Social Dynamics Management in Inclusive Secondary Classrooms: A Qualitative Study on Teachers’ Practices to Promote the Participation of Students with Intellectual Disabilities

Abstract

Inclusive education aims to ensure not only academic development but also social participation among students with intellectual disabilities. However, research consistently shows that students with intellectual disabilities are prone to social exclusion in secondary school settings. While theoretical frameworks increasingly highlight the importance of contextual and systemic factors—particularly classroom social dynamics—empirical studies on teachers’ practices for fostering participation remain scarce. This qualitative study investigates how secondary school teachers in inclusive classrooms perceive and enact their role in promoting social participation. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 teachers from various German secondary schools. The data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis based on the social dynamics management (SDM) framework, which distinguishes between universal, selected, and indicated intervention levels. The results reveal that teachers use a wide range of strategies across all three levels. In addition to the categories proposed by the SDM framework, two further areas were identified inductively: (1) teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and (2) internal and external cooperation. These findings suggest a need to expand the SDM model and provide guidance for the professional development of teachers aiming to promote inclusive classroom environments.

1. Introduction

While inclusive education has often been associated with positive academic outcomes for students with and without disabilities [1,2,3], many studies report neutral to negative effects regarding the social participation of students with disabilities [4,5,6]. For instance, Dell’Anna et al. [1] found that despite generally positive academic progress, students with less visible disabilities (e.g., learning-related challenges), socio-emotional challenges, or intellectual disabilities were frequently only moderately accepted, experienced rejection, and were at risk of social isolation.

Social participation is therefore a central concern in inclusive education, as it is closely tied to students’ well-being, identity development, and learning outcomes. In this study, we address the question of how teachers perceive and implement strategies to foster social participation in inclusive secondary classrooms.

1.1. Conceptualizing Social Participation

Social participation has been shown to benefit both mental and physical well-being [7,8,9,10], self-esteem [11], stress regulation [12], identity development [13], and life satisfaction [14]. Conversely, loneliness can negatively impact health [15] and is considered a risk factor for depression [16]. In a study by Koster et al. [17], social participation was presented as a multidimensional construct encompassing four domains: (1) group acceptance or exclusion, (2) social status, (3) peer interaction, and (4) network involvement. This concept was then further elaborated on by Kulawiak and Wilbert [18]. Accordingly, the degree of participation among students with disabilities is assessed by the frequency and quality of peer interactions, peer acceptance, friendships, and the subjective sense of belonging to a community [17].

In schools, opportunities for social participation serve as key indicators of students’ well-being and the classroom environment, both of which represent crucial aspects for successful inclusive education [19]. Opportunities for social participation are not only essential for students with disabilities but also for their non-disabled peers. A sense of belonging, peer acceptance, and positive classroom relationships have been consistently linked to well-being, motivation, and academic achievement in the general student population [20]. Thus, social participation is a crucial developmental resource for all students, and fostering it benefits both disabled and non-disabled learners by enhancing the classroom environment and collective learning outcomes.

Currently, research using the above definition shows that students with disabilities are more likely to experience social exclusion, lower peer acceptance, and fewer positive peer interactions in inclusive settings, which are associated with negative social–emotional outcomes [6,18]. For adolescents with intellectual disabilities, social participation is especially difficult and tends to decline with age [21,22,23,24,25]. This is concerning, as peer relationships and social inclusion hold developmental importance during adolescence, especially in relation to identity formation [26].

