The Inclusive Learning Community: Theoretical Arguments and Practical Insights in Five School Projects

Abstract

This article explores the concept of Inclusive Learning Communities (ILCs) by combining theoretical perspectives with practical school-based case studies. Drawing from interdisciplinary fields such as education, sociology, and social work, this study investigates how inclusive practices can be implemented in both formal and informal educational settings. Through five distinct projects—ranging from civic participation to writing workshops and service-learning—this article highlights how inclusive pedagogical approaches can foster equity, participation, and social cohesion. The findings underscore the importance of long-term partnerships, collaborative design, and context-sensitive implementation strategies aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Ultimately, this article demonstrates that inclusive learning communities can serve as transformative spaces for lifelong learning and social empowerment.

1. Introduction

Communities are dynamic spaces where people of all ages interact, offering opportunities for creativity, cultural exchange, and social connection beyond family ties. They serve as the setting for learning and living within spatial, political, and cultural contexts. School education is essential for building inclusive and fair societies, helping young people acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed for personal fulfillment. Achieving these aims requires equitable, inclusive education systems that support every learner, regardless of their background [1]. The roots were grown from the European Commission (2022, p. 11):

“This approach is supported by an inclusive, learner-centered and participatory vision of education, which considers that education should allow all children and young people to achieve their full potential, irrespective of gender, racial or ethnic origin, disability, sexual orientation or religion or belief, or migrant background or their personal, family or socio-economic situation.”

[2]

As public institutions, schools play a central role in these communities. From primary education to vocational training and technical college programs, they are important places for acquiring formal qualifications. However, learning is not confined to school walls or formal institutions. Education begins at birth and continues throughout life; it is an ongoing, individual process that takes place every day—both through explicit instruction and implicit experience. This view underscores the essential role of lifelong learning, which is not just an educational approach but a reflection of lifelong education as a human condition. In this sense, learning is closely linked to participation—active involvement in social, economic, political, and cultural life. “Boosting basic skills teaching and learning will improve learners’ success, educational outcomes and well-being” (European Commission, 2025, p. 15) [3]. Since 2022, the European Union has emphasized promoting inclusion in education. The Council recommends that by 2025, member states should establish strategies to reduce socio-economic disparities in educational outcomes, support inclusion, and address early school leaving and low achievement in basic skills, following the policy measures outlined in the Annex [4].

In this broader educational and social context, inclusion becomes both an ideal and a guiding principle. While complete inclusion may never be fully achieved, it provides orientation and meaning for communities committed to justice, belonging, and participation for all. Integrating perspectives from education, special needs pedagogy, and social work provides essential insights for the design and implementation of inclusive educational practices. At the policy level, the European Union highlights literacy as a foundational element for promoting equity, social inclusion, and future-oriented learning. This emphasis is reflected in strategic frameworks such as the European Education Area and the Council Recommendation on Pathways to School Success [4]. These initiatives focus on reducing early school leaving to below 9%, enhancing core competencies—particularly reading—among students from multilingual, disadvantaged, or migrant backgrounds, and embedding inclusive principles across education systems [1,2].

Recognizing that learning occurs across the lifespan and within diverse social spaces, the challenge lies in shaping educational environments that truly reflect this inclusive and participatory ideal. This requires not only rethinking traditional educational structures but also developing practical approaches that integrate inclusion into both formal institutions and informal learning contexts to foster inclusive learning communities. There is still a gap between inclusive education and collaboration with partners outside of school to advance its implementation:

“Finally, we suggested that future scholarship on inclusive education should be mindful of complexity and document implementation processes and outcomes. We proposed to produce new scholarship based on the notion of “rights in action” to document how inclusive education’s rights and entitlements are taken up at the junctures of institutions’ construal of these rights, individuals bid for these rights, and communities’ culture(s) at large.”

(Artiles & Kozleski, 2016, p. 18) [5]

Against this background, the following research question emerges: how can the concept of inclusive learning communities be translated into practical strategies for formal and informal educational settings?

Following the introduction, Section 2 examines how inclusive learning communities can serve as a response to educational inequality by addressing structural barriers and proposing inclusive principles for educational practice. Section 3 presents practical approaches and examples from practice that show how inclusion can be implemented in different learning contexts. In Section 4, an interdisciplinary discussion brings together perspectives from the fields of education, special education, and social work, highlighting the value of interdisciplinary collaboration for promoting inclusive practices. Finally, Section 5 contains a conclusion that reflects on the main findings and outlines implications for future education and community development.

In this article, I aim to present a well-founded and balanced discussion of inclusion in learning contexts that is both theoretically argued and provides practical insights—ultimately with the goal of promoting a more equitable and collaborative educational landscape. This article is intended for an expert audience, including researchers in education, teachers, educational professionals, and potentially policy-makers in the field of education.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Perspectives on Inclusion: Social Justice, Diversity, and Participation

Inclusion is not only an educational method but also a societal value anchored in principles of equity, justice, and democratic participation [4]. From a justice-oriented view, inclusion is about overcoming systemic barriers and ensuring that every student can fully participate in learning. This aligns with the “Reckahn Reflections” [6,7] on ethics in education and human rights frameworks like the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [8], both of which emphasize dignity, respect, and autonomy for all learners [9].

