The normative pedagogical demand for equal participation formulated as a result of the implementation of the CRPD (2009) proves to be a significant challenge for physical education. Because physical education focuses on the body, physical-motor differences in performance and opportunities for participation become directly visible. Especially in competitive games, when a team’s success depends on the ability of all team members, there is a danger that higher-performing students make the different physical conditions of the students an issue (cf. Hovdal et al., 2021). In phases of P.E. in which the principle of competition dominates, the claim to equal participation and acceptance of all students is endangered. Different studies from Germany show the excluding character of P.E. (Braksiek, 2022). Furthermore, from the student's perspective, it is not enough to be part of a team; they need to feel that they are legitimate participants who contribute to the game (Spencer-Cavaliere & Watkinson, 2010). P.E. teachers can use various didactic-methodical measures to enable students with different (physical) conditions to participate in competitive activities on an equal footing (Tiemann, 2013). This paper argues that such measures represent efforts to unify the opposing claims of inclusion and competition, in which moments of ‘Verdeckung’ are not infrequently revealed (Kastrup & Fast, 2022). This paper asks whether and how P.E. teachers communicate their didactic decisions to students or leave them uncommented upon, thereby (unconsciously) creating ‘Verdeckung’. This question is examined using the communication model of Cachay et al. (2022) because it can demonstrate that events involving ‘Verdeckung’ can be located in the communication process between P.E. teachers and students and in the course of enabling equal participation. Communicative practices and events involving ‘Verdeckung’ are analyzed by combining video and audio recordings with interviews based on them Stimulated Recall (Messmer, 2015). By matching the problem-centered interviews (Witzel, 2000) with the P.E. teacher and the students, any events involving ‘Verdeckung’ can be identified, described, and analyzed. The first analysis results of recordings of inclusive physical education with students aged 12-15 years and the conducted interviews show that P.E. teachers use forms of ‘Verdeckung’ intentional-ly, e.g., to either mask performance weaknesses in students or to use ‘Verdeckung’ strategies to enable joint participation. It also shows that ‘Verdeckung’ can have (unintended) consequences. For example, it can increase stigmatization.

Braksiek, M., Meier, C. & Gröben, B. (2022). „Das ist doch nich‘ schwer!?“ Inklusion im Sportunterricht. In M. Braksiek, K. Golus, B. Gröben, M. Heinrich, P. Schildhauer, & L. Streblow (Eds.), Schulische Inklusion als Phänomen – Phänomene schulischer Inklusion (pp. 19–41). Springer VS. Cachay, K., Borggrefe, C. & Hofmann, A. (2022). Integration in und durch den organisierten Sport. Kommuni-kations- und netzwerktheoretische Überlegungen. Sport und Gesellschaft. Hovdal, D. O. G., Haugen, T., Larsen, I. B. & Johansen, B. T. (2021). Students’ experiences and learning of social inclusion in learn activities in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 27(4), 889–907. Kastrup, V. & Fast, N. (2022). Verdeckung – Eine Strategie zur Verwirklichung inklusiver Ansprüche im Sportun-terricht? In J. Schwier & M. Seyda (Eds.), Bewegung, Spiel und Sport im Kindesalter (pp. 169–179). transcript. Messmer, R. (2015). Stimulated Recall as a Focused Approach to Action and Thought Processes of Teachers. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 16(1). Spencer-Cavaliere, N. & Watkinson, J. (2010). Inclusion understood from the perspectives of children with disability. Adapted physical activity quarterly, 27(4), 275–93. Tiemann, H. (2013). Inklusiver Sportunterricht. Ansätze und Modelle. Sportpädagogik, 37(6), 47–50. Witzel, A. (2000). The Problem-centered Interview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 1(1).