1.2. Explanatory Models

Social participation challenges have mostly been explained through students’ individual characteristics. Models such as the “Social Skills Deficit” [27] suggest that social difficulties arise primarily from students’ limited abilities to initiate and maintain peer interactions, regulate emotions, or interpret social cues appropriately. The “Peer Norm Salience” model [28], in contrast, highlights that peer groups establish implicit behavioral norms and that students who deviate from these norms are more likely to experience rejection and marginalization. Both perspectives emphasize the importance of individual competencies for social inclusion, while at the same time illustrating how peer group processes interact with these competencies [23,24,25,26,29,30,31]. However, recent studies highlight the significant influence of contextual factors—particularly those at the class, instructional, and teacher levels [23,32,33]. Woolfson [34], drawing on research conducted by Bronfenbrenner [35] and Sameroff [36], argues that inclusion and exclusion are socially constructed phenomena embedded in multilayered systems. Classroom environments are shaped by communication and interaction among stakeholders (teachers, school leadership, and policymakers), thus influencing participation pathways [34,37]. In a review of 72 studies, Maciver et al. [38] emphasized that fostering participation requires systemic consideration of the interplay between individual and contextual variables. Teachers play a central role in this process by creating conditions that support participation, and positive professional attitudes, competence, and collaboration significantly impact outcomes [38].

However, successful social participation cannot be ensured by teachers’ efforts alone. School leadership also plays a crucial role in establishing an inclusive school culture, allocating resources, and supporting collaborative practices among staff. At the policy level, educational frameworks and accountability measures strongly influence the extent to which inclusion is effectively realized. While policy initiatives in many countries emphasize inclusive education as a guiding principle, empirical studies emphasize ambivalent effects: on the one hand, legal frameworks and inclusive school development programs can promote participation and equity; on the other hand, insufficient resources, inconsistent implementation, and the continued dominance of deficit-oriented support measures may reinforce existing vulnerabilities among students with disabilities [39]. This underlines the need to not only focus on the ‘trees’—that is, individual students or teachers—but also on the ‘forest,’ i.e., the systemic and structural conditions that shape opportunities for social participation.

1.3. Social Dynamics Management

It can be assumed that actively managing social dynamics in the classroom can influence the social participation of students [40,41,42,43]. Central to this social dynamics management (SDM) principle is an understanding of classes as social communities and a “person-in-context” perspective [35,44,45]. A one-sided focus on individual deficits therefore overlooks the potential of a classroom’s social structure and fails to recognize the reciprocal influence of the individual and the social environment [40,41].

The scientific literature to date illustrates the need to broaden research beyond individual characteristics, focusing more on contextual conditions. However, Zurbriggen et al. [20] (p. 1226), among others, state that “although the importance of classroom-level characteristics in students’ social functioning is widely acknowledged in peer influence and school effectiveness research […], such factors have received little attention in the research on social participation so far.” Furthermore, education-related support measures, in practice, primarily address individual deficits without systematically taking into account the importance of environmental factors. For example, a scoping review by Meuser et al. [46] show that many support programs continue to focus on training individual children—with regard to social or motor skills, for example—and largely ignore structural and social frameworks. This one-sided focus contradicts current theoretical concepts, as well as empirical findings on the relevance of the environment for social participation [46].

There is growing recognition that teachers’ sensitivity to classroom social dynamics (termed attunement) is key to supporting children’s participation [41]. Teachers who are attuned to peer relationships and proactively integrate this knowledge into their instructional approach can shape social learning environments in ways that promote inclusion for students with diverse needs [41,47,48]. While pedagogical measures initiated by teachers could play a key role in fostering participation, concrete empirical evidence remains scarce [5,43,49,50]. Odescalchi and Gasteiger-Klicpera [51] emphasize that little is known about the strategies teachers apply in their daily practice to improve students’ social participation. Existing research suggests that general education teachers tend to use a limited repertoire of strategies and that the number of strategies applied is associated with teachers’ self-perceived interpersonal skills [52,53]. Moreover, available studies on this topic mainly focus on primary school contexts, leaving secondary education largely unexplored.

Multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) have proven effective in structuring intervention strategies, especially in behavioral domains [53,54]. MTSS frameworks [55,56] typically build on prevention models that distinguish three tiers of support (universal, selected, and indicated). These models have been described through slightly differing perspectives, for example, in research by Caplan [57], Gordon [58], and Brezinka [59]. Pedagogical efforts are thereby organized into three interrelated levels. Building on this logic, Farmer et al. [40] developed the social dynamics management (SDM) model (Figure 1), applying MTSS principles to classroom participation processes:

• Universal tier (Tier 1): Strategies for the entire class to promote positive participation conditions (e.g., classroom culture, group formation, inclusive values).
• Selected tier (Tier 2): Targeted support for the 10–15% of students who are at risk of exclusion, such as interventions that reduce social risk and build resilience. Teachers’ subtle orchestration of social dynamics is essential here, referred to as the invisible hand.
• Indicated tier (Tier 3): Intensive, individualized interventions for students who do not benefit from general or targeted measures. These include diagnostic procedures and systemic adjustments, such as functional behavioral assessments [60,61,62].

Figure 1. Farmer’s Social dynamics management model [40]. This is our own illustration, based on work by Hillenbrand [63] and McLeskey & Waldron [64].

Figure 1. Farmer’s Social dynamics management model [40]. This is our own illustration, based on work by Hillenbrand [63] and McLeskey & Waldron [64].

1.4. Research Gap

Little research currently exists on how this model is reflected in teachers’ actual knowledge and practices, particularly in inclusive secondary education settings. Existing studies suggest that while teachers acknowledge the importance of social participation, their strategies for fostering it are often limited, and available research has largely focused on primary schools. In this context, Odescalchi et al. [53] found that teachers with higher self-recognized social–emotional competence tend to use more direct and indirect strategies to foster social participation among students with social, emotional, and behavioral difficulties. Schürer et al. [65] reported that high-quality teacher–student interaction is positively associated with social participation in secondary schools and that contextual variables like a school’s academic tracking level and class composition further influence levels of peer acceptance and self-perceived participation. Nevertheless, research in secondary inclusive settings remains relatively sparce, and it is not yet clear whether and how teachers’ knowledge and practice vary across different types of disabilities or school systems.

This study addresses this research gap by exploring the following questions:

• What strategies do teachers report using across the three SDM tiers (universal, selected, indicated)?
• Are there additional practices beyond those described in the SDM model that teachers consider pedagogically relevant?
• How evenly is teachers’ professional knowledge distributed across the three tiers? Where do gaps appear?

Building on the SDM model constructed by Farmer et al. [40], five domains have been identified as particularly relevant for understanding and promoting social participation: (a) classroom social structures and roles, referring to peer status and group dynamics; (b) classroom composition, including diverse abilities and backgrounds; (c) communication and social skills, highlighting students’ interaction competencies; (d) diagnostics, which inform targeted interventions; and (e) classroom management, shaping the overall classroom environment and opportunities for participation. These domains provide a theoretical foundation for this study.

2. Materials and Methods

To investigate teachers’ professional knowledge across SDM tiers in sufficient detail, semi-structured interviews were conducted. The interview guide was developed based on the SDM model by Farmer et al. [40], including open-ended questions on teachers’ perceived scope of action and influence at each level (universal, selected, indicated). If participants did not address certain aspects spontaneously, follow-up prompts were used to explore the key domains of the model, e.g., (a) classroom social structures and roles, (b) classroom composition, (c) communication and social skills, (d) diagnostics, and (e) classroom management.

2.1. Sample

The sample comprised 30 participants from 25 German schools in the Rhine-Neckar metropolitan region, including lower-track schools with a more vocational orientation (Werkrealschulen), intermediate-track schools (Realschulen), academically oriented schools preparing for university (Gymnasien), and vocational schools (Berufsschulen). All participants were employed in inclusive settings within secondary education (from Grade 5 onwards in the German system). Most participants were qualified special education teachers (n = 21; 70.0%), followed by primary school teachers (n = 3; 10.0%), secondary school teachers (n = 2; 6.7%), and teachers qualified for both primary and secondary education (n = 4; 13.3%). Their teaching experience in inclusive education ranged from 2 years to 18 years, with an average of 5.6 years. Eleven of the participants were male (36.7%) and nineteen were female (63.3%), aged 27 to 63 (M = 40.6), with a mean age of 39 years.

