Next Article in Journal
Shaping Inclusive Classrooms: Key Factors Influencing Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Inclusion of Students with Special Needs
Previous Article in Journal
“But Who Eats the Mosquitos?”: Deaf Learners’ Language Use and Translanguaging During STEAM Discussions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Inclusive Education and Physical Education in Spain: A Qualitative Analysis of Teachers’ Perspectives
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 5
10.3390/educsci15050540
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of a School Internship on Situation-Specific Skills for an Inclusive PE—Evaluation of a PETE Concept for Prospective PE Teachers

by
Jan Erhorn
1,*,
Wiebke Langer
2,
André Meister
1,
Katharina Pöppel
1 and
Daniel Wirszing
3
1
School IV—School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Institute of Sport Science, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Ammerländer Heerstraße 114–118, 26129 Oldenburg, Germany
2
Institute of Sports Science, University of Tübingen, Alberstraße 27, 72074 Tübingen, Germany
3
Elementary School Ballerstaedtweg, Ballerstaedtweg 1, 22337 Hamburg, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(5), 540; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15050540 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 21 February 2025 / Revised: 5 April 2025 / Accepted: 16 April 2025 / Published: 27 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Equity and Inclusion in Physical Education: Challenging Power Structures and Fostering Equal Opportunities for Diverse Students)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The development of situation-specific skills in prospective physical education (PE) teachers is crucial for effective inclusive PE. While research emphasizes the need for such competencies, there is a gap in understanding how school internships contribute to their development. The present study evaluates the impact of a teaching sequence, combining a seminar with a supervised school internship, on the situation-specific skills of prospective PE teachers in inclusive PE. Building on the Qualification of Prospective PE Teachers for Inclusive PE (QiPE) project, this study employs a quasi-experimental longitudinal design with an intervention group (IG) and a control group (CG) across three measurement points (t0, t1, t2). The intervention consists of a university seminar (t0–t1) followed by a supervised school internship (t1–t2). Situation-specific skills are assessed using three scales—Recognition; Individual Support; and Participation—developed based on video-recorded PE lessons and expert evaluations. Statistical analyses include mixed-model ANOVAs and robust Welch’s tests to determine the effectiveness of each intervention phase. The seminar (t0–t1) significantly improved situation-specific skills in the IG across all three scales: Recognition (η2p = 0.17), Individual Support (η2p = 0.04), and Participation (η2p = 0.13). The supervised internship (t1–t2) showed a sustained effect for Participation, stabilized the effect for Recognition, but led to a slight decrease in Individual Support. A teaching sequence combining a seminar and a school internship can effectively promote situation-specific skills for inclusive PE, with the seminar demonstrating a strong initial impact. The supervised school internship particularly enhances skills related to Participation. Further research is needed to optimize the internship component, especially for Individual Support, and to explore the influence of mentor support and beliefs on skill development.

1. Introduction

In recent years, a considerable amount of research has been conducted nationally and internationally with regard to inclusive physical education (PE). On the one hand, the research deals with questions of inclusive PE, whereby a normative-conceptual discourse (D. Goodwin & Connolly, 2022; Giese & Ruin, 2018; Giese & Grenier, 2023), a discourse on practical framework concepts (Lieberman & Houston-Wilson, 2018; Lieberman, 2017; Black & Stevenson, 2011; Tiemann, 2013), best-practice examples (Giese & Weigelt, 2015), and empirical research on PE (Klavina, 2008; Block & Obrusnikova, 2007; Reuker et al., 2016) can be identified. At this point, it can be stated that there is still a need for empirical teaching research, particularly for the research of processes and practices. On the other hand, research can be identified that deals with the questions of the competencies required by PE teachers for the implementation of inclusive PE lessons and the possibility of promoting these competencies. It is striking that the contributions on the required skills are mostly limited to attitudes or self-efficacy (Block et al., 2013). Only a few studies also attempt to record the levels of performance (Kudláček et al., 2010) and situation-specific skills or to generate requirement situation-specific competence profiles that integrate these levels (Erhorn & Langer, 2022; Meister et al., 2024). Research on the promotion of competencies for inclusive physical education is again dominated by studies that assess competencies at the level of attitudes or with the help of self-efficacy scales (Lieberman & Wilson, 2005; Schoffstall & Ackerman, 2007; Duchane et al., 2008). Only a few studies examine effectiveness at the level of situational skills (Erhorn et al., 2023) or performance (Perlman & Piletic, 2012). So far, there is little reliable knowledge about the effectiveness of teaching formats at the levels of situation-specific skills and performance (Erhorn et al., 2020). This applies in particular to supervised school internships, although there are initial indications that a combination of a seminar and a school internship is particularly effective (Hodge & Jansma, 1999; Hodge et al., 2002). It can therefore be assumed that school internships have a high potential to promote situation-specific skills for inclusive PE. However, it should be noted that there is a paucity of research in this area. Against this background, the present study aims to investigate how the situation-specific skills of prospective PE teachers for inclusive PE develop following a seminar conceptualized as part of the BMBF-funded project “Qualification of Prospective PE Teachers for Inclusive PE (QiPE)” with a focus on competence-based videographic case work in the subsequent supervised school internship.

2. Theoretical Framework

The constructs of professional competence and inclusive PE form the basis for the teaching sequence developed in the QiPE project to promote situation-specific skills for inclusive PE. These are explained in this section, and their interrelationships are presented. The integrative competence model developed by Blömeke et al. (2015) serves as the overarching conceptual framework for the teaching sequence outlined in this study. This model links situation-specific skills to broader levels of professional competence and facilitates the examination of challenging teaching scenarios. It is grounded in a comprehensive understanding of inclusive PE, which emphasizes the recognition, individualized support, and engagement of all students in the learning process. The modeling of situation-specific skills is grounded in the analysis of challenging classroom scenarios, with a focus on the central demands of inclusive physical education, namely Participation, Recognition, and Individual Support (Erhorn et al., 2020).

2.1. Demands of Inclusive PE

There is a controversial debate in German subject-specific didactics about what is meant by inclusive PE and which demands it should be guided by (Meier & Ruin, 2015). This article refers to three central demands that address different categories of heterogeneity (Ruin et al., 2019): Recognition, Participation, and Individual Support (Erhorn et al., 2020; Giese & Weigelt, 2015; Tiemann, 2018; Neuber & Pfitzner, 2012).

2.1.1. Recognition

Tiemann (2019) considers Recognition as an appreciation of diversity. Such an understanding is based on the idea of “recognizable otherness” (Hafeneger, 2013, p. 55) of people. One challenge for teachers here is not to be guided by stereotypical attributions (Tiemann, 2019). Grimminger and Gieß-Stüber (2009), following Honneth (1994, 2003), distinguish between legal, social, and emotional Recognition in physical education. Legal Recognition in inclusive physical education is realized in formal participation regardless of different characteristics (e.g., gender, ethnicity, social situation) (Honneth, 1994, 2003). Emotional Recognition is shown in the emotional support and attention of the teacher or the group in the form of respect, sympathy, and instrumental support (e.g., advice, information, or help with problems). Social Recognition is shown in the interpretation, evaluation, and appreciation of achievements and abilities by the teacher/group, considering the individual prerequisites (Honneth, 1994, 2003; Grimminger, 2012).

