EERA invited to investigate tensions, not to cover them. I appreciate very much the focus laid consciously on contradictory prescriptions within educational institutions, eg. inclusion and competence orientation, development support and selection, digitalization and relationship work. Due to increased social gaps within society diverse cultural backgrounds find their way into PE lessons disturbing the anyway obsolete illusion of homogenous, educational oriented pupils. The complex situation of sports didactics not comparable with any other discipline at school has to deal more and more with conflicts arising out of different behavioural habits. There is a special tension between the bodily stiles and peer group norms (Zander, ) entering the gym, causing conflicts with institutional norms. Is sports on average still the most popular subject in Germany (https://de.statista.com) predominantly for boys, within PE are arising the most serious problems for identity like double exposure for physical and mental integrity (Miethling & Krieger 2004). These problems inspired for an increasing number of research projects dealing with pupils and their situations within PE, where in former times the main interest was with the teacher or the articulation (Grimminger 2012).

Our first focus was on conflicts occuring during regular PE lessons grade 5-9 in relation to gender and conflict types described in theory. The second focus was on the reactions of teachers, i.e.  their pedagogical skills in acting out an adequat and reflective conflict management. The hidden criteria for good lessons are still in discussion between high movement activity no matter what quality and - at the other end of the spectrum – ideas of cognitive activation, promotion of self concept (Conzelmann), emotional well being, reflexivity for citizenship, team orientation. The concrete manner how to balance movement activities with personal and social learning makes the most important difference for complex quality PE (Gruschka 2016, Herrmann et. al.).

We theoretical grounding of conflict types had to go back to other disciplines than PE theory. Conflicts and professional "conflict management" receive conceptual and application-oriented attention in reference works and guidebooks, especially in the field of economics and social sciences, while robust research data in the field of education is scarce; the broader political science conflict studies, in turn, are hardly transferable to the school setting. Since we needed systematic presentations of conflict types to inspire our own categories, we deliberately chose the standard works in economics and social sciences here, with the declared aim of relativising them or adapting them as a basis for further research in sports education. Authors such as Trenczek, Berning & Lenz (2013), Schwarz (2010) and Glasl (1999) deal primarily theoretically with the basics, methods, areas, etc. of conflicts and conflict management, and in doing so address managers to a greater extent. Within this advice literature, there are now a large number of authors who also make more or less specific reference to schools (Neubauer, Gampe & Knapp, 1992); Griese, 2005; Kasper, 2009; Keller, 2001; Becker, 2006; Jefferys-Duden, 2000; Werner, 2013), without, however, having subjected their statements to empirical testing. 

Even if the specifics of conflicts and their management in the context of school and teaching are mentioned within these works, the statements are rather general and oriented towards functionality by addressing conflicts and their management in "typical" school situations such as classrooms or on the schoolyard. The authors' expertise lies in the fact of having been pupils themselves. Despite the fact that physical education is situationally specific, previous theory on conflict and conflict management hardly addresses it. This will be addressed in the following for dealing with conflicts on the part of the teacher as an uninvolved third party, i.e. in pupil-pupil conflicts.

Self-statements would have been too error-prone (rationalisations, social desirability, etc.), and mere observation would have required a tested classification system, which, however, was only just being created. This made it necessary to select only a school with uncomplicated video general permission and an established relationship of trust (cf. Flick, 1995) as the research school. Observation without access to the complex synchronicity and sequentiality would not allow for a deeper understanding, which is why video-based lesson analysis is considered the superior means of lesson reflection, also in the context of teacher education (cf. Dorlöchter, Krüger et. al., 2006; Albert, Scheid & Julius, 2016). Participant observation, as non-reactive as possible, by means of videography was used for data collection, while structuring content analysis according to Mayring (1995) was used for data evaluation. Thus, no specific research paradigm of videographic classroom research was used as a basis (cf. Dinkelaker & Herrle, 2009), but simply video recordings were used for documentation, which then enabled the identification of conflict situations and ways of dealing with them through multiple focussed viewings. The video recordings serve as mediating recordings (Diegmann, 2013), with the help of which it is possible for the researcher to repeatedly view selected scenes and thereby discover further details if necessary. Mayring (1995) distinguishes in qualitative content analysis between the three analysis steps of summarising, explicating and structuring. While classical qualitative content analysis is fundamentally about systematically processing data material from communications (ibid., 1995, p. 209), the more differentiated form of structuring content analysis was useful here. With this method, it is possible to first compile a system of categories on the basis of theory-guided characteristics, on the basis of which certain aspects can then be filtered out of the material and a cross-section of the material can be created (ibid., 1995, p. 213). The previously determined category system may be revised during the material run. A total of 54 45-minute lessons were filmed, of which 17 were in grade 5, 13 in grade 6 and 11 in grade 7. A total of 157 conflicts of varying degrees of severity were identified. Anchor examples help to understand central categories in their characteristics and dimensions (Miethling & Krieger, 2004, p. 53).

