The global debate on inclusion in school is led by different disciplines such as education science and rehabilitation science. In terms of school practice in a growing number of European countries mainstream education teachers (METs) and special education teachers (SETs) prepare and conduct lessons together in inclusive classes (Sansour & Bernhard, 2018; Stefanidis & Strogilos, 2015), this having an impact on the conception of their roles (Friend & Bursuck, 2009). In this context the distribution of responsibilities with regard to practices of individual fostering of students becomes relevant.

Facing the roles and responsibilities in an inclusive setting the question arises whether teachers of both disciplines take over responsibility for all students or if there is a strict differentiation of responsibilities. Jordan, Schwartz and McGhie-Richmond (2009) indicate that METs who also feel responsible for students with special needs in their classes “tend to be more effective overall with all of their students” (p. 536). In practice, however, it appears that METs spend significantly less time with students with special needs in the presence of SETs. In addition, SETs often assume the role of a classroom assistant or focus on students with special needs alone (Magiera & Zigmond, 2005). Strogilos and Stefanidis (2015) also show that METs and SETs differ concerning the distribution of roles and responsibilities in co-teachers’ non-class-time (planning and evaluating) and class-time (instruction and behavior management). But even if there is a shared understanding of a common responsibility for all students, different approaches to its implementation in practice can be observed between METs and SETs. Particularly, with respect to routines of individual fostering, teachers show diverging approaches (Radhoff, Buddeberg & Hornberg, 2018): METs tend to bear the needs of the whole class in mind, even while they are currently supporting a single student. In contrast, SETs tend to exclusively focus on single students, while rather leaving the other students aside of their attention. One reason for this might be the different contents and conceptual approaches within the study plans of the two professions, due to different scientific traditions. More specifically, traditionally teacher training of METs more often aims at meeting the challenges of a large group of students, whereas teacher training of SETs traditionally focuses more on individual support of students as the size of the targeted learning group is relatively limited (Murawski, 2009).

In our presentation we will take a closer look at different approaches of the two professions by focusing on the importance of the factor time. Time has an authoritaritative character in modern societies which becomes highly relevant in school (Buddeberg & Hornberg, 2017). Even in individualized school settings with the focus on learning at students’ own pace time structures dominate the learning processes as an indifferent degree of efficiency measurement (Breidenstein & Rademacher, 2013). In times of acceleration (Rosa, 2015) students are expected to learn quickly and efficiently (Buddeberg & Hornberg, 2017). Students with specials needs are often exempt from these requirements. In Germany, for example, special schools are often not under the same pressure to perform compared to regular schools because of different aims in the curriculum concerning learning outcomes (Müller, 2014). In inclusive education different educational targets for students with and without special educational needs apply too (Sansour & Bernhard, 2018). Lower expectations of efficiency might have an effect on the use of time of SETs even in inclusive lessons. This leads to the question, whether METs and SETs differ in their use of time in inclusive lessons, in particular with respect to the approach of individual fostering.

The study is realized in the context of the project DoProfiL which is part of the German quality initiative for teacher training at TU Dortmund University. To answer the research question we chose a qualitative approach by analyzing videos of inclusive lessons. The analyses are based on comparative case studies of three primary schools, where METs and SETs conduct a lesson together. In each school one lesson in an inclusive class was videotaped. Methodologically we use the documentary method by Bohnsack (2010). This method allows reconstructions of implicit knowledge of social practice. The benefit of this method is not only to carve out what is done, but especially how it is realized in order to extract meaning that might not be explicit or even accessible to the persons being analyzed. Nentwig-Gesemann and Nicolai (2015) adapted this method by focusing on micro perspective processes of interaction. This methodological perspective helps to portray the patterns of interaction between the METs, SETs and their students. Thus, in this context it serves as a guide for the analysis of how teachers of both professions make use of their time, while supporting students in their learning processes. For the analysis a written transcript of the lessons and the video sequence complement each other. First of all the material was scanned with regard to condensed scenes. According to the methodological procedure the next step was to perform a descriptive formulating interpretation. The next step was to carry out a reflective interpretation in exchange with a research team in order to obtain multiperspective facets of the material. The last procedure focuses on the comparative analysis and the empirically-based typification. In a first step these scenes were analyzed on the basis of a case-internal comparison of each videographed lesson and in a second step they were interpreted in terms of a cross-case comparison. The following results portray the analysis of a lesson being conducted by one MET and two SETs in one German primary school.