2.1.2. Individual Support

Individual Support aims to develop the full potential of all students, considering their individual learning prerequisites (Eckert, 2021; Fischer, 2015). The concept of adaptive teaching forms a basic framework for achieving a match between the learning offer and the individual learning prerequisites of the students (Dumont, 2019; Corno, 2008; Fischer, 2015). Adaptation can be carried out with regard to cognitive, physical-motor, and motivational-affective prerequisites (Dumont, 2019; Langer et al., 2023). While physical-motor prerequisites include constitutive, conditional, and coordinative aspects, cognitive prerequisites refer to mental skills (e.g., understanding or judgment) and knowledge (e.g., knowledge of movement sequences or rules of the game) (Giese & Weigelt, 2017; Neuber & Pfitzner, 2012). Motivational-affective prerequisites lie in the area of personal, emotional experiences and motivations in connection with a learning object. An affective-motivational adaptation can be the attempt to support the joy of moving and learning despite negative emotions when failing (Dresel et al., 2013). Adaptation can be considered both in long-term and overarching planning (macro-adaptation) as well as in short-term and specific learning situations (micro-adaptation) (Dumont, 2019; Corno, 2008). In this context, a distinction is made between closed and open internal differentiation. While in closed internal differentiation, the teacher assigns specific learning paths based on an individual diagnosis; open internal differentiation enables learners to find their own individual learning path with active participation and in exchange with other students (Heymann, 2010; Neuber & Pfitzner, 2012).

2.1.3. Participation

Jürgens and Neuber (2020) differentiate the demand of equal participation (Pfitzner, 2017; Heimlich, 2014) into the terms taking part, giving part, and being part. Participation goes beyond the physical presence (taking part) in the classroom or sports facility and aims to ensure that all pupils are involved in learning situations as equal members of the community (Tripp et al., 2007). This can be made possible through the complementary processes of giving part and being part (Heimlich, 2014; Pfitzner, 2017). In the school context, giving part describes the active and self-initiated contribution of individual students to classroom interactions. It is important here that learners are integrated into the social structure, feel like a member of the group, and actively participate in it. In contrast, being part describes the process of actively being involved in group processes through other group members (Jürgens & Neuber, 2020). According to Lindmeier (2009), this process strengthens the sense of social belonging, which is a crucial prerequisite for full participation in social life. Participation and being part can be observed in (sports) games, for example, on the levels of motor actions, communication, contribution to success, variability, and emotions (Jürgens & Neuber, 2020).

2.2. Professional Competences and Competences Profiles

The seminar, the supervised school internship, and the assessment of effectiveness are competence-based, which is why the underlying understanding of competence should be clarified at this point. There is a broad consensus that competencies are the ability to cope with typical requirement situations under variable conditions (Weinert, 2001). In this context, these are the required situations of inclusive PE (Erhorn & Langer, 2022; Meister et al., 2024). The structure of professional competencies is discussed more controversially. Here, a distinction can be made between disposition-oriented and holistic approaches. Disposition-oriented approaches systematize relevant knowledge for coping with requirement situations, partly following Shulman’s (1986) taxonomy of knowledge, while holistic approaches focus more on relevant ways of acting and corresponding can-do statements (Oser, 2013). In recent years, integrative approaches have become increasingly apparent, which focus on dispositions and modes of action and seek to bridge the gap in between with constructs such as situation-specific abilities (Blömeke et al., 2015; Baumgartner, 2018; Krauss et al., 2020). These describe the ability to perceive and interpret requirement situations professionally on the basis of relevant dispositions and to make decisions on how to act (Blömeke et al., 2015). Several related constructs exist here, such as professional vision (C. Goodwin, 1994; Seidel & Stürmer, 2014) or noticing (Sherin et al., 2011), which focus on similar phenomena.
However, these models initially remain at the level of abstract structuring. The particular challenge now lies in designing these competence facets in relation to the subject matter. Dispositional and holistic approaches can also be found for the competencies of physical education teachers (Erhorn et al., 2019). Dispositional approaches (Kehne et al., 2013; Heemsoth, 2016), for example, can provide valuable information about the knowledge to be taught. However, they are only indirectly related to specific empirical situations in physical education, e.g., by demonstrating a relationship to student learning. Holistic approaches (Messmer & Brea, 2015; Vogler et al., 2017) derive performance standards based on the current state of research and guided by theory, which are then recontextualized using empirical teaching situations. These approaches also provide valuable information for PETE. However, there is usually no reference to the dispositions on which the performances are based. Against this background, attempts have been made to implement integrative approaches to competence modeling for PE teachers (Erhorn et al., 2019; Erhorn & Langer, 2022; Meister et al., 2024, in press, forthcoming). These integrative approaches try to discover, with theory-led videographic research, typical requirement situations that need to be mastered. These situations are used as a basis for reconstructing suitable case-specific courses of action and the underlying situation-specific skills and dispositions and optimizing them in an expert discourse (Erhorn et al., 2019). The first competence profiles developed in this way are available for inclusive PE (Meister et al., 2024, in press, forthcoming). These competence profiles for inclusive PE form an important basis for the seminar developed and the supervised school internship evaluated here.

2.3. School Internships

School internships are intended to integrate practical relevance and professional orientation into teacher training. Practical phases address skills development, a theory-practice link, and a review of career aspirations (Ullrich et al., 2020; Gröschner & Schmitt, 2010). In Lower Saxony, students on the Master’s degree courses in primary school teaching (dt.: Grundschullehramt), secondary general school teaching (dt.: Hauptschullehramt), and secondary modern school teaching (dt.: Realschullehramt) currently complete an 18-week practical phase, while students on the Master’s degree course in grammar school teaching (dt.: Gymnasiallehramt) complete two 4-week and 5-week teaching and research internships. Regardless of the length of these internships, the aim is to achieve practical competence enhancement in the planning and implementation of exemplary teaching sequences, as well as testing and reflecting on one’s pedagogical ability to act at school. The development process is supported by university seminars (School and Law in Lower Saxony, 2015).

2.3.1. Effectiveness of School Internships

In recent years, an increasing number of research studies have focused on the effectiveness of school-based internships. An international meta-analysis of the effect of consulting services during internships shows a small to medium effect of coaching, mentoring, and supervision on the clarity of instructions. At the same time, there is no significant effect on lesson planning skills (Mok & Staub, 2021). A systematic review of the effectiveness of school internships in Germany highlights the importance of these phases compared to the length of the internship. In summary, the findings in Germany indicate increased competencies in students’ self-reports, including increased self-efficacy with inclusive requirements (Ullrich et al., 2020). The authors highlight the lack of control groups when considering impact questions and the limited informative value of self-report procedures. They call for follow-up studies and the inclusion of external perspectives, e.g., by supervising (university) teachers.
More precisely, some studies show that pedagogical knowledge increases and is related to self-assessed knowledge and self-assessed teaching quality during the practical semester (König et al., 2018, 2019). The positive self-assessment values vary depending on the area of competence and study, e.g., with regard to teaching, educating, assessing, and innovating (Gemsa & Wendland, 2011; Oesterhelt et al., 2012) or dealing with heterogeneity (Bock et al., 2017). The previously increased (self-assessed) self-efficacy and competence decrease again around one year after the start of the practical phase (Klingebiel et al., 2019; Böhnert et al., 2018). A look at learning diaries shows that student reflection processes focus in particular on subject and pupil aspects (Kleemann, 2015). However, the depth of reflection often remains at a descriptive level (Guardiera et al., 2018). In addition, Wegener and Faßbeck (2018) were able to show for prospective PE teachers that the importance students attach to researching their own teaching increases from the beginning of the BA course to the Master’s course but then drops significantly after the practical semester. According to the authors, this lack of attribution of importance to researching one’s own teaching can be interpreted as a form of de-professionalization.