“Persons with disabilities are not excluded from the general education system on the basis of disability, and that children with disabilities are not excluded from free and compulsory primary education, or from secondary education, on the basis of disability.”

(UN, 2006, Art. 24, § 2a) [8]

The concept of Inclusive Learning Communities touches on several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those that emphasize education, equality, and inclusive societies. Some of the most relevant SDGs are as follows:

• SDG 4: Quality Education, which calls for inclusive, equitable, and quality education for all, along with the promotion of lifelong learning opportunities (Target 4.5: eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access; Target 4.7: ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development) [10].
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities, which emphasizes the need to empower and promote the social, economic, and political inclusion of all people, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion, economic or other status (Target 10.2) [10].
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities, which advocates for inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable urban environments, including access to public spaces that promote community engagement and learning (Target 11.7) [10].
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, which underscores the importance of inclusive societies and participatory decision-making at all levels (Target 16.7) [10].

Collectively, these goals provide a normative framework that reinforces the theoretical and practical relevance of inclusive learning communities.

2.2. Theoretical Models and Concepts Supporting Inclusion and Collaborative Learning

These SDGs affirm the role of education in fostering not only individual development but also democratic participation, social justice, and cohesive community life—objectives that are central to the vision and implementation of inclusive learning practices [10].

“In a school context, the term ‘inclusion‘ refers to learning and working together within a school community. For teaching, this means that the individual learning requirements of all students are recognized in an appreciative manner and taken into account in the systematic design of learning opportunities.”

(Giera & Plötner, 2025, p. 62) [9]

Inclusive education is grounded in a variety of pedagogical, sociological, and educational science models. Key theoretical foundations include communicative and constructivist didactics [11,12], the Berlin and Hamburg models of lesson planning [13], and the offer-use model [14], all of which are incorporated into the Potsdam Inclusive Didactic Teaching Model (PIMODE, see Figure 1) developed by Bormann et al. [15]. This model integrates inclusive principles like individual learning pathways, differentiation, cooperative learning, and learner participation into a unified planning framework for all school subjects and types [9].

The Potsdam Inclusive Teaching Model (PIMODE) is a pedagogical framework developed to support teachers—both in training and in practice—in designing inclusive learning opportunities. Developed between 2021 and 2024 by an interdisciplinary team at the University of Potsdam, the model is based on a broad understanding of inclusion that centers on the idea of learning together in a diverse school community [15]. The PIMODE is structured as a cyclical planning model that allows educators to enter and navigate the process at any stage, depending on classroom needs. It emphasizes collaborative lesson planning, individualization, differentiation, and alignment with curricular goals.

Teachers are encouraged to consider each student’s individual learning prerequisites and design learning environments that are both accessible and supportive, aligning with principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) [16,17,18] and Response to Intervention (RTI) [15,19]. UDL offers a general international framework for inclusive teaching, while PIMODE translates such principles into a systematic, practice-oriented planning tool for teachers in the German context. PIMODE can be seen as a localized, didactic operationalization of inclusion, whereas UDL is a broad global design philosophy. UDL anticipates learner’s diversity in advance and builds flexible structures that reduce barriers for all students. In contrast, PIMODE guides teachers in systematically planning inclusive lessons across subjects and school types, while embedding collaboration and reflection. Both models aim to promote inclusive learning outcomes.

The PIMODE is visually divided into two parts: A blue cyclical section that guides inclusive lesson design through phases like goal setting, task planning, scaffolding, feedback, and reflection. A yellow foundational section highlighting critical contextual factors, such as school climate, available resources, and teacher attitudes, which influence successful inclusive education.

The PIMODE not only supports practical lesson planning but also promotes professional reflection and collaborative practices. While it does not address systemic issues like grading systems or resource distribution in depth, it offers a strong base for fostering inclusive thinking and action at the classroom level [15].

The concept of an inclusive learning community centers on the idea that all students—regardless of background, ability, or learning needs—should be able to learn, participate, and thrive together in a shared educational environment. This vision demands both a strong theoretical foundation and practical strategies for implementation in everyday teaching. The Potsdam Inclusive Teaching Model (PIMODE) offers a comprehensive response to this demand by translating the abstract ideal of inclusive communities into concrete pedagogical action.

The PIMODE is based on a broad definition of inclusion, emphasizing collaboration, mutual respect, and individualized support within heterogeneous learning groups [9]. The model supports the development of inclusive learning communities by guiding teachers through a cyclical planning process that includes setting shared learning goals, differentiating tasks, scaffolding participation, and reflecting on learning outcomes. It encourages teachers to involve students actively in lesson design and to make diversity a visible, appreciated resource in the classroom.

In line with the article’s practical focus on five inclusive school projects, the PIMODE helps structure collaboration among teachers, students, and school communities. It integrates foundational contextual factors—such as school climate, teacher beliefs, and resource availability—which directly shape the implementation of inclusive practices [15]. By providing a shared language and systematic framework, the PIMODE fosters consistent professional reflection and teamwork across subjects and school types.

One of the core values of the inclusive learning community is participation, which the PIMODE supports through its emphasis on learner autonomy, formative feedback, and co-constructed learning pathways. Teachers participating in the five school projects emphasized how structured frameworks like the PIMODE enhanced their ability to create meaningful, student-centered, and barrier-free learning environments. The model’s flexibility also made it adaptable to the varied needs of the school projects, including multilingualism, socioeconomic diversity, and different subject areas.

