Educators are confronted with a considerable degree of heterogeneity within their classrooms. Considering this diversity, it is imperative to transition from a predominantly traditional, teacher-centric pedagogical approach to a more individualized one that fosters autonomy (Breidenstein & Rademacher, 2017, pp. 2-3). One possible approach to countering this heterogeneity is to create a more open learning environment that enables autonomy, as suggested by Lipowsky and Lotz (2015, p. 161), as well as to open up teaching in the direction of self-determination and participation, with the aim of enabling individual learning paths.  The concepts of self-determination and participation have been identified as a key aspect of Offener Unterricht (open instruction) (Bohl & Kucharz, 2010; Markus, 2023). In the literature, various stage models of opening are described, which delineate four or five dimensions (Bohl & Kucharz, 2010, p. 85; Hauk & Gröschner, 2022, p. 2; Peschel, 2006, pp. 61-63).  However, the term Offener Unterricht (open instruction) lacks a clear definition in the literature. It has been noted on numerous occasions that no model exists for assessing this term (Gudjons, 2006, p. 53; Hartinger, 2002, pp. 204-205; Jürgens, 2018, p. 476; Lipowsky & Lotz, 2015, pp. 161-162). The objective of this article is to provide a comprehensive overview of the various definitions, descriptions, and discussions pertaining to the term Offener Unterricht (open instruction) answering the following question: "How is Offener Unterricht (open instruction) described or defined?" This question will be answered based on a scoping review of the literature, thus offering an overview of the current state of knowledge in this field.

As this article deals with the German term Offener Unterricht (open instruction), which refers to the school systems in German-speaking countries, the scoping review is limited to German-language literature and English-language literature relating to German-speaking schools. Nevertheless, the article makes an important contribution to the international discourse, as it summarizes and analyzes German-language literature on the topic, makes the findings internationally accessible and provides a basis for international comparisons and discussions.

This work allows for a synthesis of the theoretical state of knowledge. This can be used as a foundation for a framework model that can be employed as a theory-based practical tool for teaching and school development. The proposed approach should assist educators in navigating the considerable heterogeneity of their students, thereby facilitating the capacity to engage in reflective practice of opening their instruction. Additionally, this work attempts to address a gap in the research literature on Offener Unterricht (open instruction) by providing a systematic analysis of the subject. Moreover, many modern teaching concepts have been developed based on the idea of Offener Unterricht (open instruction), highlighting its continued relevance and impact on contemporary educational practices (e.g. self-determined learning, self-directed learning, self-organized learning, self-regulated learning, pupil-centered teaching).

A critical review (Grant & Booth, 2009, pp. 93-97) was conducted prior to the present scoping review, forming the basis for subsequent work. A scoping review of the theoretical literature is now initiated, as outlined by Booth et al. (2016), following the PRISMA Statement (Tricco et al., 2018). As databases we used FIS Bildung and Scopus. Following a series of tests and reviews of different word combinations, the search assignments were defined in the two databases. In addition to the terms "Offener Unterricht” and "Öffnung von Unterricht", the following terms were also included: “self-determination”, “autonomy” and “participation”. These are described as central characteristics of Offener Unterricht (open instruction) (Bohl & Kucharz, 2010, pp. 19, 85; Kärner et al., 2023, p. 1059; Markus, 2023; Wagner, 1978, pp. 55–60). Furthermore, the search terms 'selfdirect*', 'selfregulat*' and 'selforgani*', as well as 'pupil*orient*', 'child*orient*', 'pupil*center*' and 'child*center*' were included in the search request, as Offener Unterricht (open instruction) is often associated with these terms (e.g. Bohl & Kucharz, 2010, p. 19; Hascher, 2010, p. 339; Wagner, 1978, p. 49). The database search also included the German translations of the keywords. For the English term search, a link was sought with German-speaking countries. A title and abstract screening were conducted in accordance with predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, encompassing German- and English-language literature pertaining to the primary and secondary levels and Offener Unterricht (open instruction). To guarantee the accuracy and consistency of the screening process, a codebook was developed through a circular process by the authors. Subsequently, all English-language articles and German-language articles published after 2000 underwent title and abstract screening by two researchers. Monographs and articles published before 2000 were simply screened according to the codebook. A total of 3,848 articles were identified through the literature search and subjected to a title and abstract screening. Of these, 2,816 were excluded in the initial screening phase. Following further restriction of the search to articles explicitly referring to “Offener Unterricht” or “Öffnung von Unterricht”, a second round of screening was conducted, concerning 1,032 articles. Of these, 549 texts were excluded using AI, 395 were excluded by the researchers. After removing duplicates, 79 texts underwent full-text analysis.