2.3.2. Casework and Portfolio in School Internships

To support and document the knowledge and beginning expertise gained by students during school internships, portfolios can be used. According to Häcker (2007), reflections on one’s personality, an examination of theory and practice, and a distanced observation of personal achievements are highlighted as central portfolio aspects. Before and during the practical phase, students keep, for example, a learning and development portfolio, which offers the opportunity to reflect on typical professional problems that arise between theory and practice, between knowledge and action, or between personal and subject-specific didactic standards (Koch-Priewe, 2013; Ziegelbauer & Gläser-Zikuda, 2016). Reflection can be seen as particularly central in portfolios, as a positive connection between the professionalization process of teachers and reflexivity is assumed (Reh, 2004). To support the professionalization process, given the limited time resources in education, dealing with cases, so-called casework, is recommended (Häcker et al., 2016).
Working with and on cases has established itself in university teaching as an effective method for training the situation-specific skills of prospective (sports) teachers (Erhorn et al., 2023; Lüsebrink & Grimminger, 2014). By engaging with (videographically) documented lessons, students are given the opportunity to deal with authentic situations from everyday teaching in a protected space while incorporating subject-specific didactic findings (Seidel & Thiel, 2017; Krammer, 2014). Especially in the case of challenging situations, e.g., inclusive physical education, casework seems beneficial in teacher education (Erhorn et al., 2023). During the practical phase, students are given the task of determining their own cases, documenting the observed lessons (e.g., videographically or in writing), and reflecting on them together with other students. Often, this reflection takes place in a seminar and is understood as a social practice that aims to critically examine situations of action, thereby revealing difficulties or ambivalences of action, exploring one’s own positions, and developing alternative courses of action (Häcker & Walm, 2015; Erhorn, 2016; Leonhard & Abels, 2017). Consequently, a portfolio can be evaluated as proof of performance. It corresponds to Häcker’s (2007) principle of performance presentation and enables an evaluation and grading from the teacher’s perspective (Pöppel, 2022).

3. Methods

The evaluated teaching sequence stems from the “QiPE” project, a multi-stage research process. This project involved the systematic documentation of 104 inclusive PE lessons across 14 classes in six schools in Hamburg, Germany. Data collection included dual-camera video recordings of lessons and 70 video-stimulated recall interviews focusing on the central demands of Recognition, Participation, and Individual Support (Erhorn et al., 2020). This data informed the identification of requirement situations and competence profiles (Erhorn et al., 2019; Erhorn & Langer, 2022), which were then used to develop a Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) program. This program consists of a preparatory seminar and a school internship, accompanied by a university seminar, focusing on planning, implementation, evaluation, and documentation of inclusive PE. The goal is to enhance pre-service teachers’ situation-specific skills through real-time observation, self-analysis via video, peer counseling, and e-portfolio reflections (Erhorn & Langer, 2022).

3.1. Evaluation Design and Sample

To ensure fidelity to the intervention concept, university teachers responsible for the seminars underwent training workshops prior to both the pre-internship and internship-accompanying seminars. These workshops familiarized teachers with competence profiles, corresponding requirement situations, course structure, methodological procedures, and student assignments (e.g., portfolio creation). A comprehensive manual, including course materials and case studies with sample evaluations, was provided to the teachers. This standardized approach aimed to maximize objectivity and comparability in the implementation of the intervention across different seminar groups.
A quasi-experimental longitudinal design was used to evaluate the effectiveness of the two sequential interventions. The study included an intervention group and a control group, with data collected at three time points (t0, t1, and t2). The first intervention occurred between t0 and t1, and the second between t1 and t2. This design allowed for the assessment of both individual and cumulative effects of the interventions over time.
A total of N = 162 students took part at the start of this study and at the first measurement point. Owing to the consecutive experimental design, only datasets from students who completed all three measurement points were included in the calculations. The final sample consisted of n = 66 students. The participants were on average 23.9 years old (SD = 1.8) and had been studying for an average of 7.83 semesters (SD = 2.7) at the beginning of the study. The sample is divided into 26 students from the University of Osnabrück (53.8% female) as the intervention group (IG) and 40 participants (57.5% female) in the control group (CG) from the University of Oldenburg (n = 29), the University of Hildesheim (n = 6), and the University of Lüneburg (n = 5). The intervention and control groups are characterized by a comparable age structure (t(64) = 1.76, p = 0.190) and a comparable number of semesters (t(64) = 0.53, p = 0.470).

3.2. Description of the Intervention

Based on identified types of challenging situations in inclusive PE (Erhorn & Langer, 2022), a teaching sequence for the Master of Education Degree (subject: PE in primary or secondary schools) was developed. In this sequence, situation-specific skills of prospective teachers for coping with requirement situations in inclusive PE were to be promoted with the help of videographic case work (Erhorn, 2016; Erhorn et al., 2020). This follows the assumption that situation-specific skills play a mediating role between dispositions and performance (Blömeke et al., 2015). Working on cases holds a particular potential for acquiring scientifically coordinated beliefs and knowledge as for linking theoretical knowledge with future practical action (Krammer et al., 2016; Seidel & Thiel, 2017).
On the one hand, the seminar consisted of a weekly course of 90 min sessions during the semester in which theoretical principles and concepts of inclusive PE were taught and cases were evaluated in student groups. In addition, students were required to start an individual portfolio during the semester in which they had to evaluate selected cases from the seminar in greater depth on their own (using specialist literature). On the other hand, students were asked to document and analyze their own cases as part of their following practical phases or internships (Langer & Erhorn, 2023a, 2023b). The portfolio containing case evaluations from both the seminar and the practical semester was finally assessed as a module examination. The analysis of the cases is realized in the form of the casuistic procedure according to Erhorn (2016), using the three steps of describing, interpreting, and developing alternative actions. This procedure shows a high fit with the competency model of Blömeke et al. (2015), which divides situation-specific skills into perception, interpretation, and decision-making.1

3.3. Test Instruments

In order to assess the efficacy of the teaching sequence (i.e., both the seminar and the practical semester [mentored internship]), it is necessary to develop test instruments that can be used to measure situation-specific skills required in inclusive PE contexts. As there is a lack of valid instruments for the systematic measurement of these constructs, we developed custom instruments as part of the project. For each of the three core demands of Recognition, Individual Support, and Participation for inclusive PE, a specific test scale has been developed (Langer et al., 2022; Langer et al., 2023, 2024). The instrument development process was guided by Wilson’s (2005) measurement theory-based approach to construct modeling. This approach encompasses four key steps: (1) defining the theoretical construct to be measured, (2) constructing the item design, (3) describing the outcome space, and (4) testing the measurement model.
In order to effectively operationalize the theoretical constructs, we developed video vignette-based items tailored for each scale to address the specific demand situations in question. Each item was designed to reflect situationally specific perceptual and interpretative abilities within observable contexts. To draw inferences about latent constructs from respondents’ answers, we first defined the outcome space. To this end, we constructed a multifaceted expectation horizon, thereby enabling the classification of responses according to an articulated category scheme. This preparatory phase laid the foundation for the subsequent psychometric modeling, which incorporated the partial credit model. This model accommodates a trichotomous coding system (0 = not applicable, 1 = partially applicable, and 2 = applicable), thereby facilitating effective capture of the diverse scoring levels across the response categories.
Several aspects of test score interpretation were considered to validate the three test scales. To examine the extent to which the video vignettes represent central test content and can initiate intentional response processes, an expert panel of researchers (n = 8) with a proven research focus in the area of inclusive PE was undertaken, and a cognitive lab was conducted with student teachers of PE (n = 8; including Langer et al., 2022). In addition, a pilot study (234 PE student teachers) was conducted, and statistical modeling based on item response theory using the PCM and testing of internal structure using CFA were conducted.
A test of the Recognition, Individual Support, and Participation scales was used in the two intervention groups and the control group. Each scale consisted of five items. The students in the intervention and control groups were given 90 min to complete the test. The test scales demonstrate satisfactory internal consistency, as indicated by Cronbach’s alpha: Recognition (0.62), Individual Support (0.81), and Participation (0.72). These findings suggest adequate reliability of the measurement instruments, particularly for the scales of Individual Support and Participation. There is evidence to suggest that the low but acceptable reliability of Recognition can be attributed to the difficulty of the items, which can lead to lower internal consistency. The Cognitive Lab study showed that it is possible to differentiate between different levels of noticing, with a focus on recognition processes. Overall, the items were successful in eliciting situation-specific instances of noticing recognition processes during interactions and within the broader context of PE. One reason for the low response rates may be that comprehensive classifications and explanations require procedural knowledge. The sample surveyed in the validation study possesses limited procedural knowledge due to the lack of appropriate learning opportunities in their previous training.