Ultimately, the PIMODE strengthens the connection between theory and practice in inclusive education. It transforms the idea of an inclusive learning community from an aspirational concept into a tangible approach for everyday school life—enabling teachers to plan and reflect systematically, and to build classrooms where all students can succeed together.

2.3. Arguments for Learning Communities as a Response to Educational Inequality

In 2015, all UN member states adopted the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as part of the global Agenda 2030. These goals aim to address major global challenges by 2030, including poverty, hunger, health, education, gender equality, environmental sustainability, and social justice [10]. The vision of inclusive learning communities aligns closely with several of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those that emphasize equity, lifelong learning, and participatory societies [10]:

At the core of inclusive education is SDG 4—Quality Education, which calls for inclusive and equitable education and the promotion of lifelong learning opportunities for all. This includes not only access to formal education but also the development of inclusive, safe, and supportive learning environments across all stages of life. Moreover, inclusive learning touches on SDG 10—Reduced Inequalities by addressing the need for social and educational systems that empower marginalized and vulnerable groups through participation and justice. The broader role of communities as spaces of learning also connects to SDG 11—Sustainable Cities and Communities, underlining the importance of inclusive and accessible public spaces for all citizens. Finally, the emphasis on participation, shared responsibility, and inclusion reflects the principles of SDG 16—Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, advocating for inclusive and representative approaches in both education and community life. Together, these SDGs provide a global framework that supports the theoretical and practical relevance of inclusive learning communities.

Inclusive learning environments are essential because they promote equal opportunities, strengthen social cohesion, and support the individual development of all learners. They create spaces that accommodate diverse needs and foster a culture of appreciation and participation. However, it is crucial to critically examine the existing structures within the education system, many of which still uphold exclusive practices and reinforce social inequalities. Both empirical research and theoretical frameworks highlight the benefits of inclusive education: students not only achieve better academic outcomes but also develop stronger social skills and a greater sense of community—advantages that benefit society as a whole.

3. Practical Implementation of Inclusive Learning Communities

This section presents concrete pedagogical approaches, methods, and projects aimed at fostering inclusive learning environments. Drawing on case studies from schools, universities, and non-formal education settings, it highlights practical examples of inclusive practice. In addition, it explores the challenges educators face in implementation and key factors that contribute to the success of inclusive education initiatives.

The five case studies were selected based on three criteria: (1) their alignment with the overarching ‘BE A PART!’ project framework, which emphasizes civic, cultural, and vocational participation through language and communication; (2) their representation of diverse educational settings (school-based, university–school partnerships, youth centers, and international collaborations); and (3) their use of inclusive pedagogical approaches that allowed for systematic documentation and reflection.

The case studies were situated within a predominantly qualitative and design-based research (DBR) framework [20]. While each case study applied context-sensitive methods, they were united by the principles of iterative design, empirical documentation, and collaborative reflection with practitioners. In some projects, additional survey and assessment tools were used (see Section 3.3.1), generating mixed-methods elements that complemented the primarily qualitative approach. Data collection included field notes and reflection from the teachers.

3.1. Case Study A—From Policy Dialog to Implementation with the City Council and Students

Case Study A presents a year-long civic education project at a secondary school in Germany, where one class collaborated with the city council to improve their local community. Twenty-five ninth-grade students participated over a period of one year with one teacher. It was an inclusive class that included five special needs students (with learning and emotional-social support status, as well as eight students with dyslexia). Originating from the civic curriculum and integrated into language instruction, the project empowered students to identify urban needs, draft formal proposals, and engage in real-world political dialog.

Through the Bench Sponsorship initiative, students not only influenced local policy decisions but also assumed shared responsibility for public spaces. The project illustrates how inclusive, interdisciplinary teaching can foster political literacy, active citizenship, and school-community cooperation—demonstrating the transformative potential of participatory learning for all students.

3.1.1. Educational Approaches and Methods

The Bench Sponsorship project was developed at a secondary school and engaged 25 ninth-grade students—five of whom were part of an inclusive education program—over the course of one academic year. The initiative was launched by the author, then a teacher of civics and L1, in cooperation with the town’s mayor and the municipal council. Local entrepreneurs also contributed by providing financial support.

Emerging from the civic education curriculum, the project was rooted in the exploration of local political institutions and youth participation mechanisms. During class discussions, students articulated a desire to contribute to urban improvements that directly affected their age group. Suggestions ranged from the construction of a skate park to free access to a local beach and additional seating near the central bus station.

These ideas were subsequently integrated into the L1 curriculum, where students learned to articulate their proposals in the form of formal letters addressed to the mayor.

3.1.2. Case Study—Project Implementation

Instruction focused on letter structure, stylistic conventions, and argumentative writing strategies, supported by in-class modeling and textbook examples. Importantly, each student independently authored a letter, ensuring a sense of ownership and authenticity. The high level of student engagement was evident through peer-to-peer feedback and collaborative revision practices. After finalizing their letters, the class decided that two student representatives would deliver the collection in person to the town hall. This act of civic engagement led to a timely response: Within two weeks, the class received an invitation to a city council session. There, municipal representatives reviewed and discussed each proposal in detail.