Mono-educational PE lessons with male pupils accounted for more than two thirds of the conflict cases. Thus, it is the male teachers who usually teach boys who deal with the most conflicts. The results of the detailed qualitative evaluation with anchor examples and video scenes are the subject of the presentation. A distinction is made between prevention, intervention and follow-up. Compared to the taxonomies found in the literature, characteristic changes and additions must be made for physical education. This richness of variation has not been described in the literature so far. Depending on the assessment of the situation, the teacher "chooses" a way of dealing with the situation and tries to clarify/resolve the conflict; possibly further interventions or follow-up processes take place which are also directed towards long-term changes in behaviour based on relationship work or can lead to changes in teaching. The fact that it is not discipline but clarifying and cooperative discussion that dominates in the follow-up testifies to the quality of the pedagogical commitment in the material available to us. This long-term commitment of the teachers is particularly relevant in the case of pupils with conflict affinity, who are highly vulnerable and sometimes have rather few behavioural alternatives (as in our sample). Whether the consequences and effects are comprehensively reflected by the teacher is not evident from the research method used here. To find this out in more detail could be the subject of a subsequent study. Overall, the present study only provides an initial system for a rather difficult student body and a rather above-average committed teaching staff. In view of an increasingly heterogeneous student body, dealing with conflicts is likely to become more of an issue in the future.

Dorlöchter, H.; Krüger, H.; Stiller, E. & Wiebusch, D. (2006). Zwischen Standards und individueller Könnerschaft – videogestützte Kompetenzentwicklung in der Lehrerausbildung. Seminar 2006 (4), 23-39. Flick, U. (1995). Stationen des qualitativen Forschungsprozesses. In U. Flick (Hrsg.), Handbuch qualitative Sozialforschung (S. 147-169). München: Beltz. Glasl, F. (1999). Konfliktmanagement. Ein Handbuch für Führungskräfte, Beraterinnen und Berater. Stuttgart: Verlag Freies Geistesleben. Glasl, F. (2013). Eskalationsdynamik sozialer Konflikte. In T. Trenczek, D. Berning & C. Lenz (Hrsg.), Mediation und Konfliktmanagement (S. 67-78). Baden-Baden: Nomos. Glasl, F. & Weeks, D. (2008). Die Kernkompetenzen für Mediation und Konfliktmanagement. Stuttgart: Concadora. Griese, K. (2005). Mediation und Konfliktbewältigung in der Schule. In G. Falk, P. Heintel & E. Krainz (Hrsg.), Handbuch Mediation und Konfliktmanagement (S. 157-176). Wiesbaden: VS. Grimminger, E. (2012). Anerkennungs- und Missachtungsprozesse im Sportunterricht. Sportwissenschaft 42(2), 105-114. Gruschka, A. (2016). Von der Pädagogik zu den Bildungswissenschaften und zurück? Zeitschrift für sportpädagogische Forschung, 4 (Sonderheft), 5-14. Kounin, J. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Mayring, P. (1995): Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In U. Flick (Hrsg.): Handbuch qualitative Sozialforschung (S. 209-213). München: Beltz. Miethling, W.-D. (2011). Sportlehrerforschung. In E. Balz, M. Bräutigam, W.-D. Miethling, P. Wolters (Hrsg.), Empirie des Schulsports (S.121-153). Aachen: Meyer & Meyer. Miethling, W.-D. & Krieger, C. (2004). Schüler im Sportunterricht. Schorndorf: Hofmann. Neubauer, W. F.; Gampe, H. & Knapp, R. (1992). Konflikte in der Schule. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen kooperativer Entscheidungsfindung. Neuwied Berlin: Luchterhand. Pfannes, B. (2002). Zum Einfluss des Lehrers auf die erlernte Hilflosigkeit seiner Schüler. In M. Weitl & M. Gennadij (Hrsg.), Sportwissenschaftliche Themen in Deutschland und in Russland (S. 75-86). Hamburg: Kovac. Schwarz, G. (2010). Konfliktmanagement. Konflikte erkennen, analysieren, lösen. Wiesbaden: Gabler. Zander, B. (2018). Sportunterricht als konjunktiver Erfahrungsraum. Zeitschrift für sportpädagogische Forschung 6(2), 5-30.