3.4. Evaluation Procedure

For the assessment of both immediate and enduring impacts of the school internship, mean indices were constructed for the three test scales: Recognition, Individual Support, and Participation. These indices, ranging from 0 to 2, were computed as mean scores and subsequently employed as dependent variables in the statistical analyses. The distributional properties were initially assessed by examining means and standard deviations, stratified by time and group.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the university seminar and the supervised internship phase, a variance-analytic approach was employed. Initially, distributional parameters were descriptively presented and statistically differentiated by time and group, with visual representation via line charts. An analysis of the interaction effects of the between-subject factor group and the within-subject factor time was carried out using a mixed-model ANOVA.
Since the assumptions of normality (Shapiro–Wilk tests: p < 0.05) and homogeneity of variance (Levene’s tests: p < 0.05) were violated for several scales and measurement time points, differences between the groups were uniformly tested at each measurement time point (t0–t2) using separate robust Welch’s tests. The main effect of the within-subject factor time was tested using repeated-measures ANOVAs, with pairwise comparisons between the measurement time points conducted using Bonferroni correction. In the results section, only the comparisons relevant to the research question (t0–t1 and t1–t2) are reported.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results were considered only when assumptions of homogeneity of covariances (Box’s test: p > 0.05) and sphericity (Mauchly’s test: p > 0.05) were met. Although homoscedasticity was violated, this was deemed negligible due to ANOVAs robustness to moderate variance differences and the adequate sample size. Effect sizes were interpreted using Cohen’s (1988) guidelines: η2p = 0.01 (small), 0.06 (medium), and 0.14 (large). All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 21.

4. Results

4.1. Presentation of the Results

Table 1 shows the mean values and standard deviations of the three indices (Recognition, Individual Support and Participation) for the IG and CG at three measurement times (t0–t2). The Recognition Index shows the highest mean values across all measurement times and is independent of group (M = 0.80–1.16), followed by the Participation Index (M = 0.58–1.05) and the Individual Support Index (M = 0.50–0.98). Over time, in contrast to the CG, the IG demonstrates a steady increase in mean scores for the Participation Index. For the Recognition Index and the Individual Support Index, the most pronounced difference between the IG and CG is already evident at t1, with the IG showing higher scores.
The observed developmental differences between the IG and CG indicate the effectiveness of the intervention on a descriptive level. In addition, divergent patterns between the scales become apparent. To analyze these differences in detail, each scale is considered separately below.

4.1.1. Recognition Scale

Figure 1 illustrates a clear change in the course of the averaged Recognition indices over the three measurement times. In the IG, the index increased significantly from 0.80 (SD = 0.29) at the start of the study (t0) to 1.16 (SD = 0.31) after the seminar (t1) and stabilized at 1.06 (SD = 0.25) after the school internship (t2). In contrast, the CGs index score remained almost unchanged: 0.80 (SD = 0.28) at t0, rising slightly to 0.82 (SD = 0.20) at t1, and showing minimal deviation at t2 with 0.81 (SD = 0.24). At t0, no significant difference existed between the IG and CG (Welch-ANOVA: F(1, 52.5) = 0.01, p = 0.945), indicating comparable initial scores. However, at t1 a significant difference emerged (Welch-ANOVA: F(1, 38.5) = 25.22, p < 0.001), suggesting a meaningful intervention effect. This significant difference persisted at t2 (Welch-ANOVA: F(1, 51.3) = 16.31, p < 0.001), indicating a sustained intervention effect.
The evaluation via two-factor analysis of variance with repeated measures revealed a significant interaction effect between time and group for the Recognition Index (F(2, 128) = 9.92, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.17). Changes in scale scores across the three measurement times were statistically confirmed by a significant effect of the time factor, as shown by multivariate tests (Wilks’ Lambda: F(2, 63) = 12.82, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.29). Additionally, tests for within-subjects effects confirmed a significant change in the scale over time (F(2, 128) = 12.73, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.17). Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons revealed a significant difference between the measurement times t0 and t1 (mean difference = −0.19, p < 0.001), whereas no significant difference existed between t1 and t2 (mean difference = 0.05, p = 0.431). Over the course of the study, the IG demonstrated significantly higher scale scores compared to the CG, as indicated by a significant main effect in the tests for between-subjects effects for the factor group (F(1, 64) = 18.12, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.22).

4.1.2. Individual Support Scale

Figure 2 illustrates an increase in the Individual Support Index for the IG and CG over the three measurement points. The mean score of the index in the IG starts at 0.56 (SD = 0.35) before the first intervention (t0), increases significantly to 0.99 (SD = 0.50) after the students attended the university seminar (t1), and decreases slightly to 0.80 (SD = 0.48) after the subsequent internship phase at the school (t2). However, this value is still above the initial level. In the CG, there is a smaller increase: here, the mean score at t0 is 0.33 (SD = 0.24), increased to 0.54 (SD = 0.24) at t1, and decreased to 0.50 (SD = 0.28) at t2, which is close to its initial score. There is already a significant difference between the two groups at t0 (Welch test: F(1, 40.2) = 8.92, p = 0.005), which also remains at t1 (Welch test: F(1, 32.3) = 17.80, p < 0.001) and t2 (Welch test: F(1, 36.2) = 8.47, p = 0.006). As this effect is most pronounced at t1, a positive effect of the university seminar on the development of Individual Support can be assumed.
The variance analysis shows a small to medium effect size, suggesting a potential interaction between time and group, although it is not statistically significant (F(2, 128) = 2.62, p = 0.077, η2p = 0.04). Changes in the index scores across the three measurement times are statistically confirmed by a significant effect of the time factor, as demonstrated by the multivariate tests (Wilks’ Lambda: F(2, 63) = 19.59, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.38). Additionally, tests for within-subjects effects indicate a significant change in the scale over time (F(2, 128) = 24.33, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.28). Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons show significant differences between the measurement times, with a strong change between t0 and t1 (mean difference = −0.32, p < 0.001) and a moderate change between t1 and t2 (mean difference = 0.12, p = 0.025). The overall higher index scores of the IG compared to the CG are further confirmed by a significant main effect in the tests for the between-subjects effects for the factor Group (F(1, 64) = 23.01, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.26).

4.1.3. Participation Scale

As illustrated in Figure 3, the IG demonstrates a clear and continuous increase in the Participation index over time compared with the CG. In the IG, the index initially increased from 0.69 (SD = 0.30) at t0 to 0.88 (SD = 0.33) after students attended the university seminar (t1) and further increased to 1.05 (SD = 0.38) following the school internship (t2). In contrast, the CG scores remained nearly stagnate, almost at their initial level: the score at t0 was 0.58 (SD = 0.26), slightly increased to 0.61 (SD = 0.27) at t1, and returned to near-initial levels at t2 with 0.59 (SD = 0.29). For this index, baseline scores between the IC and CG were comparable at t0 (Welch-ANOVA: F(1, 47.4) = 2.25, p = 0.140), but differed significantly at t1 (Welch-ANOVA: F(1, 45.9) = 12.30, p < 0.001) and t2 (Welch-ANOVA: F(1, 44.0) = 27.44, p < 0.001). This pattern suggests a lasting effect of the intervention, including an increase at t2.
The variance analysis evaluation further confirms the distinct increase in the IG Participation index over time compared to the CG. It reveals a significant interaction between time and group (F(2, 64) = 8.88, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.13). Changes across measurement time points are substantiated by a significant main effect of time (Wilks’ Lambda: F(2, 63) = 7.99, p = 0.001, η2p = 0.20), also evident in the tests for the within-subjects effects (F(2, 128) = 9.75, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.13). Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons show a significant difference between the measurement times t0 and t1 (mean difference = −0.11, p = 0.021), while the comparison from t1 to t2 remains nonsignificant (mean difference = −0.08, p = 0.199). The main effect group (F(1, 64) = 23.14, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.27) underscores the overall higher index scores of the IG.

