Topic, objective

Inclusion research is an extensive field of research, which manifests itself, for example, in the area of professionalization of teachers and in the discussion about the basic understanding of inclusive schooling, even if the term "inclusion" itself is and remains diffuse (see, for example, the research of Nilholm & Göransson 2017; Löser & Werning 2013). However, a understudied research field that is based on a very broad understanding of inclusion is the relationship between respective prevailing understandings of inclusion and digital educational materials such as learning platforms in different cultural contexts. Digital learning platforms can be distinguished from other software solutions on the basis of their functions. According to Petko, digital learning platforms offer the possibility of managing knowledge content, and they also enable communication, e.g. through forums. There is also the possibility of setting tasks and timelines. Learning platforms also offer the possibility of conducting exams and also enable course management (Petko 2010). Thus, in the German-speaking but also international discourse, there is hardly any research literature so far that deals with the exclusive elements of learning platforms from an international-comparative perspective (see e.g. Richardson & Powell 2011; Budde, Blasse & Johansen 2017). Furthermore, it is noted that work on countries in the Global South is largely lacking, and this includes, in particular, work on the education system in Singapore (e.g., Hung, Chen & Wong 2006; Singal, Lynch, &  Johansson 2018). The focus of the following study is on a comparison between Estonia, a country that can be considered a pioneer in the implementation of digital media, and Germany, which is still lagging behind in the expansion of digital offerings (Reiss et al. 2019). In addition to this binary comparative perspective, a contrast is made with Singapore, which is also considered a leader in the field of digital education (Reiss et al. 2019). The research focus brings the diversity of educational systems and values into focus and, in connection with the theme of the conference, shows potentials through the exchange of best practices.

Theory

The developments in a school and the behaviour of the people in the organisation also with regard to the selection of digital teaching materials cannot be viewed in isolation, but always in interaction with other systems such as the law, the economy and society as a whole. Only this systems-theoretical understanding makes it possible to understand and explain the actions of the individual against the background of social institutions. An essential theoretical access to the interrelationships is offered by the theory of Helmut Fend in his "New Theory of Schools" (2008). Fend points out that action in the school is consists of normative sets of rules consisting of "duties and rights", according to which persons orientate their actions (Fend 2008, p. 172).

Comparisons between countries make it clear that education systems can be organised in very different ways. The federal system in Germany contrasts with a centrally controlled education system in Singapore and an education system in Estonia that is an education system that is strongly characterised by networks with the business community.

Based on the theoretical assumptions, questions are addressed on two levels

At the level of understandings of inclusion: What concept of inclusion can be found in policy documents and in group discussions with teachers and political decision-makers? Here, document analysis and interviews are used for methodological implementation.

At the level of digital teaching materials: How do teachers use digital learning platforms? What exclusive elements are there in learning platforms? Here, classroom observation is necessary, as well as qualitative content analysis of corresponding learning platforms.

The methodological approach is based on an international comparative research approach in which experiences from other countries can be used to reflect on own education policies and to learn from the experiences (Amaral 2015). The comparative analysis in this study has two main functions: In terms of knowledge generation, especially the elaboration of categories. In comparing data and material matching categories (and thus focal points) but also differences between category systems come more into view. In addition, learning from the experiences of other countries is made possible. Furthermore, the approach of Participatory Action Research is used. This approach can be summarised as follows: “It seeks to bring together action and reflection, theory and practice, in participation with others, in the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to people, and more generally the flourishing of individual persons and their communities" (Reason & Bradbury 2008, p. 4). Co-researchers in this Participatory Action Research project are in particular pupils, teachers, parents, representatives of school administrators and IT entrepreneurs (Klüver & Krüger 1972; Kramer, Kramer & Lehmann 1979; Cornwall & Jewkes 1995; Reason & Brady 1995). In addition to these methodological foundations, different methods are triangulated in order to answer the corresponding research questions according to the theoretical assumptions. With reference to methods of the study, document analysis and group interviews will be used. Within the framework of the document analysis central education policy documents are analysed. In Singapore, the following strategies of the Ministry of Education are of particular relevance with regard to digital educational materials: "Teach Less, Learn More" (TLLM) from 2013 and "Thinking School, Learning Nation" from 1997. The strategies are available in an authorised English version. In Estonia, the Republic of Estonia Education Act of 1992 is of particular relevance, as it institutionalises decision-making structures on education policy. In addition to the analysis of the context, the digital teaching materials themselves will also be examined through a qualitative content analysis. With reference to the group discussions, an important selection criterion in the schools was that the schools work with digital educational materials. We were able to win corresponding cooperation schools and conducted the group discussions in 2022. The evaluation is largely completed and the first results are available. Furthermore, 14-day research visits were conducted in both countries. During these visits, the interviews were conducted. A standardized questionnaire was used to conduct the interviews.

