Conference Agenda

While higher education has expanded, concerns have been raised regarding grade inflation, suggesting that higher education qualifications have been devalued in the labor market (Xing et al., 2021). Even if disadvantaged students manage to obtain these credentials, it may not necessarily contribute to their social mobility in the labor market (Wu et al., 2020), potentially exacerbating inequalities (Mok & Wu, 2016). Similar concerns have been raised in the UK, where graduates from selective institutions tend to experience significantly higher educational returns (Britton et al., 2016). Widening participation in education can create an "opportunity trap," leading to an oversupply of graduates and consequently decreased salaries for all except the elite (Budd, 2017). Consequently, social mobility may depend less on academic qualifications and more on elite social skills and family resources, highlighting the need for additional support for disadvantaged students when competing in the labor market.

This study will utilize Bourdieu's theory, including the concepts of capital, habitus, and field, to shed light on this phenomenon of social reproduction. Within the realm of research on the graduate labor market, these concepts allow for a comprehensive understanding of the enduring impact of social backgrounds in a changing graduate labor market. Different social groups acquire distinct manners and consumption habits based on their economic and socio-educational environments (Ingram, 2014). Disadvantaged students often lack the linguistic habits and skills that are considered "desirable" or "normal" for their more advantaged peers (Wilkin & Burke, 2013). By examining capital, it becomes evident that individuals from disadvantaged family backgrounds often struggle to accumulate the same levels of economic, cultural, and social capital as their privileged counterparts, even if they experience upward social mobility (Friedman, 2016). The literature consistently highlights the importance of resources, such as financial support and informal assistance from family, in helping graduates succeed in their careers. Those lacking these resources may encounter greater obstacles in their career paths. Habitus, in turn, aids in understanding the underlying reasons for this phenomenon. The differing outcomes in the labor market among students from diverse social backgrounds can be attributed to their class-based habitus and the levels and types of capital possessed by both the students and their families, resulting in distinct modal pathways for each social class.

Empirical studies conducted in both the UK and China highlight inequalities in graduate employment and career trajectories. UK economists have found differences in graduates' earnings based on family backgrounds (Britton et al., 2019; Dearden et al., 2021), while sociologists indicate that individuals from more advantaged backgrounds have higher chances of entering professional positions and experiencing greater earnings growth as they age, owing to their enriched capital and resources (Friedman et al., 2015). In the Chinese context, differences in graduates' career plans in the labor market have been linked to their rural/urban household registration (Niu et al., 2020), parental occupation (Li et al., 2012), and parental involvement (Liu, 2021).

While existing research examines the influence of family backgrounds on graduates' career trajectories and employment, it is evident that parental influence and involvement play a significant role in students' education and employment. However, there is a lack of understanding and perspectives from parents on how they transmit their resources to their children to alleviate uncertainties and insecurities in their career paths and help them achieve their goals. This study aims to address this research gap by focusing on the qualitative socio-economic causes and effects of family backgrounds. It explores how graduates from different social groups and their families plan their career trajectories to achieve upward social mobility or maintain their social status.

Language is both a medium to reach subject-specific learning goals and it is also a learning goal within the subject itself. Learners need to use language to participate in school communication, to understand relevant content or to work on given tasks. Thus, they are required to learn school- and subject-specific language to participate in institutionalized learning environments. The dual role that language plays in subject learning might pose challenges for all learners. However, emerging multilingual learners (EML), whose skills in everyday and academic language are yet to develop, are likely to encounter even greater difficulties (Warren & Miller, 2015). Regarding these impediments in linguistically diverse settings, teachers face the need to respond to learners´ challenges or learning needs.

Although there is a growing body of research on language-inclusive approaches in multilingual mathematics lessons, most of these studies focus on the design-level of teaching (Götze & Baiker, 2021; Prediger, 2019; Wilkinson, 2018). This means that during lesson planning teachers identify language elements, which might impede learners´ understanding of the subject, and seek for ways to make them comprehensible for learners. However, little is known about how teachers adapt language requirements during classroom interaction, when learners cannot comply with linguistic expectations or when teachers realize a language learning opportunity and use it. Erath et al. (2021) differentiate between design level and teaching practices level for instruction that creates language learning opportunities in mathematics in multilingual contexts. What we know about language adaptations on the teaching practices level mainly comes from two areas: 1- studies conducted by Heller and Morek (Morek & Heller, 2020; Quasthoff et al., 2022), which mainly focus on fostering discursive skills such as arguing and explaining 2- scaffolding approaches (Gibbons, 2015).