4.2. Discussion

The results indicate that the entire teaching sequence is suitable for promoting situation-specific skills for inclusive PE (see Section 4.1). The results are in line with review results that indicate a comprehensive increase in competence in self-assessment (Ullrich et al., 2020) and underpin this perspective with an external rating. Thus, students are successfully prepared to cope with challenging situations in inclusive PE. The teaching sequence proves to be particularly effective with respect to the demand of Participation (see Section 4.1.3). However, there are also clear effects for the demand of Recognition (see Section 4.1.1) and Individual Support (see Section 4.1.2).
However, the effects are mainly based on the impact of the seminar (intervention 1), which proved to be very effective for all three demands. This result confirms the findings of the previous study by Erhorn et al. (2023), who were able to show that the requirement of situation-related and competence profile-based videographic case work in the interplay of joint evaluation in the seminar and written case evaluation in the portfolio (Langer & Erhorn, 2023a, 2023b) is highly suitable for promoting the situation-specific skills of prospective PE teachers for inclusive PE lessons.
The second intervention examined in this study, in the form of a supervised internship, proved to be less effective than the first intervention. This initially appears to be irritating, as in this context, the requirement situations of inclusive PE should also be documented and evaluated, and the demands of inclusive PE should be considered in lesson planning and lesson reflections. It was expected that in the context of the second intervention, an increase in situation-specific skills for the demands of Participation, Recognition, and Individual Support would also be achieved. However, this was only the case for Participation. For Recognition, a stabilization of the effect in the first intervention was achieved. In contrast, there was a slight decrease in the effect achieved in the first intervention for Individual Support. The results thus represent an important addition to the supposedly positive assessment of the development in dealing with heterogeneity from the students’ perspective and reinforce the need for an external rating (Bock et al., 2017).
Against this background, the question arises as to why skills development in the context of the second intervention leads to different patterns of results. One possible explanation would be that, as part of the portfolio work, more requirement situations with a focus on the claim of Participation were documented and evaluated. After all, the prospective PE teachers were not given any guidelines in this regard. It is also conceivable that the focus of lesson planning and lesson reflections was on the demand of Participation. With reference to the meta-analysis by Mok and Staub (2021), it could be useful to analyze the support content and strategies of mentors in a more differentiated way. It is possible that the prospective PE teachers were able to learn more from role models and benefit more from discussions with mentors with respect to the demand of Participation than was the case for the demand of Recognition and, in particular, the demand of Individual Support.
The present study has two limitations. First, in addition to the aforementioned decision not to collect process-related data, the small sample size in the intervention group (n = 26) should be mentioned here in particular. Second, no control group was surveyed, which completed the first part of the teaching sequence but not the second part. It is therefore unclear whether stagnation in situation-specific skills is an effect of the intervention.

5. Conclusions

With respect to the aforementioned challenges, namely that PE teachers often do not feel adequately prepared for inclusive PE lessons (Reuker et al., 2016) and that there is no teaching sequence for the systematic promotion of situation-specific skills for inclusive PE lessons (Erhorn et al., 2020), the underlying teaching sequence can be regarded as a successful support. Thus, the teaching sequence proved to be effective in terms of promoting situation-specific skills for inclusive PE. The effectiveness can probably even be improved by slightly adapting the teaching sequence. The supervised school internship that was particularly focused on in this study only proved to be suitable for promoting situation-specific skills for inclusive PE with regard to the requirement of Participation. This raises questions with regard to the second intervention. The supervised internship has a clear impact in some areas. In order to specify the effect of the first intervention separately from the effect of the second intervention, another controlled study would be essential. Further research is warranted to explore potential adaptations of the concept to enhance its positive impact on the principle of Individual Support. Subsequent studies should concentrate on examining the specific teaching and learning processes, as well as the mentoring practices for students in internship schools, and systematically correlate these factors with learning outcomes (Ullrich et al., 2020; Mok & Staub, 2021). In particular, the interactions between the students and the supervisors, as well as the beliefs of the supervisors, should be investigated in a potential “hidden curriculum”. The development of students’ skills should be evaluated depending on the different forms of the supervised internship, whereby performance-related test procedures beyond self-assessments should be consistently used, as was the case in the present study.
Finally, we would like to point out that inclusive competence is a core competence used to create a school in which all students are welcome but can also feel comfortable and find conducive learning conditions. This is particularly important for PE, where students are physically exposed, their abilities are evident, and students closely interact with each other. The teaching sequence presented and evaluated here can significantly strengthen the inclusive competence of prospective PE teachers. In light of the aforementioned points, the present study offers practical recommendations for the field of PETE, with a particular focus on the synthesis of theoretical concepts and practical applications. The study offers evidence to suggest that the ongoing and continuous case-related integration of knowledge with specific challenging situations is particularly effective. The transition from linking in the context of selected video case studies in the seminar and self-experienced and self-selected teaching situations in the school internship also proved to be expedient.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.E.; methodology, J.E., W.L. and D.W.; software, D.W. and W.L.; validation, W.L. and J.E.; formal analysis, D.W. and K.P.; investigation, J.E., D.W., K.P. and W.L.; resources, J.E.; data curation, W.L. and D.W.; writing—original draft preparation, J.E., W.L., K.P., A.M. and D.W.; writing—review and editing, J.E., W.L., K.P. and D.W.; visualization, D.W.; supervision, J.E.; project administration, J.E.; funding acquisition, J.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) grant number 01NV1712.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Osnabrueck.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to replication and verification of results.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Note

1
Further information on the structure, content, and implementation of the teaching sequence can be found at Langer and Erhorn (2023b).

