Participation is a foundational element of inclusive education (cf. Boban & Hinz, 2020; European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2025; Ramberg & Watkins, 2020). It goes beyond being there, taking part and contributing. At its core is an involvement in decision-making processes and taking responsibility for the results (Oser et al., 2000; Reichenbach, 2006). Learning bureaus (Guthöhrlein et al., 2020) accompanied by coaching conversations (Fankhauser & Hangartner, 2024) embedded in Peschel’s (2023) theory of open teaching promise a more adaptive approach to addressing heterogeneous learning prerequisites. Above that, the approach also foregrounds self‑determination and co‑determination as core characteristics of open learning cultures, thereby offering a pertinent approach to school‑wide participation (ebd.). Implementing learning bureaus cannot resolve the structural asymmetry between teachers and students, which is due to the teachers' training- and age-related advantage in knowledge, skills, and experience but also to unequal formal rights, decision-making and sanctioning powers (Helsper, 2012). Neither can it resolve the tension between the demand to teachers that they should promote student autonomy and an organizational framework, which subjects students to abstract rules, constraints and heteronomy (Frankhauser & Hangartner, 2024). Yet, introducing learning bureaus allows for exploring new ways of navigating these tensions – both for students and for teachers.

Previous research has explored interaction norms and practices in learning bureaus and coaching conversations (e.g., Fankhauser & Hangartner, 2024). The findings show that the IRF-scheme, known from traditional teaching (Sinclair & Coulthart, 1975) is also present in coaching conversations within learning bureaus and that the proportion of speaking time of teachers is high (Fankhauser & Hangartner, 2024). Fankhauser and Hangartner (2024) further have worked out how the ability and will to self-lead and self-regulate become a strong norm and a requirement through coaching in schools. Little is known, however, on how teachers and students themselves perceive the opportunities for and limits to participation in learning bureaus. This is the focus of the present study. It aims at examining, which opportunities for involvement and co‑determination in learning bureaus and, in particular, during coaching conversations, students and teacher perceive, and how they evaluate and reflect upon these observations.

The case study examines three teachers and 12 students from one school in the German state of Lower Saxony, that has introduced learning bureaus at the beginning of the school year 2025/26. The multiperspective-design follows a two‑stage procedure: First, semi‑structured individual interviews are conducted with three teachers and 12 students to capture their subjective perceptions comprehensively. Since learning bureaus are relatively new for all participants, they are also asked to compare their experiences to those with different forms of learning organizations. These interviews are then examined through qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2024). Second, fourteen coaching conversations between one of the teachers and one of the students respectively are videographically documented and analyzed using conversation analysis (Deppermann, 2014).

It is anticipated that the analysis will yield insights into the views of teachers and students on participation opportunities and participatory structures in learning bureaus. The findings are expected to contribute to the design‑based refinement of inclusive approaches to open teaching and to provide theoretically grounded recommendations for the design of more participatory learning environments within the constitutive antinomies of modern schooling.

Boban & A. Hinz (Hrsg.) (2020). Inklusion und Partizipation in Schule und Gesellschaft: Erfahrungen, Methoden, Analysen. Beltz Juventa. Deppermann, A. (2014). Konversationsanalyse: Elementare Interaktionsstrukturen am Beispiel der Bundespressekonferenz. In S. Staffeldt & J. Hagemann (Hrsg.), Pragmatiktheorien. Analysen im Vergleich (S. 19–47). Stauffenburg. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2025). Learner participation in inclusive education: Background paper (K. Todorova & M. Bilgeri, Hrsg.). European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. Fankhauser, R. & Hangartner, J. (2024). Zur Machtförmigkeit von schulischen Coachinggesprächen in individualisierten Schul- und Unterrichtssettings. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 79(2), 232-250. Guthöhrlein, K., Lindmeier, C., & Laubenstein (2020). Unterrichtsentwicklung und Unterrichtsgestaltung. Kohlhammer. Helsper, W. (2012). Antinomien im Lehrerhandeln. Professionelle Antinomien - vermeidbare Verstrickung oder pädagogische Notwendigkeit? Lernende Schule, 15, 30-34. Kuckartz, U. & Rädiker, S. (2024). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Umsetzung mit Software und künstlicher Intelligenz. Beltz. Oser, F., Ullrich, M., Biedermann, H. (2000). Partizipationserfahrungen und individuelle Kompetenzen. Literaturbericht und Vorschläge für eine empirische Untersuchung im Rahmen des Projekts "Education a la Citoyenneté Democratique (ECD)" des Europarats. Universität Fribourg. Fribourg, zuletzt geprüft am 30.1.2026. Peschel, F. (2023). Offener Unterricht. Idee, Realität, Perspektive und ein praxiserprobtes Konzept zur Diskussion. Teil I: Allgemeindidaktische Überlegungen. Schneider Verlag Hohengehren. Ramberg, J., & Watkins, A. (2020). „Exploring inclusive education across Europe: Some insights from the European Agency statistics on inclusive education” FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education, 6(1), 85–101. Reichenbach, R. (2006). Diskurse zwischen Ungleichen. Zur Ambivalenz einer partizipativen Pädagogik. In: Carsten Quesel (Hg.): Die Mühen der Freiheit. Probleme und Chancen der Partizipation von Kindern und Jugendlichen. Zürich: Rüegger, S. 39–63. Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.