While some initiatives were not feasible—due to jurisdictional boundaries or budgetary constraints—others were seriously considered. Among the viable proposals was the installation of additional benches at the town’s marketplace. The city council expressed willingness to implement this idea, contingent upon financial contributions from surrounding local businesses.

Once sponsorship was secured, the students were asked to assume a form of shared civic responsibility. Under the framework of a Bench Sponsorship agreement, they pledged to monitor the benches’ cleanliness and report any vandalism. All students formally signed the agreement, thereby institutionalizing their role as active stakeholders in public space management.

3.1.3. Challenges and Potentials

The project faced several challenges, primarily related to administrative and financial feasibility. Not all student proposals fell within the city’s authority, and some exceeded available budget allocations. Nevertheless, these limitations served as instructive touchpoints, offering students valuable insights into the complexities of municipal governance, policy negotiation, and the constraints of public administration.

The potential of the project was substantial. It demonstrated the pedagogical value of integrated, interdisciplinary learning, combining elements of civic education, language instruction, and social responsibility [21]. Furthermore, the project provided an inclusive platform for participatory learning, empowering all students—regardless of educational background—to engage in meaningful democratic practices. It also fostered collaboration between educational institutions, local government, and the private sector, exemplifying how schools can function as agents of community development and civic renewal.

An additional aspect that could have enriched the project concerns the accessibility of public spaces. While students focused on proposals such as additional benches or leisure facilities, no systematic assessment was made of whether these urban spaces would be accessible to all citizens, including individuals with mobility impairments or other disabilities. Future iterations of similar projects could integrate accessibility audits or collaboration with disability advocacy groups, ensuring that civic participation encompasses not only the improvement of public spaces but also their universal usability. Embedding such perspectives would align the project more closely with the principles of Universal Design and the inclusive aims of SDG 11, which highlights safe and accessible public spaces for all [10].

3.2. Case Study B—A University Service-Learning Project in Cooperation with International Schools

Case Study B highlights a university-led service-learning initiative that connects German language education students with German Schools Abroad (GSAs) in Bogotá, São Paulo, Cairo, and Jakarta. Developed at the University of Potsdam, the project merges academic training with civic engagement by enabling future teachers to design and deliver inclusive, digitally supported language lessons for international learners. Starting in the winter semester 2021/22, a total of 300 students with language support needs (German as a foreign language) took part in the service learning project over the following four semesters. A total of 33 learning opportunities were offered by 66 prospective support teachers and students of German as a foreign language (combined teams).

Rooted in the UN Sustainable Development Goals and supported by the DAAD (in German: Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst; translated in English: Academic Exchange Service), the program [22] fosters intercultural competence, digital pedagogy, and global partnerships in education. Despite logistical and linguistic challenges, the project strengthened teaching skills among university students and improved language outcomes for GSA learners—showcasing the potential of service-learning to bridge theory and practice in teacher education and promote inclusive, international learning communities.

3.2.1. Educational Approaches and Methods

The project course Language Education at German Schools Abroad—Development of Service-Learning, initiated at the University of Potsdam in the winter semester 2021/22, integrates theoretical training and practical application by preparing Bachelor’s and Master’s students of German language education to design and implement digital service-learning units for German Schools Abroad (GSAs). As part of a broader internationalization strategy, the course aims to foster intercultural, linguistic, and didactic competencies [22].

The course is embedded within the framework of the DAAD-supported initiative UP Network for Sustainable Teacher Education [22,23] and aligns with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly quality education, gender equality, and partnerships for the goals [10]. Service-learning is used here as a pedagogical approach that merges academic instruction with civic engagement, offering reciprocal benefits to university students and GSA learners [23,24]. The didactic focus includes developing and evaluating language-sensitive, inclusive, and digitally supported teaching modules tailored to diverse linguistic backgrounds.

3.2.2. Case Study—Project Implementation

In collaboration with four GSAs in Bogotá, São Paulo, Cairo, and Jakarta, students conducted digital service-learning sessions addressing concrete language education needs. These were determined through pre-course interviews with local teaching staff. For instance, during the 2022 summer semester, university students worked with the Rahn School in Cairo, delivering small-group sessions via Zoom. Digital tools such as Mentimeter, Etherpad, TaskCards, and Padlet were employed to foster engagement and interactivity [23].

One example involved two students leading communication training sessions with a ninth-grade class in Jakarta. Learners practiced emotional vocabulary, oral expression, and role-playing, using differentiated worksheets and scaffolded support structures. Feedback from local educators praised the material quality, intercultural relevance, and learner motivation. The project not only addressed the GSAs’ needs for language education but also allowed students to test and refine their teaching strategies in real-world settings [23].

3.2.3. Challenges and Potentials

Despite the program’s success, several challenges emerged. Communication gaps between university students and GSA staff occasionally hindered planning, and differing learner language levels required significant flexibility and adaptation. These experiences underscored the importance of real-time coordination and comprehensive preparatory work [23].

Nevertheless, the project revealed substantial potential. The evaluation results showed that participating students significantly improved their digital, intercultural, and pedagogical competencies. Survey data indicated marked growth in language education and assessment skills, with most students rating the course as one of the most practical and rewarding in their program. From the GSAs’ perspective, the initiative enhanced learners’ linguistic skills and provided access to contemporary teaching methodologies. Both parties valued the intercultural exchange and expressed interest in sustaining and expanding the partnership.