Initial findings from the analysis of the texts showed that the discourse surrounding the concepts of open teaching varied in intensity during the period of the publications analyzed. Furthermore, a change in terminology and the use of different terms (in addition to “Offener Unterricht”, for example, also self-determined learning and self-directed learning) for similar ideas and concepts can be observed: The results indicate that the discourse surrounding the concepts of Offener Unterricht (open instruction) reached its peak between 1995 and 2000 and had a gradual revival between 2010 and 2015. A change in terminology is also ascertainable. In terms of publication distribution, there has been a decrease in publications on Offener Unterricht (open instruction) and pupil-centered teaching, while there has been an increase in publications on participation, self-determined learning, and self-directed learning. The main results of the scoping review show a description of the term Offener Unterricht (open instruction) from six different perspectives: • as a collective term for different instructional designs or a counter term for frontal instruction, • via characteristics like self-determination, participation or quality criteria, • via teaching concepts such as reform pedagogical concepts (e.g. Wochenplanunterricht (weekly schedule teaching), Stationenbetrieb (station work/learning stations), Freiarbeit (freedom to chose work), Werkstattunterricht (workshop lessons), etc.), • with the help of dimensions and degrees of openness (e.g. organizational opening (space, time, social form), methodical opening, content-related opening and political-participative opening), • as a model, usually a level model with a hierarchical order or • via the attitude and role of the teacher and at the relationship level.

Bohl, T. & Kucharz, D. (2010). Offener Unterricht heute: konzeptionelle und didaktische Weiterentwicklung (Studientexte für das Lehramt). Weinheim Basel: Beltz. Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review (Second edition). Sage. Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies: A typology of reviews, Maria J. Grant & Andrew Booth. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471- Gudjons, H. (2006). Neue Unterrichtskultur - veränderte Lehrerrolle. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt. Hartinger, A. (2002). Empirische Forschung zur Öffnung von Unterricht - Probleme einer Forschungsrichtung (Jahrbuch Grundschulforschung). In H. Petillon (Hrsg.), Individuelles und soziales Lernen in der Grundschule. Kinderperspektive und pädagogische Konzepte (Band 5, S. 223–230). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. Hauk, D. & Gröschner, A. (2022). How effective is learner-controlled instruction under classroom conditions? A systematic review. Learning and Motivation, 80, 101850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2022.101850 Jürgens, E. (2018). Offener Unterricht. In H. Barz (Hrsg.), Handbuch Bildungsreform und Reformpädagogik (S. 471–478). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-07491-3_43 Kärner, T., Jüttler, M., Fritzsche, Y. & Heid, H. (2023). Partizipation in Lehr-Lern-Arrangements: Literaturreview und kritische Würdigung des Partizipationskonzepts. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 26(4), 1053–1103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-023-01171-x Lipowsky, F. & Lotz, M. (2015). Ist Individualisierung der Königsweg zum erfolgreichen Lernen?. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Theorien, Konzepten und empirischen Befunden. In G. Mehlhorn, K. Schöppe & F. Schulz (Hrsg.), Begabungen entwickeln & Kreativität fördern (S. 155–219). München: kopaed. Markus, S. (2023). Autonomieunterstützung und emotionales Erleben in der Schule: Zusammenhänge der Öffnung von Unterricht mit Lern- und Leistungsemotionen im Mathematikunterricht der Sekundarstufe (Empirische Erziehungswissenschaft). Münster New York: Waxmann. Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., … Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 Peschel, F. (2006). Offener Unterricht. Idee, Realität, Perspektive und ein praxiserprobtes Konzept in der Evaluation (5. unveränderte Auflage.). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren GmbH. Wagner, A. C. (1978). Selbstgesteuertes Lernen im offenen Unterricht—Erfahrungen mit einem Unterrichtsversuch in der Grundschule. In H. Neber, A. C. Wagner, & W. Einsiedler (Hrsg.), Selbstgesteuertes Lernen. Psychologische und pädagogische Aspekte eines handlungsorientierten Lernens (S. 49–67). Beltz.