This study investigates micro-interactional adaptations on the teaching practices level with a specific focus on so-called divergences in interaction. Throughout this paper, the term microinteractional adaptations will refer to teachers´ spontaneous adjustments in the learning environment in order to help learners meet linguistic demands in content or to challenge them by increasing the demands. The definition of a divergence is twofold in this study: first, divergences are defined as discrepancies between learners´ actions and teacher´s expectations. Second, they are defined as teachers´ actions which deviate from their initial aim and evolve into a new learning goal. In this regard, divergences can be initiated by learners as well as teachers. The reason why the study focuses on divergences is that teachers´ practices to resolve divergences enable researchers “to decipher certain implicit norms that unfold in the teacher’s and the students’ joint actions” (Ligozat et al., 2018). Although the main research interest is on teachers´ language-related adaptations in classroom interaction, the study takes a holistic approach and investigate learner´s actions and the evolvement of the content as well. Gruson and Sensevy (2013) state that in order to understand teachers´ actions, learners´ actions and “knowledge structure and function” need to be taken into account. Another reason for adopting a holistic approach is the assumption that language adaptations in subject teaching might not necessarily appear in the form of explicit language feedbacks but instead in actions through little changes with respect to the arrangement of tasks or classroom interaction (e.g giving the right to speak to another student). The following research questions will guide the study:

1)What kinds of divergences can be observed in classroom communication in the moments of new knowledge construction by learners and teacher?

2a) Which micro-interactional adaptations do teachers make to navigate learners towards the learning goal in the case of divergences?

2b) To what extent do these practices foster language-inclusiveness?

The concept of quality burst into the school world in the 1990s with the continuously interlinked ideas of innovation and educational and didactic improvement. From then on, schools have increasingly felt invested by an urgent and pervasive demand for quality: an articulated demand, coming in different tones from the various components of the school system. We could call it a cultural challenge involving not only those who are directly part of the school world but the entire community. This is especially so if we understand knowledge and learning as indispensable prerequisites for living in post-modern society. This process culminated in the 2030 Agenda (UN, 2015) and its Goal 4 which requires us to look at the future of schools from the perspective of ensuring quality, inclusive and equitable education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all. This objective encourages us to look at the future of the school in a transformative and concrete perspective.

Therefore, in asking ourselves how we can achieve a school that is both of quality and constantly growing and improving, we consider it essential to take a step back and start from the data that shows what today's school is like. The picture is as clear as it is dramatic. Among the many, the most critical data: according to data provided by the UNESCO Institute of Statistics (2021), in the world, there are still more than 63 million children under the age of 11 who do not attend school. According to the UNICEF report (2021), this number has risen to 168 million during the year in which the pandemic peaked.

Aware of this, we must turn our gaze to the construction of a vision of tomorrow's school that can consider the fundamental elements on which today's school rests, including its cracks, even the ones from the post-pandemic era that has overturned not only its ways of doing things but also its very objectives.

The main objective of this research is to identify perspectives and guidelines for action to reform Italian school policies.

The research has involved a three-stage design currently underway.

In the first phase, four participant case studies were carried out involving children, teachers, school leaders, and families from four primary schools around the world. The four schools are based in Italy, the Russian Federation, Ghana, and Sierra Leone. These countries were chosen considering the socio-economic level (according to data provided by the World Bank, 2021) and the percentage of investment of public expenditure - concerning GDP - in primary education.

On the basis of the dimensions that will emerge from the analysis of the data collected in the first phase, steps two and three of the research will be carried out.

Phase two of the research will consist of administering a questionnaire aiming at investigating the opinions on school quality of Italian primary school teachers and school managers.

Finally, during phase three, we will compare the results obtained in the previous step of the research with Sustainable Development Goal 4 of Agenda 2030. We consider it possible to expand the meanings emerging from the objective and sub-objectives of Goal 4, which have been summarized in an outline drawn up by the authors. The data is currently being analyzed with Atlas.ti and will lead to constructing reasoning on the possible theories that the school of tomorrow is called upon to follow to improve in quality, in line with Goal 4 of Agenda 2030.

