, whose view is limited to this problem, this study focuses on this group of people. From the thus obtained, constructed theories new perspectives, research possibilities and focal points can be given to this field of investigation. Furthermore, possibilities can be opened as to how inclusive action in relation to the heterogeneity in the acquisition of written language becomes possible and which forms of inclusive pedagogical intervention in the school setting are seen from the perspective of the person concerned.

Balhorn, H., Vieluf, U. (1995). Themen und korrekturen machen keine autoren. Überlegungen nach der durchsicht von tausend schüleraufsätzen. In: Balhorn, H., Brügelmann, H. (Hg.): Rätsel des Schriftspracherwerbs. Neue Sichtweisen aus der Forschung. Bühler-Niederberger, D. (1991). Legasthenie. Geschichte und Folgen einer Pathologisierung. Leske + Budrich: Opladen. Charmaz, Kathy (2014): Constructing Grounded Theory. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Ferguson, D. L. (2008). International trends in inclusive education: the contiuing challenge to teach each one and everyone. In: European Journal of Special Needs Education 23:2, 109-120. Feyerer, E. (2011). Kapitel 3: Profilierung vs. Normalisierung: Unterschiedliche Ausformungen des Schwerpunktes Integration. In: Altrichter et al. (Hrsg): Schulentwicklung durch Schulprofilierung. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: Wiesbaden. Gerlach, D. (2015). Inklusion statt LRS-Förderung? Ansätze und Gelingensbedingungen einer inklusiven Schriftsprachförderung. In: Blömer, D. et al. (Hrsg): Perspektiven auf inklusive Bildung. Jahrbuch Grundschulforschung 18. Springer Fachmedien: Wiesbaden. Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L. (2008). Grounded Theory. Strategien qualitativer Forschung. Verlag Hans Huber: Bern. Gröpel, W. (2014). Erlasse I: Richtlinien für den Umgang mit Kindern mit Beeinträchtigungen des Erwerbs und Gebrauchs der Schriftsprache. Stadtschulrat für Wien. http://www.schulpsychologie.at/fileadmin/upload/lernen_leistung/Legasthenie/erlass_aps.pdf (Zugriff am: 27.12.2017). Gröpel, W. (2014). Erläuterungen zum Erlass I. Stadtschulrat für Wien. http://www.schulpsychologie.at/fileadmin/upload/lernen_leistung/Legastheni /erlaeuterungen_erlassaps.pdf (Zugriff am 27.12.2017). Hofmann, R. (2016). Gängige Erstlesemethoden im deutschsprachigen Raum – Erkennen von Lesestörungen / Erwerb von Lesekompetenz. In: Hofmann, R., Kalmár, M. (Hg): L-R-S: Lesen-Rechnen-Schreiben. Ein Handbuch. Lernen mit Pfiff: Wien. Hofmann, R. (2016). Rechtschreiben lernen leichter gemacht. In: Hofmann, R., Kalmár, M. (Hg): L-R-S: Lesen-Rechnen-Schreiben. Ein Handbuch. Lernen mit Pfiff: Wien. May, P. (1995). Kinder lernen rechtschreiben: Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede guter und schwacher Lerner. In: Balhorn, H., Brügelmann, H. (Hg.): Rätsel des Schriftspracherwerbs. Neue Sichtweisen aus der Forschung. Scheerer-Neumann, G. (2002). Zum Begriff der Lese-Rechtschreibschwäche: Rückblick, Stand – und Zukunft? In: Balhorn, H., Bartnitzky, H., Büchner, I, Speck-Hamdan, A. (Hg.): Sprachliches Handeln in der Grundschule. Schatzkiste 2, 41-53. UNESCO (2005). Guidelines on Inclusion in Education. Unesco: Paris. Universität Wien. Deutsch (Unterrichtsfach). http://slw.univie.ac.at/studieren/lehramt/deutsch-unterrichtsfach/ (Zugriff am: 04.01.2018) Valtin, R. (1998). Der 'neue' Methodenstreit oder: (Was) können wir aus der amerikanischen Leseforschung lernen? In: Balhorn, H. & u.a. (Hg.) Schatzkiste Sprache 1. Von den Wegen der Kinder in die Schrift. Frankfurt/M.: Grundschulverband - Arbeitskreis Grundschule, 63-80. Zimmermann, A. (1980). Legasthenie und schriftsprachliche Kommunikation. Ansätze zur Neuorientierung eines fragwürdigen Konzepts. Beltz Verlag: Weinheim, Basel, Berlin.