This case study illustrates how digital service-learning can address teacher education gaps, promote global citizenship education, and contribute to more equitable, inclusive language learning environments [10,25].

Another important dimension concerns the accessibility of digital learning environments. While the project integrated interactive tools, these were not systematically evaluated in terms of usability for students with disabilities. Features such as screen-reader compatibility, captioning, or simplified layouts were occasionally available but not consistently embedded in the design process. Future implementations should more explicitly incorporate principles of digital accessibility and Universal Design for Learning (UDL), for example by ensuring that materials are screen-reader friendly, providing captions for video conferencing, and offering multimodal participation options. Such adaptations would broaden participation and align the project more closely with international frameworks for inclusive digital education [17,18].

3.3. Case Study C—Stop Bullying: A Theater Project with Youth Centers and Schools

Case Study C explores the Stop Bullying! A theater project, an innovative initiative that blends literacy education with inclusive drama pedagogy. Designed as a Design-Based Research (DBR) project, it was implemented across schools and youth centers in Germany, targeting students aged 11–13 with and without special educational needs (SENs). By combining reading strategies with performative methods, the project aimed to improve reading competence, motivation, and social cohesion. Stronger readers were paired with struggling readers to perform together on stage. Over 17 classes participated, mainly from comprehensive schools with inclusive mixed-ability classes.

Through multilevel interventions, students engaged in group reading, staging, and public performances—strengthening both academic and emotional skills in an inclusive, stigma-free environment. While standardized reading gains were modest, the project revealed significant growth in participation, confidence, and collaborative learning. It underscores the potential of arts-based, socially embedded approaches to foster inclusive literacy development and address bullying through empowerment and empathy.

3.3.1. Educational Approaches and Methods

The Stop Bullying! theater project represents an innovative educational approach grounded in inclusive pedagogy and literacy development. Designed as a Design-Based Research (DBR) study, the project integrates drama pedagogy with reading strategies to promote reading competence among students with and without special educational needs (SENs) [26]. The theoretical foundation draws on Rosebrock and Nix’s multilevel model of reading [27], addressing the process, subject, and social dimensions of literacy.

At the process level, the project focused on reading strategies such as paired reading, choral reading, and repeated rehearsals to enhance fluency, coherence, and comprehension. At the subject level, it aimed to foster intrinsic motivation, identity formation, and reader self-concept through embodied and performative learning. At the social level, the collaborative nature of theater allowed for inclusive group dynamics and community building [26].

Scaffolding was embedded through reading corners, structured feedback, and differentiated materials to promote drama texts as reading theater. The intervention embraced Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, emphasizing the role of social interaction and guided participation in cognitive development. The pedagogical framework combined literacy education, arts integration, and inclusive classroom culture.

3.3.2. Case Study—Project Implementation

The project was implemented in three DBR cycles between 2016 and 2022. Participants were students aged 11–13 from youth centers and inclusive secondary schools in Germany. Each cycle adapted the project for different settings [26]:

Cycle 0: A school-based pilot with 24 students, including those with dyslexia and SENs. Weekly 90 min sessions involved reading and staging, focusing on group cohesion and reading development.

Cycle 1: A one-week theater workshop in a youth club with 13 girls from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Students used reading and acting to build confidence, supported by methods like reading corners and collaborative staging.

Cycle 2: A controlled intervention in a comprehensive school, involving 75 students. Participants were divided into theater (intervention) and non-theater (control) groups. A standardized reading test was administered before the intervention, immediately after it, and again three months later. While gains in reading performance were modest, qualitative observations revealed notable improvements in motivation, participation, and social interaction.

All cycles incorporated participant reflection, peer feedback, and public performances to engage learners and foster ownership. The study also ensured anonymity and avoided labeling of SEN students, promoting a stigma-free environment.

3.3.3. Challenges and Potentials

Despite logistical and methodological challenges—such as inconsistent data collection across cycles and limitations in standardized reading assessments—the project highlighted several key strengths.

First, while the reading test results showed only slight improvements, qualitative data indicated substantial progress in motivation, group cohesion, and performative comprehension [26]. Second, the theater framework created low-threshold access to inclusive literacy practices, particularly benefiting students with reading difficulties or low confidence.

Moreover, the embodied, cooperative learning environment enabled learners to actively shape their roles and experience success. The flexible structure of the sessions and the co-construction of performances supported differentiated instruction and inclusive participation. Importantly, the project emphasized performative assessment and the need to expand evaluation tools beyond traditional testing to include prosodic, emotional, and interactive aspects of reading.

In conclusion, the Stop Bullying! theater project demonstrates how arts-integrated approaches can address both literacy development and social–emotional learning in inclusive settings. By merging reading with drama and valuing student agency, the project fosters an inclusive, engaging, and meaningful educational experience [26].

3.4. Case Study D—Application Day: A Collaboration Between Chambers of Commerce, Businesses, and Schools

Case Study D examines the Application Day project [9], an inclusive, practice-oriented initiative that prepares students—especially those with special educational needs—for real-world vocational experiences. Combining career education with inclusive didactics, the project equips ninth- and tenth-grade students to write application letters and participate in mock job interviews with professionals from business, government, and industry. Since 2021, the chair has been cooperating with a partner school that, as a special school, exclusively teaches young people with emotional and social development needs at secondary level.