With reference to the answer to the first research question, it can be stated that teachers in Estonia are largely influenced by a narrow understanding of the concept of inclusion. In this context, pedagogical diagnostics play a special role, as does the distinction between children with learning disorders and children without learning disorders. There are also differences between schools in rural areas and schools in urban areas. Thus, rural schools were relatively less confronted with cultural heterogeneity. There were very few students who did not speak Estonian as their first language. No differentiated debate about inclusion can be found in the educational documents or in the interviews with teachers. With reference to Singapore, a rather narrow understanding of inclusion could also be found in the documents, which refers to special education criteria and psychological diagnostics. With regard to the second research question, it can be stated that only few individualizing digital offers are provided in view of the special needs of the pupils in Estonia. Digital media are used in particular for quizzes and learning status queries. For example, there is no language support in the learning platforms for children without knowledge of the language of instruction; the same finding could be found in digital learning platforms in Singapore. In Singapore, a variety of apps could be found that are used to activate students, but without taking into account specific needs, e.g. with regard to gender or cultural heterogeneity.

Amaral, M. (2015). Methodologie und Methode in der International Vergleichenden Erziehungswissenschaft. In: Parreira do Amaral, M., Amos, S. (Ed.) Internationale und Vergleichende Erziehungswissenschaft. Geschichte, Theorie, Methode und Forschungsfelder. Münster: Waxmann, p. 107-1. Budde, J., Blasse, N., & Johannsen, S. (2017). Praxistheoretische Inklusionsforschung im Schulunterricht. Zeitschrift für Inklusion, (4). Abgerufen von https://www.inklusion-online.net/index.php/inklusion-online/article/view/358 Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R. (1995). What is participatory research? Social Science & Medicine, 41 (12),p. 1667–1676. Fend, H. (2008). Neue Theorie der Schule. Einführung in das Verstehen von Bildungssystemen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Hung D., Chen D., Wong A. (2006). An Overview of Virtual Learning Environments in the Asia-Pacific: Provisos, Issues, and Tensions. In: Weiss J., Nolan J., Hunsinger J., Trifonas P. (Ed.) The International Handbook of Virtual Learning Environments. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1- 4020-3803-7_27. Klüver, J., & Krüger, H. (1972). Aktionsforschung und soziologische Theorien: Wissenschaftstheoretische Überlegungen zum Erkenntnisinteresse in der Aktionsforschung. In F. Haag, H. Krüger, W. Schwärzel, & J. Wildt (Ed.), Aktionsforschung: Forschungsstrategien, Forschungsfelder und Forschungspläne. München: Juventa, p. 76 – 99. Kramer, D., Kramer, H., & Lehmann, S. (1979). Aktionsforschung: Sozialforschung und gesellschaftliche Wirklichkeit. In K. Horn (Ed.), Aktionsforschung: Balanceakt ohne Netz? Methodische Kommentare. Frankfurt a. M.: Syndikat, p. 21 – 40. Nilholm, C. & Göransson, K. (2017). What is meant by inclusion? An analysis of European and North American journal articles with high impact, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32:3, 437-451, DOI: 10.1080/08856257.2017.1295638. Petko, D. (2010). Lernplattformen, E-Learning und Blended Learning in Schulen. In: Petko, D. (Ed.) Lernplattformen in Schulen: Ansätze für E-Learning und Blended Learning in Präsenzklassen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, p. 9 – 29. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (Ed.), Handbook of action research. London: Sage, S. 1 – 14. Reiss K., Weis, M. Klieme E. Köller, O. (2019) Grundbildung im internationalen Vergleich. Münster: Waxmann. Richardson, John & Powell Justin J.W. (2011). Comparing Special Education: Origins to Contemporary Paradoxes. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Singal, N.; Lynch, P.; Johansson, S. (2018). Education and Disability in the Global South: New Perspectives from Africa and Asia. London: Bloomsbury Academic.