School inclusion pursues the normative goal of identifying and overcoming barriers that disadvantage, discriminate, and marginalize and replacing them with means that (can) enable full participation of all students (Ainscow, 2008). School systems in German-speaking contexts with their multi-tracked structure, their hierarchizing and selective functions are often problematized in this context and contrasted with more inclusive programming. This contrast has been reconstructed in various studies conducted in the German-speaking context in recent years (a.o. Rabenstein et al., 2013; Sturm & Wagner-Willi, 2015; Wagener, 2020). These studies identify achievement rankings as a central difference dimension of teachers' teaching practices in multi-tracked school systems: "These differences are ascribed to the students individually, in a hierarchical way (better/worse), accompanied by discrimination and a lack of learning opportunities, mostly for the 'weak(er)' students" (Sturm, 2019, p. 657 f.). At the same time, exploratory studies that comparing the construction of differences in schools in single-track systems and ones following multiple tracks suggest that teachers' practices and their construction processes differ according "to the formal school-based context in which they work" (ibid., p. 656; Sturm & Wagener, 2023, under review). For example, group discussions conducted with teachers in Norway, the USA and Germany showed that “German teachers only refer to the students’ achievement, which they understand as a result of the giftedness of the child, measured in IQ” whereas teachers in Norway and the United States explained lower “academic achievement of students in terms of the need to adapt their teaching approaches” (Sturm, 2019, p. 666). Since these results concern single cases and cannot be generalized to single-track and multi-track school systems overall, it is the central concern of the PhD researcher to systematically compare the constructions of achievement (or student differences) between school systems that differ in basic structure (integrative/selective) in order to find out whether and to what extent teachers’ practices differ. The project provides a comparison of teaching practices situated in a single-track school system, specifically that of Canada, and in a multi-track school system, specifically that of Germany. Canada – in Germany discussed as the “North Star” of inclusion (Hinz, 2006) – was the first country to enshrine rights for people with physical and mental impairments in 1985 as part of its Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (see CCD press release, 2012, online). In educational discourses, it is particularly characterized by its approach to societal heterogeneity and diversity. For example, Canada has enshrined multiculturalism nationally in law since 1988 (cf. Canadian Multiculturalism Act, 1985), which protects the rights of all marginalized population groups and aims to preserve and strengthen Canada's cultural diversity (Polat, 2019). The following research questions are formulated to address the multi-level comparison described here: How is achievement constructed and dealt with in the teaching practices of social studies classes in single versus multi-tracked school systems? Which forms of enabling and hindering academic and social participation of students in the classroom are reconstructable? In order to begin articulating an explanation for the similarities and differences in teaching practices, this study investigates the question of the significance and relevance of structural and legal frameworks in everyday school practice and curriculum. For this purpose, the second empirical part of the work will include curricuuma analyses as well as analyses of the respective school laws. In comparing teaching practices, data (principally audio/visual) have been collected at two secondary schools in British Columbia. Similarly data have been collected at a secondary school in Saxony-Anhalt, Germany, while data collection at two other types of schools is still pending. 

The comparison of practices and structural framework conditions is anchored in the praxeological sociology of knowledge developed by Ralf Bohnsack (2017) based on Karl Mannheim’s sociology of knowledge (Mannheim, 1952) and focus on the methodology of the documentary method. Through the application of this method, data has been collected and evaluated; it is related in the sense of a multi-level comparison brought into relation with the framework conditions contained in educational policy (school laws) and programs (curricula). A constitutive component of this methodology are comparative analyses to identify similarities and differences between the reconstructed (teaching) practices in different classrooms, school (types) and states (and enables researchers to bracket their own normative and theoretical perspectives). The praxeological perspective asks about the how of the interactive and performative production and processing of differences as well as for the overlapping of different dimensions of difference (e.g., performance/gender). Following Mannheim (1982) Bohnsack (2018) distinguishes two central forms of knowledge, which he names "propositional logic" and the "performative logic" (Bohnsack, 2017, pp. 55ff.). They differ fundamentally and at the same time are in a continuous tension with each other, which Bohnsack (ibid., p. 51) refers to as the "notorious discrepancy". Propositional logic is based on the assumption that action is "purpose-rational" (ibid., 85), i.e., that the everyday actions of persons are guided by specific, mainly conscious goals and purposes. Mannheim calls this the "communicative" knowledge (Mannheim, 1982), referring to the so-called common-sense theories that are relied upon in everyday life. This is distinguished from the second form of knowledge, the "performative logic" (Bohnsack, 2017, p. 53), which Mannheim (1964, p. 100) says grasps as "atheoretical" and "incorporated". In contrast to communicative knowledge, tacit knowledge stocks are action-guiding and structure in the sense of habitus the practice of action of different actors. Mannheim also refers to them as "conjunctive" or connecting knowledge (Mannheim, 1982) especially since they are acquired primarily through shared experiences.