Implemented through a design-based approach, the project includes teacher training, co-designed lessons, and ongoing feedback. Students gain firsthand experience in job application processes while receiving individualized support and expert feedback. Despite coordination challenges, the project has proven highly effective in promoting communication skills, confidence, and career readiness. It exemplifies how cross-sector collaboration can meaningfully support inclusive educational and professional pathways.

3.4.1. Educational Approaches and Methods

The Application Day project is part of a broader educational and research initiative that merges inclusive didactics with practical career orientation [9]. It is implemented as a multi-cycle, design-based study [20], primarily targeting students in grades nine and ten from all school types. The instructional approach integrates the subjects of Business–Work–Technology and L1, with a focus on writing application letters and conducting simulated job interviews.

Prior to the implementation in schools, participating teachers attended multi-day training sessions, co-designed the lesson series with the project team, and received ongoing feedback through online consultations. This approach ensures consistency, adaptability, and professional growth among educators. The dual emphasis on written communication and oral performance prepares students comprehensively for real-life application settings.

3.4.2. Case Study—Project Implementation

The first cycle of the project was piloted from October 2021 to January 2022 and concluded with an Application Day in cooperation with the Chambers of Agriculture and Commerce, the German Armed Forces, and other regional stakeholders. Students submitted their application portfolios in advance and participated in mock interviews conducted by invited experts. These professionals provided systematic, criteria-based feedback on both the portfolios and the interviews.

Since fall 2022, the project has continued in a county in Germany with a focus on inclusive education, involving up to 26 students per year from special education schools. Each cycle is collaboratively planned with local teachers. Additionally, guided interviews with practitioners have been conducted to gather expert reflections on the relevance and effectiveness of the initiative.

One of the most successful implementations took place at the EJF-Schulzentrum Tabaluga (School for Special Educational Needs). As reported in the regional press, the school organized an extensive career orientation day that simulated real job interviews. Students prepared their portfolios and engaged in professional exchanges with experts from the Chamber of Crafts, the IHK, legal professionals, and media representatives. The event was described by participants as a highly authentic and empowering experience. The tenth-grade students were even awarded a monetary prize from the IHK Frankfurt/Oder in recognition of their participation.

3.4.3. Challenges and Potentials

Among the key challenges of the project are the coordination efforts required to bring together educational institutions and a diverse range of external stakeholders, and the preparation needed to create realistic and supportive interview scenarios. Ensuring inclusivity and differentiated support for students with special needs requires careful planning and flexibility.

Nevertheless, the potential of the project is considerable. Feedback from participants consistently underscores its value: students felt genuinely seen and supported, with some describing the mock interviews as “very helpful” or “a good conversation,” and professionals praised the realistic aspirations and preparedness of the youth involved. The setting provides a safe yet authentic space to experience career-related dialog and receive constructive feedback.

Although the project primarily addressed students with special educational needs, further analysis reveals the importance of intersecting identity markers such as socioeconomic status, linguistic background, and gender. For example, students from migrant families faced additional challenges in preparing application materials due to limited parental support and linguistic barriers. These overlapping factors highlight the need for differentiated support strategies and suggest that inclusion must be understood through an intersectional lens.

In summary, the Application Day project exemplifies how school-business partnerships can operationalize inclusive vocational preparation. It supports students not only in developing core competencies in written and oral communication but also in gaining confidence and clarity about their career pathways [9].

3.5. Case Study E—A University–School Partnership for a Library, Youth Club, and School in One City

Case Study E explores Kästner’s Flying Classroom in the Writing Workshop of Sixth Graders, a multiprofessional literacy initiative that brought together a secondary school, a youth center, and university-based experts. Using Erich Kästner’s novel Das fliegende Klassenzimmer [28] as its foundation, the project empowered sixth-grade students to read, adapt, and perform literary scenes through a process-oriented writing workshop model.

Conducted across school and youth club settings, the project emphasized inclusivity, creativity, and authentic audience engagement. Students developed their reading and writing skills in a supportive, student-centered environment, culminating in public performances of their rewritten scenes. Despite logistical challenges, the partnership demonstrated how shared educational spaces and interdisciplinary collaboration can foster democratic participation, motivation, and inclusive literacy development.

3.5.1. Educational Approaches and Methods

This case study presents a multiprofessional writing project titled Kästner’s Flying Classroom in the Writing Workshop of Sixth Graders, conducted in cooperation between a secondary school, a local youth center (YouZe), and academic and literary professionals. The project used Erich Kästner’s novel [28] as a literary anchor to enhance students’ reading, writing, and performance skills.

The instructional framework integrated the method of the “Schreibwerkstatt” (writing workshop), encouraging students to engage in collaborative and process-oriented text transformation. Drawing from established models of writing pedagogy [29,30], students worked through stages of planning, drafting, revising, and presenting their adapted scenes. The curriculum-aligned goals included the development of report writing, literary reading, and creative expression.