First results indicate that the MET and the SETs have diverging approaches regarding their use of time in inclusive lessons, especially concerning their approach to practices of individual fostering: The MET takes over responsibility regarding time management in the lesson. By disciplining the students the MET tries to ensure that students stay focused on the learning topic and work efficiently. The use of time in this context is highly result-oriented. In situations of individual fostering the MET tries to devote attention to the whole class. The MET only stays with single students for a short period and actions concerning time management or individual fostering often take place simultaneously. In contrast the SETs spend longer time with students with or without special needs in situations of individual fostering, irrespective of whether other students demand support. Their involvement with students indicates less time pressure than the behavioral patterns of the MET, but they do not present themselves addressable to all students at all times. In conclusion, a different mediation of time pressure and efficiency can be observed among the MET and the SETs. It is expected to confirm these results by analyzing the other cases and to get more insight into the diverging approaches of time use. Regarding these results we will discuss the question, which beneficial effects can be concluded from the difference of the use of time in inclusive lessons of METs and SETs. This implicates a balance between the possibility of reducing time pressure on the one hand, while still focusing on the needs of preferably all students on the other hand. Therefore it is important to make the different approaches of the two professions accessible to teacher training in order to gain fruitful co-operations in teacher practice and to reflect on an efficient and sustainable use of time.

Bohnsack, R. (2010). Documentary Method and Group Discussions. In R. Bohnsack, N. Pfaff & W. Weller (eds.), Qualitative Analysis and Documentary Method in International Educational Research (pp. 99-124). Opladen & Farmington Hills: Verlag Barbra Budrich. Breidenstein, G. & Rademacher, S. (2013). Vom Nutzen der Zeit. Beobachtungen und Analysen zum individualisierten Unterricht [Use of Time. Observations and Analysises of individualized lessons]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 59 (3), 336-356. Buddeberg, M. & Hornberg, S. (2017). School in Times of Acceleration. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38 (1), 49–59. Friend, M. & Bursuck, W. D. (2009). Including students with special needs. A practical Guide for Classroom Teachers. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Jordan, A., Schwartz, E. & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2009). Preparing teachers for inclusive classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 535–542. Magiera, K. & Zigmond, N. (2005). Co-teaching in Middle School Classrooms under Routine Conditions: Does the Instructional Expericnce Difter for Students with Disabilities in Co-taught and Solo-taught Classes? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20 (2), 79-85. Müller, S. (2014). Data Rich, Information Poor? Chancen und Grenzen vergleichender Leistungsmessung an der Förderschule mit dem Förderschwerpunkt Lernen [Opportunities and Restrictions of Comparative Performance Measurement at Special School Focusing on “Learning“]. Münster: Waxmann. Murawski, W. W. (2009). Collaborative Teaching in Secondary Schools: Making the Co-Teaching Marriage Work! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Nentwig-Gesemann, I. & Nicolai, K. (2015). Dokumentarische Videointerpretation typischer Modi der Interaktionsorganisation im Krippenalltag. [Documentary Video-based Interpretation of Typical Modes of Interaction Organisation in the everyday life of Crèches]. In U. Stenger, D. Edelmann & A. König (Hrsg.), Erziehungswissenschaftliche Perspektiven in frühpädagogischer Theoriebildung und Forschung (S. 172–202). Weinheim: Beltz Juventa. Radhoff, M., Buddeberg, M. & Hornberg, S. (2018). Inklusion in der Lehrerbildung im Spannungsfeld unterschiedlicher Professionen [Inclusion in the Context of Teacher Training in the Tension Field of Different Professions]. Manuscript in preparation. Rosa, H. 2015. Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity. Ney York: Columbia University Press. Sansour, T. & Bernhard, D. (2018). Special Needs Education and Inclusion in Germany and Sweden. ALTER. European Journal of Disability research, Online verfügbar unter: doi.org/10.1016/j.alter.2017.12.002 Strogilos, V., & Stefanidis, A. (2015). Contextual antecedents of co-teaching efficacy: Their influence on students with disabilities’ learning progress, social participation and behaviour improvement, Teaching and Teacher Education, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2015.01.008