The reconstructions/intermediate findings to date indicate that teachers' practices differ in single-track school systems when compared to multi-track school systems. In both cases – of social studies classes of two teachers working in Canada and Germany - they have a frontal and focused seating arrangement; the teacher asks the questions (as a questioner) and actively structures the lessons, while the students answer (as informers), so that the results are conceptualized as coming from individuals rather than “the class.” In terms of differences, it became clear that in the Canadian case it is not about a ‘right’ fact, but about an individual justification for the answers given. There are also questions asked that are linked to individuals’ their personal feelings regarding the topic. In the case of the German class there were leading questions observable that suggest a predetermined answer known by the teacher, allowing responses to be judged either as either correct or incorrect (Kocabıyık & Sturm, 2023, in print). If the reconstructed results are related to the school structural and legal frameworks, the project (could) generate knowledge concerning the importance and relevance of school system framework conditions for pedagogical practices with the aim of inclusive education.

Ainscow, M. (2008). Teaching for Diversity. The Next Big Challenge. In: M. F. Connelly; M. F. He; J. A. Phillion (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction. Los Angeles: Sage, S. 240-258. Bohnsack, R. (2017). Praxeological sociology of knowledge. Opladen/Toronto: utb. Bohnsack, R. (2018). Praxeological sociology of knowledge and documentary method: Karl Mannheim’s framing of empirical research. In D. Kettler & V. Meja (Eds.), The Anthem Companion to Karl Mannheim (pp. 199-220). Anthem Press. CCD (Council of Canadians with Disabilities) (2012). Constitutional equality rights: People with disabilities still celebrating 30 years later. http://www.ccdonline.ca/en/humanrights/promoting/charter-press-release-17apri2012 Hinz, A. (2006). Kanada – ein ‚Nordstern‘ in Sachen Inklusion. In. A. Platte; S. Seitz & K. Terfloth (Eds.), Inklusive Bildungsprozesse. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt, p. 149-158. Kocabıyık, B.; Sturm, T. (2023, in print): Leistung als Konstrukt fachunterrichtlicher Praxen: empirische Analysen von Sozialkundeunterricht in Kanada und Deutschland. In: CES-Jahrbuch. Berlin: centrum für qualitative evaluations- und sozialforschung e.V. Mannheim, K. (1952). Wissenssoziologie. In: id.: Ideologie und Utopie. Frankfurt a.M.: Verlag G. Schulte-Bulmke, p. 227-267. Mannheim, K. (1964). Beiträge zur Theorie der Weltanschauungsinterpretation. In: H. Maus und F. Fürstenberg (Eds.), Wissenssoziologie. Neuwied: Luchterhand, p. 91-154. Mannheim, K. (1982). Structures of thinking. Routledge & Kegan Paul. Polat, A. (2019). Doing belonging and social coherence: Zugehörigkeitsdiskurse in Kanada und ihr Einfluss auf gesellschaftlichen Zusammenhalt und Inklusion. In: D. Jahr & R. Kruschel (Eds.), Inklusion in Kanada. Internationale Perspektiven auf heterogenitätssensible Bildung. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz, P. 30-46. Rabenstein, K.; Reh, S.; Ricken, N. & Idel, T.-S. (2013). Ethnographie pädagogischer Differenzordnung. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 59(5), p. 668-690. Sturm, T. und Wagner-Willi, M. (2015). Praktiken der Differenzbearbeitung im Fachunterricht einer integrativen Schule der Sekundarstufe. Zur Überlagerung von Schulleistung, Peerkultur und Geschlecht. In: Gender. Zeitschrift für Geschlecht, Kultur und Gesellschaft, 7(1), p. 64-78. Sturm, T. (2019). Constructing and addressing differences in inclusive schooling – comparing cases from Germany, Norway and the United States. International Journal of Inclusive Education 23(6), p. 656-669. Sturm, T. und Wagener, B. (2023, under review): Bilder und Videografien/videografische Daten im Kontext erziehungswissenschaftlicher Inklusionsforschung. In: T. Wolfgarten & M. Trompeta (Eds.), Bild & Erziehungswissenschaft. Eine Skizzierung der thematischen Schnittmenge sowie des disziplinären Feldes. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Juventa, p. 231-248. Wagener, B. (2020). Leistung, Differenz und Inklusion. Eine rekonstruktive Analyse professionalisierter Unterrichtspraxis. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.