References

  1. Baumgartner, M. (2018). “…Kompetenz ohne Performanz ist leer! Performanz ohne Kompetenz blind…!” Zu einem integrativen Kompetenzstrukturmodell von Sportlehrkräften. Zeitschrift für sportpädagogische Forschung, 6(1), 49–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Black, K., & Stevenson, P. (2011). The inclusion spectrum incorporation STEP. Available online: https://portoinsport.fade.up.pt/wp-content/uploads/sites/109/2022/05/Apresentacao_Inclusion-Spectrum-STEP.pdf (accessed on 27 November 2013).
  3. Block, M. E., Hutzler, Y., Barak, S., & Klavina, A. (2013). Creation and validation of the self-efficacy instrument for physical education teacher education majors toward inclusion. Adapted Physical Education Quarterly, 30(2), 184–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Block, M. E., & Obrusnikova, I. (2007). Inclusion in physical education: A review of the literature from 1995–2005. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 24(2), 103–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Blömeke, S., Gustafsson, J.-E., & Shavelson, R. J. (2015). Beyond dichotomies: Competence viewed as a continuum. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223(1), 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bock, T., Hany, E. A., & Protzel, M. (2017). Lerngelegenheiten und Lerngewinne im Komplexen Schulpraktikum. Ergebnisse der wissenschaftlichen Begleitung des zweiten und dritten Studierendenjahrgangs in den Master of Education-Studiengängen (2015–2017). Universität Erfurt. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Böhnert, A., Mähler, M., Klingebiel, F., Hänze, M., Kuhn, H. P., & Lipowsky, F. (2018). Die Entwicklung der berufsspezifischen Selbstwirksameitserwartung von Lehramtsstudierenden in schulischen Praxisphasen—Ein Vergleich von Lehramtsstudierenden im Praxissemester mit Studierenden in einem fünfwöchigem Blockpraktikum. Lehrerbildung auf dem Prüfstand, 11(1), 85–108. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). L. Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  9. Corno, L. (2008). On teaching adaptively. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 161–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dresel, M., Schober, B., Ziegler, A., Grassinger, R., & Steuer, G. (2013). Affektiv-motivational adaptive und handlungsadaptive Reaktionen auf Fehler im Lernprozess. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 27(4), 255–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Duchane, K. A., Leung, R. W., & Coulter-Kern, R. (2008). Preservice physical educator attitude toward teaching students with disabilities. Clinical Kinesiology, 62(3), 16–20. [Google Scholar]
  12. Dumont, H. (2019). Neuer Schlauch für alten Wein? Eine konzeptuelle Betrachtung von individueller Förderung im Unterricht. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 22(2), 249–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Eckert, E. (2021). Individuelles fördern. In H. Meyer (Ed.), Was ist guter unterricht? (S. 86–103). Cornelsen. [Google Scholar]
  14. Erhorn, J. (2016). Sportunterricht beobachten: Den sportpädagogischen Blick schulen. Die Grundschulzeitschrift, 30(4), 51–54. [Google Scholar]
  15. Erhorn, J., & Langer, W. (2022). Qualifizierung angehender sportlehrkräfte für einen inklusiven sportunterricht. In D. Lutz, J. Becker, F. Buchhaupt, D. Katzenbach, A. Strecker, & M. Urban (Eds.), Qualifizierung für inklusion: Sekundarstufe (pp. 101–114). Waxmann. [Google Scholar]
  16. Erhorn, J., Langer, W., & Möller, L. (2020). Förderung und Evaluation von situationsspezifischen Fähigkeiten für einen inklusiven Sportunterricht: Überlegungen zu einer zentralen Herausforderung universitärer Sportlehrkräftebildung. QfI—Qualifizierung für Inklusion, 2(1). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Erhorn, J., Setzer, M., & Wohlers, J. (2019). Professionelle Kompetenzen von Sportlehrkräften ermitteln? Entwurf eines integrativen und gegenstandsverankerten Verfahrens. Leipziger Sportwissenschaftliche Beiträge, 60(2), 154–178. [Google Scholar]
  18. Erhorn, J., Wirszing, D., & Langer, W. (2023). Qualification of prospective PE teachers for inclusive PE: Development and evaluation of a PETE concept. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 30(2), 136–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Fischer, C. (2015). Potenzialorientierter umgang mit vielfalt: Individuelle förderung im kontext inklusiver bildung. In C. Fischer (Ed.), Dokumentation der Münsterschen Gespräche zur Pädagogik, (Keine) Angst vor Inklusion: Herausforderungen und Chancen gemeinsamen Lernens in der Schule (pp. 21–35). Waxmann Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  20. Gemsa, C., & Wendland, M. (2011). Das praxissemester an der universität potsdam. In W. Schubarth, K. Speck, & A. Seidel (Eds.), Nach bologna: Praktika im studium—Pflicht oder kür? Empirische analysen und empfehlungen für die hochschulpraxis (pp. 213–238). Univ.-Verl. Potsdam. [Google Scholar]
  21. Giese, M., & Grenier, M. (2023). “Dysconcious ableism” und hochschuldidaktische Exklusionspotenziale. Kritisches Essay zur universitären Sportlehrkräfteausbildung in den USA und in Deutschland im Kontext der schulischen Inklusion. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research, 53(4), 450–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Giese, M., & Ruin, S. (2018). Forgotten bodies—An examination of physical education from the perspective of ableism. Sport in Society, 21(1), 152–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Giese, M., & Weigelt, L. (Eds.). (2015). Inklusiver Sportunterricht in Theorie und Praxis (Edition Schulsport, Band 27). Meyer & Meyer Verlag. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Giese, M., & Weigelt, L. (Eds.). (2017). Inklusiver sport- und bewegungsunterricht: Theorie und praxis aus sicht der förderschwerpunkte. Meyer & Meyer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Goodwin, D., & Connolly, M. (Eds.). (2022). Reflexivity and change in adaptive physical activity: Overcoming hubris. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  27. Grimminger, E. (2012). Anerkennungs- und missachtungsprozesse im sportunterricht. Sportwissenschaft, 42(2), 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Grimminger, E., & Gieß-Stüber, P. (2009). Anerkennung und zugehörigkeit im schulsport—Überlegungen zu einer (sport)-pädagogik der anerkennung. In U. Gebken, & N. Neuber (Eds.), Anerkennung als sportpädagogischer begriff (pp. 31–51). Schneider. [Google Scholar]
  29. Gröschner, A., & Schmitt, C. (2010). Wirkt, was wir bewegen?—Ansätze zur untersuchung der qualität universitärer praxisphasen im kontext der reform der lehrerbildung. Erziehungswissenschaft, 21(40), 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Guardiera, P., Podlich, C., & Reimer, A. (2018). Zur Förderung von Reflexionskompetenz in der lehrerinnenbildung: Ausgewählte ergebnisse einer evaluationsstudie im rahmen einer lehrveranstaltung zum praxissemester. In N. Ukley, & B. Gröben (Eds.), Schriftenreihe des Centrums für bildungsforschung im sport (CeBiS), forschendes lernen im praxissemester: Begründungen, befunde und beispiele aus dem fach sport (pp. 231–248). Springer VS. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hafeneger, B. (2013). Beschimpfen, bloßstellen, erniedrigen: Beschämung in der Pädagogik. Brandes Apsel Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  32. Häcker, T. (2007). Portfolio: Ein entwicklungsinstrument für selbstbestimmtes lernen: Eine explorative studie zur arbeit mit portfolios in der sekundarstufe 1. Schneider Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  33. Häcker, T., Berndt, C., & Walm, M. (2016). Reflexive Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung in ‚inklusiven Zeiten‘. In B. Amrhein (Ed.), Diagnostik im kontext inklusiver bildung. Theorien, ambivalenzen, akteure, konzepte (pp. 261–278). Klinkhardt. [Google Scholar]