2.2. Research Design and Research Procedure

Thirty semi-structured interviews were conducted to assess the practical knowledge of inclusive teachers in promoting social participation among their pupils. The interviews were carried out online via Zoom, ranging from approximately 40 min to just under 2 h. The questions were explicitly assigned to one of the three tiers in Farmer’s model. For example, for Tier 1 (universal), the following question was asked: ‘How do you concretely support a positive classroom climate?’. For Tier 2 (selected), participants were asked questions such as ‘Earlier we discussed the so-called ‘social roles’ of students (e.g., leader, follower, victim) within the classroom. To what extent are these roles relevant to the classroom climate?’. Finally, for Tier 3 (indicated), the questions focused on students already experiencing specific social difficulties in the classroom, for instance, ‘How do you address students who exhibit pronounced social problems (i.e., high-risk students who are either subject to social exclusion or act as its instigators)? What specific measures do you employ in such cases?’ There were also structured follow-up questions if the teachers’ answers were too superficial, such as ‘Do you consciously include “outsiders” in group processes?’

This study was conducted in accordance with ethical research standards. Participation in the interviews was entirely voluntary, and all participants provided informed consent. Teachers were assured that they could withdraw from the study at any time without any negative consequences. To protect confidentiality, all data were anonymized and stored securely.

2.3. Data Analysis

Following transcription, carried out in accordance with work by Dresing and Pehl [66], the interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis, according to Mayring [67]. This method allows large volumes of data to be classified into structured categories while maintaining conceptual depth [67,68].

A total of 3102 statements were analyzed, and each was considered a coding unit. Coding units were defined as thematically coherent text segments referring to a single idea or measure. The coded statements were then grouped into 107 context units, which represent broader thematic categories comprising several coding units referring to a similar domain or aspect.

A deductive–inductive coding system was developed, and the initial category framework was based on Farmer et al.’s SDM model. Additional categories were generated inductively for teacher strategies not captured by the model. Non-substantive elements (e.g., digressions, fillers) were removed during paraphrasing. The remaining content was reformulated into concise, abstracted codes (e.g., “Well, I try to make sure they sit close together” became “seating arrangement”). Paraphrases were generalized, grouped into overarching categories, and revised through two reduction loops to ensure conceptual coherence.

Coding was conducted using QCAmap (https://www.qcamap.org/ui/en/home, accessed on 19 September 2025), a type of software tailored to qualitative content analysis. Each interview was coded by two trained researchers. Discrepancies were discussed by the research team until a consensus was reached, and all steps followed strict, pre-defined coding protocols to ensure transparency and reliability.

3. Results

The focus of this study was examining the scope and nature of teachers’ professional knowledge regarding the promotion of social participation among students with disabilities. We examined the extent to which teachers influence their students’ social participation processes and to which their statements align with the assumptions of Farmer et al. [40] and how their practical knowledge is distributed across the three tiers identified in the model. Measures that are not part of Farmer’s theoretical framework [40] but were emphasized as relevant by the interviewed teachers were also included in the analysis.

A total of 3102 codings were extracted across the 30 interviews in accordance with the previously described procedure, resulting in an average of 103.4 codings per interview. Even this initial quantitative observation indicates that teachers possess a substantial and differentiated body of action-oriented knowledge regarding their influence on students’ social participation.

The content analysis and iterative consolidation process resulted in three central clusters of measures (

Table 1. Teachers’ professional knowledge clustered by thematic areas.

Three Clusters of Professional Knowledge	Nine Main Categories Distributed Across the Clusters	Number
Cluster 1: Perception of and Influence on Social Structures	“Perception of social structures”, “Influencing social structures”, “Promoting social and communicative skills”	1261 mentions
Cluster 2: Organization and Framework Conditions	“Framework conditions”, “Class and Team Composition”, “Cooperation”, “Classroom management”	1244 mentions
Cluster 3: Teacher Attitudes	“Pedagogical values and convictions” and “Addressing topics such as disability, diversity, and inclusion”	346 mentions
Differentiation in the classroom		105 mentions
Unstructured intuitive trial and error		114 mentions
Diagnostics		32 mentions
Total		3102 mentions

), which can be further divided into nine main categories. The clusters reflect both the deductive framework of the SDM model and the inductively generated categories not explicitly addressed by Farmer et al. [40].

Cluster 1.

“Perception and Influence on Social Structures” (1261 Mentions)

This cluster includes the categories identified by Farmer et al. [40]: perception of social structures, influencing social structures, and promoting social and communicative skills.

Cluster 2.

“Organization and Framework Conditions” (1244 Mentions)

This cluster encompasses two aspects also recognized by Farmer et al. [40]: class and team composition and classroom management. Through inductive category development, two additional overarching categories emerged within this cluster: cooperation and framework conditions.

Cluster 3.

“Teacher Attitudes” (346 Mentions)

This cluster is not represented in Farmer et al.’s model [40] but was derived inductively from the interview data. It includes the main categories pedagogical values and convictions and addressing topics such as disability, diversity, and inclusion.

In addition to these three central clusters of measures, three further overarching categories were identified that could not be grouped but are nonetheless relevant to fostering social participation in the classroom. For instance, measures related to differentiation in the classroom were mentioned 105 times.

“But what I actually want to say is that, for me, it’s not just the fit pupils who should be offered this opportunity, but it’s our job to see how we can simplify a topic so that everyone can benefit from it, so that everyone can learn the same subject matter.”

(Interview 28, lines 120ff.)

Similarly, there were 114 references to strategies described by the teachers as unstructured, intuitive trial and error.

“As I said, there is no catalogue for this either. It’s more of an intuitive behaviour, like, okay, what is wanted right now or what are the needs on the part of the children or on my part.”

(Interview 23, lines 498ff.)

Although diagnostics is included as a category in Farmer et al.’s [40] model, it was mentioned infrequently (32 mentions) and played a rather limited role in teachers’ knowledge regarding the promotion of social participation.

“We keep an eye on all the pupils, but diagnostics, and perhaps this has something to do with the fact that it is a ninth grade class, is not an issue for me.”

(Interview 26, lines 684 ff.)

3.1. Teachers’ Knowledge in Promoting Social Participation

The 3102 measures reported by teachers to promote social participation are distributed across the three tiers as follows: Nearly two-thirds of all measures mentioned pertain to Tier 1, the whole-class tier. The fewest mentions (542) were associated with Tier 2—selected support—while slightly more measures (577) were reported for Tier 3—indicated support (Figure 2).

For the systematic analysis, each superordinate category—except for class composition, which is exclusively situated in Tier 1—was mirrored across all three tiers. The goal was to uncover differences in the relevance of specific measures depending on the tier and to identify potential knowledge gaps. These superordinate categories are composed of subcategories that vary by tier. For instance, the superordinated category perception of social structures at the class level includes the subcategories perception of group and clique formation, perception of social roles, perception of social goals, and perception of hierarchies. The latter, for example, was coded in response to the following statement:

“I would say that through the way we live together in class, we have managed to establish a fairly eye-level structure. […] But I would say that we have quite little hierarchical structure in this class, as I know it from other classes.”

(Interview 13, lines 973ff.)

3.2. Importance of the Measures—Ranking of Mentions

Across all three tiers, measures related to cooperation both within and beyond the school setting ranked first, with 591 mentions (Figure 3). In this context, one interviewee said the following:

“When you work as a team, things just go better and they establish themselves much more easily. And when I know I have a team, I don’t have to keep an eye on everything myself. […] Or everyone has a different perspective on certain problems, and that helps you to talk about them as a team and find solutions together.”

(Interview 13, lines 459ff.)

These measures are not included in Farmer et al.’s [40] model but were derived inductively from the respondents’ statements. Measures aimed at influencing social structures ranked second, with 521 mentions; this aspect is represented in Farmer’s model:

“I think that’s such an invisible thing. That you look […] who would be a good fit for whom? Who could possibly work with whom?”

(Interview 6, line 480ff.)

Perception of social structures occupied third place across all tiers and was also represented by Farmer et al. [40]:

“But I would say that we have very little hierarchical structure in this class compared to what I have experienced in other classes. And working together benefits from either having a structure based on equality or having positive role models as discussion leaders or something like that”

(Interview 13, line 973ff.).

A more detailed analysis of these responses across the three tiers reveals that the categories differ in relevance, as reflected in their rankings (

Table 2. Detailed analysis of the responses across the three tiers, with the top three rankings highlighted in bold.

Main Categories	Tier 1	Tier 2	Tier 3	Total	Number Within the Cluster	Total Number
Cluster 1: Perception and Influence on Social Structures						3102
Influence on social structures	185	232	104	521	1261
Perception of social structures	229	114	47	390
Promotion of social and communicative skills	279	37	34	350
Cluster 2: Organization and Framework Conditions
Cooperation	332	48	211	591	1244
Classroom management	203	24	54	281
General conditions	198	25	29	252
Composition of the class and the teaching team	120	-	-	120
Cluster 3: Teacher Attitudes
Pedagogical values and convictions	256	-	-	256	346
Addressing topics such as disability, heterogeneity and inclusion	67	18	5	90
Other Categories
Unstructured intuitive trial and error	20	32	62	114
Lesson differentiation	89	10	6	105
Diagnostics	5	2	25	32

). Examining the three most frequently mentioned categories for each tier, as highlighted in bold in Table 2, it is evident that cooperation is most frequently cited for Tier 1, the whole-class level. This is followed by measures to promote social and communicative skills in second place and pedagogical values and convictions ranking third, which are also deemed important for fostering social participation.

For Tier 2, the highest-ranked responses are measures to influence social structures, followed by perception of social structure, which similarly relates to this domain. Cooperation, which was most frequent in Tier 1, ranks third for this tier.

For Tier 3, cooperation again occupies first place among the most significant measures, followed by influence on social structures. The third position is held by measures characterized as intuitive, unstructured trial and error:

“As I said, there is no catalogue there either. It’s more of an intuitive behavior, this okay, what is wanted or what are the needs on the part of the children or on my part.”

(Interview 23, lines 498ff.)

Given the high individual relevance of Tier 3, it is notable that this intuitive approach is frequently employed here. This category is also absent from Farmer et al.’s [40] model.

A closer analysis of the individual categories reveals that some are only relevant for one or two of the three tiers (see Table 2). Here, absolute frequencies are considered explicitly rather than percentages, as this qualitative analysis aims to preserve important findings that might otherwise be lost. For instance, pedagogical values and convictions are mentioned exclusively in Tier 1:

“I believe that as a teacher you have more power than you sometimes think yourself. Through the attitude. It’s more of a feeling thing. So it’s not something specific that you do, but rather the feeling of sitting in the middle of these children.”

(Interview 6, lines 792ff.)

The perception of social structures decreases in absolute terms from Tier 1 to Tier 3. Conversely, the teacher’s influence on social structures plays the greatest role in Tier 2, whereas the category cooperation is scarcely mentioned for this tier, indicating that teachers tend to employ cooperative measures more frequently at the whole-class level and Tier 3 (indicated) than at Tier 2 (selected).

Unstructured intuitive trial and error is most prominent for Tier 3, where it ranks third in frequency. Similarly, diagnostics is primarily mentioned in Tier 3, if at all.

4. Discussion

In this study, we examined the professional knowledge of secondary school teachers regarding pedagogical strategies used to foster social participation among students with disabilities. The social dynamics management (SDM) model by Farmer et al. [40] served as a conceptual framework, distinguishing between universal, selected, and indicated tiers of intervention. The findings indicate that teachers demonstrate an extensive and differentiated understanding of how social participation can be influenced across all three tiers. At the same time, the analysis reveals several areas of ambiguity and potential knowledge gaps.

