Inclusive education is often associated with students having special educational needs. However, following the UNESCO´s statement, inclusive education aims at the realization of the human right of education, equal opportunities and social participation for everyone. This claim needs to be realized by teachers and teaching practice.

In order to design inclusive teaching practice, it is important to know more about teacher’s conceptions of difference. In particular this applies to teachers in courses for educational professionals. Inclusion and heterogeneity are current concepts in debate on vocational education and training. However, reflecting the discourse on inclusive education, vocational schools have been less focused than mainstream schools and their teachers. This is especially true for courses for educational professionals. Central questions are therefore: Which difference categories do teachers construct among students in socio-educational courses? How do these constructions influence their teaching practice?

Based on that, the theoretical framework refers to the approach of “reflexive inclusion” (Budde/Hummrich 2015; Dannenbeck/Dorrance 2009). Reflexive inclusion describes a specific understanding of difference. Differences are understood as socially constructed and (re)produced in interactions, so that "difference categories are the product of social constructions" (Budde 2015).  Reflexive inclusion aims at the perception of differences, understanding of incorporated social disadvantages and discarding of implicit norms through their deconstruction (Budde/Hummrich 2015). Therefore, it is important to recognize the dynamics of the social construction of difference. Heterogeneity is not simply existent, but is always created through practical action, differentiation und categorization (Dannenbeck/Dorrance 2009). In this context the professional orientations of the teachers are of central significance for the implementation of inclusive concepts.

The basis for a careful and reflective way of dealing with difference in class is provided by the teacher’s perception, interpretation and recognition of difference as well as contradictory demands for schooling (Sturm 2015). The issue of the reflective perception and dealing with heterogeneity in socio-educational courses is emphasized as both learner and teacher provide a variety of differences in their interactional frame. Moreover, fundamental learning processes for an appreciative handling of heterogeneity are concealed within these settings.

The applied methodological framework is based on the documentary method (Bohnsack 2014, Przyborski 2014; Wagner-Willi 2015) whose approach refers to action and collectivity. Referring to the works of Karl Mannheim, access shall be provided to guidelines for action and thus to teaching practices. The documentary method distinguishes two different levels of knowledge - the reflexive or theoretical knowledge and the incorporated or tacit knowledge. This tacit knowledge forms a sort of structure. It offers an access to the pre-reflexive or tacit knowledge, which is implied in the practice of action. Practice is understood as action as well as of talk, of presentation and of argumentation. Important components of the documentary method, particular the interpretation of group discussions, are the distinction of immanent and literal meaning and the process of discourse (Bohnsack 2010). Along this methodological framework data was collected in group discussions. Three to five teachers practicing in vocational training for educational professionals were involved in each group discussion.

There are many years of experience with heterogeneity in vocational education for pedagogical professionals. However, there is hardly any empirical research referring to teaching practice in courses for educational professionals. Partly, this can be explained by the specific form of the German vocational education and training. Hence, this project shall serve as a basis to better understand teaching practice with the focus on difference among students in socio-educational courses. Even in the current early state of the evaluation of the group discussions, there is evidence that the bandwidth of heterogeneity and difference at vocational schools deviates remarkably from the quite well known insights at mainstream schools. For example, first results show the importance of the broader range of backgrounds and ages of the students, and the perception of their teachers associated therewith.

Bohnsack, Ralf (2010): Documentary Method and Group Discussions. In: Bohnsack, Ralf/ Pfaff, Nicolle/Weller, Wivian (Hrsg.): Qualitative analysis and documentary method in international educational research. Opladen : B. Budrich, S. 99-125. verfügbar unter: http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-317253 Budde, Jürgen (2015): Zum Verhältnis der Begriffe Inklusion und Heterogenität. In: In: Häcker, Thomas/Walm, Maik (Hrsg.): Inklusion als Entwicklung. Konsequenzen für Schule und Lehrerbildung. Bad Heilbrunn: Julius Klinkhardt, S. 117-132. Budde, J. & Hummrich, M. (2015). Intersektionalität und reflexive Inklusion. Sonderpädagogische Förderung heute 60, (2), 165-175. Dannenbeck, C. & Dorrance, C. (2014). Der Inklusionsdiskurs und die (Offene) Kinder- und Jugendarbeit – vom Diskursanlass zur Reflexion von Vielfalt und Differenz. neue praxis, 44 (2), 150–157. Fritzsche, Bettina/Wagner-Willi, Monika (2015): Dokumentarische Interpretation von Unterrichtsvideografien. In. Bohnsack, Ralf; Fritzsche, Bettina; Wagner-Willi, Monika (Hrsg.): Dokumentarische Video- und Filminterpretation. Opladen, Berlin, Toronto: Verlag Barbara Budrich (2. Auflage), S. 131-152. Przyborski, A. und Wohlrab-Sahr, M. (2014): Qualitative Sozialforschung. Ein Arbeitsbuch. 4. ergänzte Auflage: visuelle Daten/Bildinterpretation. München: Oldenbourg. Sturm, Tanja (2015): Herstellung und Bearbeitung von Differenz im inklusiven Unterricht. Rekonstruktionen mithilfe der dokumentarischen Videointerpretation. In Bohnsack, Ralf; Fritzsche, Bettina & Wagner-Willi, Monika (Hrsg.): Dokumentarische Video- und Filminterpretation. 2. Auflage. Opladen, Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich, S. 153-178.