  34. Häcker, T., & Walm, M. (2015). Inklusion als Herausforderung an eine reflexive Erziehungswissenschaft. Erziehungswissenschaft, 26(51), 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Heemsoth, T. (2016). Fachspezifisches wissen von sportlehrkräften: Ein überblick über fachübergreifende und fachfremde ansätze und perspektiven für die professionsforschung von sportlehrkräften. Zeitschrift für Sportpädagogische Forschung, 4(2), 41–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Heimlich, U. (2014). Teilhabe, teilgabe oder teilsein? Auf der suche nach den grundlagen inklusiver bildung. Vierteljahresschrift für Heilpädagogik und Ihre Nachbargebiete (VHN), 83(1), 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Heymann, H. W. (2010). Binnendifferenzierung—Eine utopie? Pädagogischer anspruch, didaktisches handwerk, realisierungschancen. Pädagogik, 62(11), 6–11. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hodge, S. R., Davis, R., Woodward, R., & Sherrill, C. (2002). Comparison of practicum types in changing preservice teachers’ attitude and perceived competence. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 19, 155–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Hodge, S. R., & Jansma, P. (1999). Effects of contact time and location of practicum experiences on attitudes of physical education majors. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 16, 48–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Honneth, A. (1994). Kampf um Anerkennung: Zur moralischen grammatik sozialer konflikte. Suhrkamp. Available online: https://d-nb.info/940226227/04 (accessed on 15 April 2025).
  41. Honneth, A. (2003). Unsichtbarkeit. Stationen einer theorie der intersubjektivität. Suhrkamp. [Google Scholar]
  42. Jürgens, M., & Neuber, N. (2020). Gleichberechtigte Teilhabe im Sportunterricht—Eine videobasierte Lehrveranstaltung zu heterogenen Schülervoraussetzungen. HLZ-Herausforderung Lehrer*Innenbildung, 3(1), 382–405. [Google Scholar]
  43. Kehne, M., Seifert, A., & Schaper, N. (2013). Struktur eines instruments zur kompetenzerfassung in der sportlehrerausbildung. Sportunterricht, 62(2), 53–57. [Google Scholar]
  44. Klavina, A. (2008). Using Peer-Mediated instructions for students with severe and multiple disabilities in inclusive physical education. A multiple case study. European Journal of Adapted Physical Activity, 1(2), 7–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kleemann, K. (2015). Wie entsteht berufliche verantwortung im lehramt? Eine explorative studie zum stand und zur entwicklung des berufsethos von studierenden im praxissemester des jenaer modells der lehrerbildung [Ph.D. thesis, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena]. [Google Scholar]
  46. Klingebiel, F., Mähler, M., & Kuhn, H. P. (2019). Was bleibt? Entwicklung des subjektiven kompetenzerlebens im Praktikum und darüber hinaus. In I. Ulrich, & A. Gröschner (Eds.), Edition Zeitschrift für erziehungswissenschaft: Vol. 9. Praxissemester im Lehramtsstudium in deutschland: Wirkungen auf studierende (pp. 179–207). Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Koch-Priewe, B. (2013). Das portfolio in der lehrerinnenbildung: Verbreitung, zielsetzungen, empirie, theoretische fundierungen. In B. Koch-Priewe, T. Leonhard, A. Pineker, & J. C. Störtländer (Eds.), Portfolio in der lehrerInnenbildung—Konzepte und empirische befunde (pp. 41–73). Klinkhardt. [Google Scholar]
  48. König, J., Darge, K., Klemenz, S., & Seifert, A. (2018). Pädagogisches wissen von lehramtsstudierenden im praxissemester: Ziel schulpraktischen lernens? In J. König, M. Rothland, & N. Schaper (Eds.), Learning to practice, learning to reflect? Ergebnisse aus der längsschnittstudie ltp zur nutzung und wirkung des praxissemesters in der lehrerbildung (pp. 287–323). Springer VS. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. König, J., Darge, K., & Kramer, C. (2019). Kompetenzentwicklung im praxissemester: Zur bedeutung schulpraktischer lerngelegenheiten auf den erwerb von pädagogischem wissen bei lehramtsstudierenden. In I. Ulrich, & A. Gröschner (Eds.), Edition zeitschrift für erziehungswissenschaft: Vol. 9. Praxissemester im lehramtsstudium in deutschland: Wirkungen auf studierende (pp. 67–95). Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Krammer, K. (2014). Fallbasiertes lernen mit Unterrichtsvideos in der Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung. Beiträge Zur Lehrerinnen-Und Lehrerbildung, 32(2), 164–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Krammer, K., Hugener, I., Biaggi, S., Frommelt, M., Fürrer Auf der Maur, G., & Stürmer, K. (2016). Videos in der ausbildung von lehrkräften: Förderung der professionellen unterrichtswahrnehmung durch die analyse von eigenen bzw. fremden videos [Videos in teacher preparation: Promotion of the professional perception of class by analyzing their own videos or videos of others]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 44(4), 357–372. [Google Scholar]
  52. Krauss, S., Bruckmaier, G., Lindl, A., Hilbert, S., Binder, K., Steib, N., & Blum, W. (2020). Competence as a continuum in the COACTIV-Study—“The cascade model”. ZDM—Mathematics Education, 52(2), 311–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kudláček, M., Ješina, O., & Flanagan, P. (2010). European inclusive physical education training. Advances in Rehabilitation, 3(1), 14–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Langer, W., Bruns, J., & Erhorn, J. (2022). Entwicklung und Validierung eines videobasierten Testinstruments zur Erfassung des Noticing mit dem Fokus auf Anerkennungsprozesse im inklusiven Sportunterricht. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research, 52, 386–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Langer, W., Bruns, J., & Erhorn, J. (2023). Development and validation of a video-based test instrument to measure noticing with regard to providing individual learning support in inclusive physical education. Journal for Educational Research Online, 2023(1), 51–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Langer, W., Bruns, J., & Erhorn, J. (2024). Development and validation of a test to measure situation-specific skills with regard to providing participation in inclusive physical education. In R. Stahnke, & A. Gegenfurtner (Eds.), Teacher professional vision: Empirical perspectives (pp. 232–248). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Langer, W., & Erhorn, J. (2023a). Die anspruchsdimensionen in spielphasen berücksichtigen und sicherstellen [online-supplement]. HLZ—Herausforderung Lehrer*innenbildung, 6(1), 1–8. Available online: https://www.herausforderung-lehrerinnenbildung.de/index.php/hlz/article/view/6489/6184 (accessed on 15 April 2025).
  58. Langer, W., & Erhorn, J. (2023b). Qualifizierung angehender sportlehrkräfte für einen inklusiven sportunterricht: Eine hochschuldidaktische lehrsequenz. HLZ—Herausforderung Lehrer*Innenbildung, 6(1), 500–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Leonhard, T., & Abels, S. (2017). Der “reflective practitioner“: Leitfigur oder kategorienfehler einer reflexiven lehrerinnen- und lehrerbildung. In C. Berndt, T. Häcker, & T. Leonhard (Eds.), Reflexive lehrerbildung revisited: Traditionen—Zugänge—Perspektiven (pp. 46–56). Klinkhardt. [Google Scholar]
  60. Lieberman, L. J. (2017). The need for universal design for learning. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 88(3), 5–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lieberman, L. J., & Houston-Wilson, C. (2018). Strategies for inclusion. Human Kinetics. [Google Scholar]
  62. Lieberman, L. J., & Wilson, S. (2005). Effects of a sports camp practicum on attitudes toward children with visual impairments and deafblindness. RE: View: Rehabilitation Education for Blindness and Visual Impairment, 36(4), 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lindmeier, C. (2009). Teilhabe und inklusion. Teilhabe, 48(1), 4–10. [Google Scholar]
  64. Lüsebrink, I., & Grimminger, E. (2014). Fallorientierte Lehrer/innenausbildung evaluieren: Überlegungen zur Modellierung von unterrichtsbezogener Reflexionskompetenz. In I. Pieper, P. Frei, K. Hauenschild, & B. Schmidt-Thieme (Eds.), Was der fall ist: Beiträge zur fallarbeit in bildungsforschung, lehramtsstudium, beruf und ausbildung (pp. 201–211). Springer VS. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Meier, S., & Ruin, S. (Eds.). (2015). Inklusion als herausforderung, aufgabe und chance für den schulsport. Logos. [Google Scholar]
  66. Meister, A., Brandes, B., & Erhorn, J. (2024). Mit Schüler*innen über Anspruchsdimensionen eines inklusiven Sportunterrichts reflektieren. Entwicklung eines anforderungssituationsbezogenen Kompetenzprofils für Sportlehrkräfte. QfI-Qualifizierung für Inklusion, 5(3). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Messmer, R., & Brea, N. (2015). Fachdidaktisches Wissen und Können von Sportlehrpersonen. In U. Riegel, S. Sigrid, & K. Macha (Eds.), Kompetenzmodellierung und kompetenzmessung in den fachdidaktiken (pp. 79–93). Waxmann. [Google Scholar]