4.1. Broad but Unequal Knowledge Across SDM Tiers

Regarding our first research question, concerning the strategies teachers reported across the SDM tiers, the findings indicate that the majority of reported strategies fall within the universal tier (Tier 1), addressing the entire class. This confirms previous findings that teachers often focus on general classroom dynamics and the promotion of social competencies when attempting to foster participation [33,40]. The selected tier (Tier 2), which targets students at increased risk of social isolation, was mentioned less frequently. Interestingly, although Farmer et al. emphasize the importance of Tier 2 interventions—particularly the teacher’s “invisible hand” in subtly shaping peer dynamics—this was rarely articulated explicitly by the interviewees. This may indicate either limited professional awareness of this tier or the intuitive nature of such interventions, which are not always consciously identified as pedagogical strategies. The indicated tier (Tier 3) was addressed more frequently than Tier 2, which may initially seem surprising. However, the third most common strategy mentioned at this tier was “unstructured intuitive experimentation,” suggesting that teachers often rely on informal trial-and-error approaches in the absence of systematic tools or evidence-based methods for dealing with complex cases of social exclusion [51]. Moreover, the SDM model includes diagnostic processes as an important component of Tier 3, yet diagnostics were mentioned only occasionally and vaguely by participants, suggesting that they play only a minor role in teachers’ everyday practices regarding social participation [61].

These patterns need to be understood in the context of the German educational system. In Germany, there is no nationwide requirement for schools to implement a formalized three-tier intervention framework such as MTSS. While inclusive education is anchored in state school laws, the organization of support varies considerably across federal states. General education teachers are not explicitly trained or mandated to apply three-tier interventions; rather, they are expected to collaborate with special education teachers, who often provide additional support at Tier 2 or Tier 3 levels. This support may take place within the classroom (co-teaching, small group work) or outside the classroom (e.g., pull-out sessions, special classes). Accordingly, the implementation of targeted and individualized interventions largely depends on local resources and collaboration structures.

4.2. Expansion of the SDM Model

Our second research question addressed whether and how the SDM model is reflected in teachers’ professional knowledge. The results show that teachers also draw on strategies that go beyond the SDM model. The results indicate that the three levels of Farmer et al.’s [40] model were reflected in the action-orientated knowledge of the interviewed teachers from inclusive settings in German schools. Their responses can be related to the model’s categories on all three levels. Furthermore, it was shown that these teachers also act as an “invisible hand” and try to influence social dynamics in an unobtrusive way without the affected students knowing. The results also suggest that the SDM model needs to be expanded to include the categories “Cooperation” and “Pedagogical values and convictions”, which were mentioned most frequently.

In addition, two inductively derived categories were identified in addition to those of the model: (1) The first comprised teachers’ pedagogical values and convictions: Teachers’ basic attitudes, such as “everyone belongs here” or the importance of dignity and respect, were reported as central to shaping an inclusive classroom climate. These beliefs form a foundation for pedagogical decisions and influence students’ sense of belonging. While such attitudinal aspects are not addressed in the original SDM model, they appear to be essential for effective intervention and merit further theoretical and empirical research. (2) The second category was cooperation with internal and external actors: Cooperation was the most frequently mentioned strategy overall, encompassing collaboration with co-teachers, school psychologists, social workers, and families. This points to the increasing complexity of inclusive schooling, which cannot be managed by individual teachers alone. At the same time, the rather limited mention of cooperation at Tier 2 suggests that preventive, targeted collaboration is not currently used effectively in the early stages of exclusion. Comparable findings have been reported in other contexts. Research repeatedly shows that individual teachers often feel overburdened when attempting to manage the social participation of all students on their own, particularly in heterogeneous classrooms [69]. In many cases, teachers report that they lack both the time and the professional resources to intervene early in cases of social exclusion. Preventive collaboration at Tier 2 is therefore often underdeveloped, especially in secondary education, where systemic support structures such as co-teaching or coordinated intervention teams are less established than in primary schools [20,65]. Similar findings have also been reported in international contexts, where the implementation of targeted interventions frequently depends on the availability of multi-professional teams, including school psychologists, social workers, and special educators [70]. This growing body of evidence demonstrates that inclusive education cannot be conceptualized as the responsibility of individual classroom teachers alone. Rather, it requires a system-wide and policy-supported framework in which preventive measures, collaborative practices, and differentiated responsibilities are structurally anchored. From this perspective, our findings add to international calls to view inclusion not simply as a collection of classroom-based practices, but as a multi-professional and systemically embedded task [5,38].

4.3. Practical Implications

In line with our third research question, which asked about the implications of these findings for practice, we identified several areas that teachers and schools could benefit from. The results highlight the need for more systematic support and professionalization, especially in the following domains:

• Tier 2 interventions: The lack of clarity and visibility in this area suggests that teachers would benefit from training to help them recognize early signs of social exclusion and apply targeted, subtle interventions.
• Tier 3 approaches: Teachers need access to evidence-based tools and guidance for complex cases. Their frequent reliance on intuitive experimentation indicates that they are often left to act alone in high-stakes situations.
• General approaches: Given the importance of teachers’ attitudes, professional development should include opportunities for critical reflection on clear beliefs and values.
• Cross-professional cooperation: Schools should institutionalize cooperative structures and ensure that teachers are not isolated in their efforts to promote participation.

4.4. Limitations

One limitation of this study is that the statements used are based on teachers’ self-assessments rather than objective observations of their actual practices in the classroom. Furthermore, the structure of the SDM model, with its three tiers, was predetermined by the interview guide, which may have contributed to an increased focus on certain types of measures. This approach was deliberately chosen in order to examine whether the model proposed by Farmer et al. [40] is reflected in the knowledge of German teachers or whether additional measures are mentioned.

Moreover, given the topic and the fact that participants were explicitly asked about their knowledge regarding social participation, the possibility of socially desirable responses cannot be ruled out. However, the detailed examples provided by the teachers suggest that they are genuinely familiar with these measures and have applied them in practice.

Another limitation of this study is that no conclusions can be drawn regarding the effectiveness of the individual measures. The actual impact of the reported measures could be explored in future research. Nevertheless, the statements concerning teachers’ practical knowledge may serve as a conceptual framework and contribute to further refinement of the model proposed by Farmer et al. [40].

While this study specifically focused on students with intellectual disabilities, it is important to acknowledge that challenges in social participation may differ across diagnostic groups. For example, students with learning disabilities such as dyslexia may experience different social dynamics than students with intellectual disabilities. Future research should therefore examine whether and how social participation varies across different special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) in order to gain a more differentiated understanding of group-specific risks and support needs.

In addition, our analyses did not differentiate between teachers according to their years of professional experience. While our focus was on identifying common patterns across participants, it is possible that teachers’ level of experience may influence their knowledge, attitudes, and practices in promoting social participation. Future studies could therefore examine whether and how teaching experience shapes the strategies employed in inclusive classrooms.

Finally, as the study is based solely on teachers’ self-reported practices rather than classroom observations, the generalizability of the findings is limited. The strategies identified should therefore be interpreted as insights into teachers’ professional knowledge and reported practices, rather than as evidence of actual classroom implementation. Future research combining teacher interviews with classroom observations could provide a more comprehensive understanding of both perceived and enacted practices in promoting social participation.

5. Conclusions

This study sheds light on the rich yet uneven landscape of teachers’ professional knowledge regarding the promotion of social participation in inclusive secondary classrooms. Teachers clearly possess a wide range of practical strategies for this, particularly at the universal tier concerning the entire class. However, gaps remain in the implementation of selected and indicated interventions, and central components of the SDM model, such as diagnostics, appear to play a limited role.

At the same time, the findings show that teachers draw on strategies not included in the SDM model, especially their professional values and cooperation with others. These elements are of central relevance and suggest the need for an expanded model of participation-oriented pedagogy, one that includes teachers’ beliefs and acknowledges the necessity of structural, team-based, and school-wide support.

Further research should focus on developing empirically grounded models that integrate these additional dimensions and creating professional development formats that equip teachers to work systematically and reflectively across all three tiers of participation support.