Methodologically, the writing process was student-centered and supported by regular reflection, feedback loops, and optional expert coaching. The project also emphasized inclusive didactic practices, allowing for differentiated learning opportunities based on students’ needs, such as LRS or German as a second language

3.5.2. Case Study—Project Implementation

Over the course of several weeks in fall 2024, 27 sixth-grade students engaged in reading and creatively rewriting scenes from Kästner’s novel. The sessions took place both at school and in the nearby youth center YouZe, which provided breakout rooms for small-group work. This setting enabled focused, autonomous, and differentiated collaboration.

The project began with students reading the full novel over the autumn break, marking significant passages for discussion. In the writing workshop, students participated in warm-up activities, planned scene adaptations, engaged in peer discussion, and worked in groups to rewrite selected scenes using contemporary language and themes.

The sessions were carefully structured to include check-ins, focused writing blocks, feedback rounds, and rehearsals. Students selected scenes democratically and formed groups based on thematic interest. Each session concluded with reflections and planning for the next stage.

As a culmination, students performed their adapted scenes at public events in the city. The writing tasks thus had an authentic purpose and audience, fostering motivation and performance literacy. The entire process was documented by students and researchers through logs, observations, and visual records.

3.5.3. Challenges and Potentials

Among the logistical challenges was the need to restructure the school timetable and secure appropriate external spaces. Coordinating between school, youth center, and university partners required clear communication and shared goals. Ensuring inclusivity across ability levels demanded careful scaffolding and differentiated support.

Nonetheless, the project revealed significant educational potential. Students expanded their vocabulary, improved reading fluency, and developed a stronger writer identity. They engaged critically and creatively with canonical literature, turning it into a tool for personal and social expression. The atmosphere was characterized by trust, autonomy, and cooperative learning.

Teachers, authors, and researchers acted as writing consultants, supporting but not steering student decisions. The project model exemplifies successful transfer between cultural, academic, and school contexts, fostering literacy as both a cognitive and social–cultural process [30].

The case underscores the value of long-term partnerships between schools, cultural institutions, and universities. It shows how literature-based writing projects can promote democratic participation, creativity, and inclusive education when embedded in a shared learning ecosystem.

3.6. Frame of All Presented Projects

All individual initiatives are embedded within the overarching framework of the project “BE A PART!”. Conducted as part of the network “BE A PART! Vocational, Political, and Cultural Participation through the Promotion of (Written) Language and Communication Skills”, and led by the author, the project spans the period from 2021 to 2027 and includes continuous empirical evaluation.

In close collaboration with teachers, student teachers, civic actors, and members of local associations, the initiative investigates how linguistic and communicative competencies can be systematically developed within culturally, politically, and vocationally oriented school projects. These efforts target students both with and without language support needs. By implementing practice-based, empirically grounded instructional models, the project aims to foster inclusive participation—enabling all students to engage meaningfully in civic, cultural, and professional life and to be recognized as active and valued members of society.

4. Discussion

Bridging disciplines such as education, special needs pedagogy, and social work provides essential insight for designing and implementing inclusive educational practices. These interdisciplinary approaches help address the complexity of learner diversity and foster professional cooperation at multiple system levels [25]. At the policy level, the European Union emphasizes literacy and basic skills as foundational for participation, equity, and future-readiness. Initiatives such as the European Education Area and Pathways to School Success promote inclusive schooling by targeting the reduction in early school leaving and supporting disadvantaged and multilingual learners [1,2].

A central element in the development of inclusive learning communities is the close connection between theory and practice—through both research-based practice and practice-informed theory [31]. This reciprocal relationship enables the continuous refinement of inclusive concepts through real-world application and empirical insight. In this context, effective knowledge transfer between universities, schools, and communities becomes essential.

Collaborative frameworks such as service-learning and Design-Based Research (DBR) have proven to be especially productive formats, as they foster mutual learning, contextual adaptation, and sustainable implementation [32]. While the presented case studies are situated in German educational contexts, similar approaches can be observed internationally. For instance, service-learning initiatives in the U.S. and Canada highlight how community engagement strengthens inclusive education [32]. In Scandinavian countries, co-teaching and multiprofessional teamwork are institutionalized to promote equity [22]. Comparative insights suggest that while the cultural and institutional frameworks differ, the core principles of participation, collaboration, and learner diversity are transferable and adaptable across contexts.

The presented case studies illustrate the potential of these partnerships, but several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the generalizability of the findings is constrained by each project’s specific cultural and institutional setting. While they offer valuable insights, they were all situated in German educational contexts and require adaptation for use in other systems.

Second, the reliance on qualitative and DBR methodologies—while suitable for capturing complex, participatory learning processes—limits standardization and scalability. Standardized metrics were not consistently applied across projects, reducing comparability.

Third, although university–school–community partnerships proved valuable, they are also resource-intensive. Their sustainability relies on stable funding, institutional support, and committed personnel—factors that are not guaranteed, particularly in under-resourced areas [22].

Fourth, while learner diversity was a planning focus, the role of intersectionality—how overlapping identities such as disability, language background, gender, and socioeconomic status shape educational experiences—requires more systematic integration [4,33].

Nonetheless, the case studies demonstrate that interdisciplinary, context-sensitive, and participatory models—such as inclusive literacy workshops, collaborative writing projects, and international service-learning—can foster shared responsibility and reflective practice. As Blell and Oldendörp [34], Schramm [35], Eisenmann [36], and Eßer et al. [37] argue, the reconfiguration of foreign language classrooms through inclusive frameworks requires both structural and pedagogical innovation. In line with Rosebrock and Nix’s (2020) [27] multilevel reading model, inclusive literacy is not only about decoding texts but also about fostering motivation, identity, and social engagement. However, the study does not systematically explore how overlapping identities—such as disability, language background, and gender—intersect to shape learners’ experiences within the inclusive projects.