  68. Mok, S. Y., & Staub, F. C. (2021). Does coaching, mentoring, and supervision matter for pre-service teachers’ planning skills and clarity of instruction? A meta-analysis of (quasi-)experimental studies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 107, 103484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Neuber, N., & Pfitzner, M. (Eds.). (2012). Individuelle förderung im sport (2nd ed.). Lit Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  70. Oesterhelt, V., Gröschner, A., Seidel, T., & Sygusch, R. (2012). Pädagogische vorerfahrungen und kompetenzeinschätzungen im kontext eines praxissemesters: Domänenspezifische betrachtungen am beispiel der sportlehrerbildung. Lehrerbildung auf dem Prüfstand, 5(1), 29–46. [Google Scholar]
  71. Oser, F. (2013). Kompetenzen der lehrenden und auszubildenden: Ein ressourcenmodell. In F. Oser, T. Bauder, P. Salzmann, & S. Heinzer (Eds.), Ohne kompetenz keine qualität: Entwickeln und einschätzen von kompetenzprofilen bei lehrpersonen und berufsbildungsverantwortlichen (pp. 29–65). Julius Klinkhardt. [Google Scholar]
  72. Perlman, D., & Piletic, C. (2012). The influence of an adapted physical education course on preservice teacher instruction: Using a self-determination lens. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Pfitzner, M. (2017). Auf dem Weg zum inklusiven Sportunterricht. In D. H. Jütting, & M. Krüger (Eds.), Sport für alle. Idee und wirklichkeit (pp. 281–301). Waxmann. [Google Scholar]
  74. Pöppel, K. (2022). Sport auf papier—Professionelle fortschritte vom schreibtisch für die sporthalle. Evaluation eines praktikumsbegleitenden portfolios in der sportwissenschaft. DiMawe Zeitschrift für Konzepte und Arbeitsmaterialien für Lehrer*Innenbildung und Unterricht, 4(3), 85–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Reh, S. (2004). Abschied von der profession, von professionalität oder vom professionellen? Theorien und forschungen zur lehrerprofessionalität. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 50(3), 358–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Reuker, S., Rischke, A., Kämpfe, A., Schmitz, B., Teubert, H., Thissen, A., & Wiethäuper, H. (2016). Ein überblick über internationale forschungsergebnisse aus den Jahren 2005 bis 2014. Sportwissenschaft, 46(2), 88–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ruin, S., Tiemann, H., & Giese, M. (2019). Inklusiver Sportunterricht: Eine kritisch-konstruktive Bestandsaufnahme. Sportunterricht, 68(4), 146–147. [Google Scholar]
  78. Schoffstall, J., & Ackerman, B. (2007). Attitudes of pre-service physical educators at a faith-based university toward individuals with disabilities. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 28(2), 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. School and Law in Lower Saxony/Schule und Recht in Niedersachsen. (2015). Ordinance on master’s degrees for teaching qualifications in lower saxony/verordnung über masterabschlüsse für lehrämter in niedersachsen (Nds.MasterVO-Lehr). Available online: http://www.schure.de/20411/mastervo-lehr.htm (accessed on 13 December 2024).
  80. Seidel, T., & Stürmer, K. (2014). Modeling and measuring the structure of professional vision in preservice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 51(4), 739–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Seidel, T., & Thiel, F. (2017). Standards und trends der videobasierten lehr-lernforschung. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 20(1), 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Sherin, M. G., Jacobs, V. R., & Philipp, R. A. (2011). Situating the study of teacher noticing. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs, & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 3–14). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  83. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Tiemann, H. (2013). Inklusiver sportunterricht. Sportpädagogik, 37(6), 47–50. [Google Scholar]
  85. Tiemann, H. (2018). Inklusion im schulsport. Leipziger Sportwissenschaftliche Beiträge, 59(1), 9–28. [Google Scholar]
  86. Tiemann, H. (2019). Inklusiver sportunterricht 2019: Standpunkte und kontroversen. Sportunterricht, 68(4), 148–152. [Google Scholar]
  87. Tripp, D. A., Stanish, W., Ebel-Lam, A., Brewer, B. W., & Birchard, J. (2007). Fear of reinjury, negative affect, and catastrophizing predicting return to sport in recreational athletes with anterior cruciate ligament injuries at 1 year postsurgery. Rehabilitation Psychology, 52(1), 74–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ullrich, I., Klingebiel, F., Bartels, A., Staab, R., Scherer, S., & Gröschner, A. (2020). Wie wirkt das praxissemester im lehramtsstudium auf studierende? Ein systematischer rreview. In I. Ullrich, & A. Gröschner (Eds.), Praxissemester im lehramtsstudium in deutschland: Wirkungen auf studierende (pp. 1–66). Springer VS. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Vogler, J., Messmer, R., & Allemann, D. (2017). Das fachdidaktische wissen und können von sportlehrpersonen (PCK-sport). German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research, 47(4), 335–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Wegener, M., & Faßbeck, G. (2018). Zur (De-)Professionalisierung der Sportstudierenden im Ppraxissemester. In N. Ukley, & B. Gröben (Eds.), Forschendes Lernen im Praxissemester (pp. 249–261). Springer VS. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Weinert, F. E. (2001). Leistungsmessung in schulen. Beltz Juventa. [Google Scholar]
  92. Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  93. Ziegelbauer, S., & Gläser-Zikuda, M. (2016). Portfolio als Innovation in schule, hochschule und lehrerinnenbildung: Perspektiven aus praxis, forschung und lehre. Julius Klinkhardt. [Google Scholar]
Education 15 00540 g001
Figure 1. Change in the average index of Recognition over the three measurement points within the two groups.
Figure 1. Change in the average index of Recognition over the three measurement points within the two groups.
Education 15 00540 g001
Education 15 00540 g002
Figure 2. Change in the average index of Individual Support over the three measurement points within the two groups.
Figure 2. Change in the average index of Individual Support over the three measurement points within the two groups.
Education 15 00540 g002
Education 15 00540 g003
Figure 3. Change in the average index of Participation over the three measurement points within the two groups.
Figure 3. Change in the average index of Participation over the three measurement points within the two groups.
Education 15 00540 g003
Table 1. Mean value (Standard deviation) of the three indices within the groups, by time of measurement.
Table 1. Mean value (Standard deviation) of the three indices within the groups, by time of measurement.
Recognition IndexIndividual Support IndexParticipation Index
IG (n = 26)CG (n = 40)IG (n = 26)CG (n = 40)IG (n = 26)CG (n = 40)
t00.80 (0.29)0.80 (0.28)0.56 (0.35)0.33 (0.24)0.69 (0.30)0.58 (0.26)
t11.16 (0.31)0.82 (0.20)0.99 (0.50)0.54 (0.24)0.88 (0.33)0.61 (0.27)
t21.06 (0.25)0.81 (0.24)0.80 (0.48)0.50 (0.28)1.05 (0.38)0.59 (0.29)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Erhorn, J.; Langer, W.; Meister, A.; Pöppel, K.; Wirszing, D. Effects of a School Internship on Situation-Specific Skills for an Inclusive PE—Evaluation of a PETE Concept for Prospective PE Teachers. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15050540

AMA Style

Erhorn J, Langer W, Meister A, Pöppel K, Wirszing D. Effects of a School Internship on Situation-Specific Skills for an Inclusive PE—Evaluation of a PETE Concept for Prospective PE Teachers. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(5):540. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15050540

Chicago/Turabian Style

Erhorn, Jan, Wiebke Langer, André Meister, Katharina Pöppel, and Daniel Wirszing. 2025. "Effects of a School Internship on Situation-Specific Skills for an Inclusive PE—Evaluation of a PETE Concept for Prospective PE Teachers" Education Sciences 15, no. 5: 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15050540

APA Style

Erhorn, J., Langer, W., Meister, A., Pöppel, K., & Wirszing, D. (2025). Effects of a School Internship on Situation-Specific Skills for an Inclusive PE—Evaluation of a PETE Concept for Prospective PE Teachers. Education Sciences, 15(5), 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15050540

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop