Effective classroom management is an international, continuously discussed term reflecting on various models and approaches of instruction, organisation and behavioural management (cf. Wubbels, 2009). In combination with inclusive education and a diverse student population, classroom management is of central importance to ensure students´ academic and social success (cf. Mitchel, Hirn & Lewis, 2017). Recent studies reveal several perspectives focusing on the participation of students with special educational needs in inclusive classrooms, including school development aspects (cf. Intxausti et al., 2017), teachers´ opinions (cf. Jordan et al., 2009), concrete classroom techniques (cf. Yildiz, 2015) and strategies (cf. Akalin & Cucuoglu, 2015). All of these studies point out the teachers´ role and behaviour as an important factor. In view of classroom management in inclusive settings, Soodak (2003) emphasizes that besides providing membership and opportunities for collaboration and friendship within the classroom community, it is the teachers task to consider the “benefits of positive approaches to behaviour management rather than punitive and exclusionary methods (…)” (Soodak, 2003, p. 332).

Overlooking the growing number of schools in Europe where mainstream education teachers (METs) and special education teachers (SETs) conduct lessons together (cf. Sansour & Bernhard, 2018), it becomes relevant to elaborate, how the two professions arrange their roles and responsibilities and if there is a differentiation between their practical approach, as Murawski (2009) indicates. These diverging approaches are evidenced in a video-study focusing individual fostering (cf. Radhoff, Buddeberg & Hornberg, 2018), as the SETs tend to exclusively focus on single students while the MET bears the needs of the whole class in mind. Furthermore, several studies reveal that METs and SETs conceptions of organizing class-time differ in view of their instruction and behaviour management (cf. Fennick & Liddy, 2001).

In our presentation we will focus on the two professions in co-teaching settings and their approaches to the classroom management. Following Dieker (2001), a variety of co-teaching structures can respond to challenging behaviours. She also emphasizes that developing peer support structures and a clear articulation of curricular and instructional goals can support students´ academic and behavioural success. In addition, both co-teaching partners have to instruct actively to provide progress for students with special needs (Magiera & Zigmond, 2005). In our study it is assumed that missing arrangements and different conceptions of the roles and responsibilities of the two professions (i.a. Hang & Rabren, 2009; Dieker, 2001) could affect their classroom management activities. In reference to findings presented at ECER 2018 regarding the use of time in classroom (Buddeberg, Radhoff & Hornberg, 2018), outcomes including the MET taking over the responsibility regarding time management, are also relevant to the now observed context of classroom management. Therefore, this presentation broadens the previous analysis, leading to the question, whether in an inclusive setting the two professions differ in their instructional, organisational, and behavioural approaches.

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 analysing videos of inclusive lessons. The analyses are based on comparative case studies of two primary schools, where METs and SETs conduct lessons 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 analysed. 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 act regarding the facets of classroom management. 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. Followed by a reflective interpretation which is performed in exchange with a research team in order to obtain multiperspective facets of the material and to elaborate the organisation of the interaction and discussion within the classroom, the last procedure focuses on the comparative analysis and the empirically-based typification. In a first step these scenes are analysed on the basis of a case-internal comparison of each filmed lesson and in a second step they are interpreted in terms of a cross-case comparison.

Results of the first analysed inclusive lesson indicate that the MET and the SET have diverging approaches regarding certain facets of classroom management. Likewise they share common orientations in their instructional and verbal practices in one on one interaction with their students. In plenum phases the MET functions as the active part, leads the class through the lesson and working phases and arranges the transitions between them. The MET also instructs the SET and requests quietness and refers to students who are not engaged. Meanwhile the SET assists and tries to activate the students through peeks and gestures. In one on one interaction with the students, the MET gives short feedback, examines the results and responds only to students who raise their hands. In contrast to the MET, the SET involves the students through queries in their working process. In one on one interaction with the students, both professions share a common orientation in their practice. They often prompt the results or articulate suggestions rather than enabling the students to generate own solutions. In situations of misbehaviour both professions intervene implicitly. This means that they do not define what the student is doing wrong or even reveal alternative behaviour patterns. These results will be consolidated by comparing them with the second elementary inclusive lesson and by contrasting them to an inclusive lesson filmed in a secondary school. Regarding these results we will discuss the questions, which beneficial effects can be concluded from the different instructional and organisational approaches of the two professions but also which consequences emerge from their common handling with misbehaviour. This implicates reflecting upon the roles and responsibilities of teachers in an inclusive classroom (e.g. Murawski, 2009) and contributes to an exchange about the operationalization of the construct classroom management on a European level (cf. Wubbels, 2009).

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 Barbara Budrich. Dieker, L. A. (2001). What are the characteristics of “effective” middle and high school co-taught teams for students with disabilities? Preventing School Failure, 46 (1), 14–23. Fennick, E. & Liddy, D. (2001). Responsibilities and preparation for collaborative teaching: Co-Teachers' perspectives. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24 (3), 229–240. Hang, Q. & Rabren, K. (2008). An examination of co-teaching. Perspectives and efficacy indicators. Remedial and Special Education, 30 (5), 259–268. Jordan, A., Schwartz, E. & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2009). Preparing teachers for inclusive classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25 (4), 535–542. Magiera, K. & Zigmond, N. (2005). Co-Teaching in middle school classrooms under routine conditions: Does the instructional experience differ for students with disabilities in co-taught and solo-taught classes? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20 (2), 79–85. Mitchel, B. S., Hirn, R. G. & Lewis, T. J. (2017). Enhancing effective classroom management in schools: structures for changing teacher behaviour. Teacher Education and Special Education, 40 (2), 140–153. 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]. heiEDUCATION Journal, 1 (2). 197–219. Sansour, T. & Bernhard, D. (2018). Special Needs Education and Inclusion in Germany and Sweden. ALTER. European Journal of Disability research, available on: doi.org/10.1016/j.alter.2017.12.002 Soodak, L. C. (2003). Classroom management in inclusive settings. Theory into Practice, 42 (4), 327–333. Wubbels, T. (2009). An international perspective on classroom management: what should prospective teachers learn. Teaching Education, 22 (2), 113–131.Yildiz, N. G. (2015). Teacher and student behaviors in inclusive classrooms. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15 (1), 177–184.