Future research should adopt an intersectional lens to better understand how these multiple identity markers interact, and how inclusive practices can be refined to address the complex realities of diverse learner groups. Future research should further explore how intersectionality shapes inclusive learning. Learners’ experiences are not determined by a single characteristic (e.g., disability) but by the interaction of multiple identity markers, including language background, socioeconomic status, and gender. Addressing these intersections can deepen the effectiveness of inclusive models and prevent the reproduction of inequalities within ostensibly inclusive settings [32].

Despite the positive outcomes, inclusive education also entails challenges and potential tensions. Teachers often report increased workload when designing individualized materials, while institutional inertia and bureaucratic procedures can slow innovation—as seen in Case Study A, where negotiations with local authorities revealed the limits of municipal flexibility. Moreover, sustainable implementation depends on adequate resources, long-term funding, and supportive leadership. Without these conditions, inclusive projects risk remaining isolated innovations rather than systemic practices [22]. A critical reflection on these limitations is essential to avoid idealizing inclusion as an unproblematic principle and to acknowledge the structural work required for its realization.

Comparative research from non-European contexts reinforces the global relevance of inclusive learning communities. For example, Scandinavian studies emphasize institutionalized co-teaching and systemic support for inclusion [38,39], while research in India and sub-Saharan Africa highlights the need for community-based and resource-sensitive approaches [21,40]. Service-learning initiatives in North America similarly underline how civic engagement strengthens inclusive practices [41]. Taken together, these studies suggest that while inclusive strategies must be adapted to cultural and institutional settings, the guiding principles of participation, equity, and collaboration resonate globally.

5. Conclusions

This journal article was guided by the research question: how can the concept of inclusive learning communities be translated into practical strategies for formal and informal educational settings?

This article has explored how inclusive learning communities can emerge at the intersection of theory, practice, and collaboration. Through interdisciplinary cooperation and shared responsibility, schools, universities, and civic actors co-construct spaces of participation, trust, and learner empowerment. The case studies show that inclusive education is not merely a technical task, but a transformative process—social, cognitive, and relational in nature.

Framed by the guiding research question—how the concept of inclusive learning communities can be translated into practical strategies—the five case studies presented offer empirically grounded examples of inclusive practices in diverse contexts. These projects illustrate that inclusive education is most effective when situated within the everyday fabric of community life, responsive to learners’ varied needs, and oriented toward democratic and collaborative learning processes. Despite contextual and methodological limitations, the projects illustrate how inclusive learning can be shaped through service-learning, DBR, and co-teaching formats. These formats support the democratization of learning and the institutionalization of inclusive thinking across subject areas. They also enable pre-service teachers and students to engage in meaningful civic and linguistic practices beyond the classroom [23,24].

Inclusive Learning Communities, as conceptualized in this study, represent dynamic, participatory spaces that advance educational equity, foster diversity, and support lifelong learning. Rooted in shared responsibility and mutual respect, they seek not merely to integrate marginalized learners but to fundamentally reimagine learning as a socially embedded, co-constructed process. This reimagining includes recognizing and responding to structural inequalities, reconfiguring traditional institutional boundaries, and ensuring that all individuals—regardless of background, ability, or status—can meaningfully engage and thrive.

Aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those promoting inclusive, equitable, and quality education (SDG 4), reduced inequalities (SDG 10), and participatory institutions (SDG 16), inclusive learning communities offer a compelling framework for educational and social transformation.

Nonetheless, their realization requires sustained commitment across multiple levels: investment in professional development, institutional flexibility, cross-sector partnerships, and an ongoing willingness to engage in critical reflection and adaptive learning. Future research should further investigate the long-term impacts of inclusive initiatives, especially through intersectional and empirical lenses, to better understand the conditions under which inclusive learning communities can be most effective and sustainable.

Ultimately, fostering inclusive learning communities is not only an educational strategy but an ethical imperative. As societies strive toward more just, participatory, and cohesive futures, inclusive education must remain central to the broader project of social transformation.

For future development, a stronger emphasis on intersectionality, systemic support structures, and cross-cultural transferability is essential. As the UN Sustainable Development Goals and European frameworks remind us, inclusive education is a global commitment—a shared responsibility toward dignity, justice, and opportunity for all learners [10]. While the case studies reflect German educational contexts, their principles are transferable to other systems. The emphasis on participatory pedagogy, interdisciplinary cooperation, and community engagement can be adapted to diverse institutional landscapes, provided that local cultural, political, and resource conditions are taken into account. This underscores that inclusive learning communities are not a uniquely European construct, but a flexible model that can inform educational reform globally. While the case studies were situated within German educational contexts, the underlying principles of participatory pedagogy, interdisciplinary collaboration, and community engagement are not confined to a single system. These models are transferable to other cultural and institutional settings, provided they are adapted to local conditions such as policy frameworks, resource availability, and cultural understandings of inclusion. Highlighting this adaptability underscores the global relevance of inclusive learning communities and their potential to inform educational reforms beyond the European context.