With the growing importance of digital technologies in learning and teaching environments, various new actors have emerged in the governance of education. While the involvement of big tech corporations and affiliated philanthropies has been raising issues for critical examination for many years now (Selwyn 2014, Cuban 2003), there is a growing field of research that is concerned with the role of “intermediaries” and “boundary brokers” that operate in-between different professional, disciplinary or sectoral systems (Williamson & Hogan 2020). These actors range from policy innovation labs (Williamson 2015) to data mediators (Hartong 2016). They engage in the formulation, dissemination and enactment of (digital) education policies and are consequently considered to be crucial nodes in increasingly networked governance landscapes (Caves & Oswald-Egg 2021).

However, many of the actors that mediate in and between ed-tech networks and discourses are still to be researched in-depth. In particular, little is known about the intermediary role of IT-service and consulting providers and their work as ed-tech consultants for schools and administrations – despite their growing presence in ed-tech procurement and implementation processes (Förschler 2021). Consultants in education systems have been examined as political advisors (Gunter 2017), participants in school improvement processes (Goecke 2018) or well-connected drivers of reform discourses (Player-Koro and Beach 2017), and accordingly, have mostly been analyzed as linking elements between politics and pedagogy. While these studies highlight that consultants are to be understood as “knowledge actors”, who “variously generate, identify, carry and deploy saleable beliefs, ideas, debates and solutions that can be packaged and repackaged” (Gunter 2017: 338), the specific context of IT-related consultancy and technological expertise, however, has only played a minor role.

In order to get a deeper and more nuanced understanding of how technologies are mediated to schools via consultancy, this research project aims to approach IT-service and consulting businesses in the context of their coordinative work between political, pedagogical and technological spheres. Drawing on Bernstein’s notion of “recontextualization” (Bernstein 2000), the work of ed-tech consultants is examined as a relational process of moving and selecting knowledge from one context to another, or more specifically, as a practice of translating policies and technological rationales into something that practitioners can “enact” (Singh et al. 2013). Ed-tech consulting businesses, in this view, are not merely neutral linking elements that lubricate ed-tech related processes, but active agents in the construction of new pedagogical practices and values. Hence, the intermediary position of ed-tech consultants is to be considered as a critical junction that enables them to “structure the potential field of the actions of others” (Foucault 2007: 97), and thus, potentially exert power.

The local focus of this study, namely the German education system, provides a vivid example in which IT-service and consulting companies – driven by recent “school digitalization” reforms in Germany – are increasingly offering schools highly demanded amalgamations of interdisciplinary expertise (Petry et al. 2021). The companies offer comprehensive ed-tech implementation packages that reach from the (pre-)selection of products, integration of hard- and software to pedagogical frameworks (“media concepts”) and professional development (Rednet 2023). These “ed-tech implementation knowledges”, their production and transmission as well as the norms and values attached to it, are to be disentangled in the context of this investigation.

The development of creative skills (UNESCO, 2006) appears to be one of the most urgent challenges in today's complex (Morin, 2017) and 'fluid' (Bauman, 2007) society, characterized by uncertainty and instability.

The concept of creativity has multiple definitions: it is a performative skill, a transformative process (Edwards, Grandini & Forman, 2017; Munari, 2017; Rodari, 2010), an improvisational attitude (Zorzi, 2020), a generative capacity (Tiozzo Brasiola, 2020), a political condition and a dimension of complex thinking (Lipman, 2005). Moreover, creativity is a higher psychic function present in all human beings since childhood (Vygotsky, 2010) and a process historically and culturally mediated. Creativity is a necessary educational condition to imagine otherness, to think in terms of differences, and to welcome the thought of the other (Santi, 2006a) to nurture open and democratic societies. Hence, schools are in charge of cultivating it, so that it becomes a different opportunity to relate with others and with the world.

There are many documents and researches that emphasize the importance of creative education at school and in educational contexts (e.g., NACCCE, 1999; WHO, 1997; European Parliament, 2006, 2018). These documents consider creativity as one of the ten life skills, underlying all the key citizenship competencies. Moreover, it is to be understood as a democratic capacity that can be realized in all fields of human activity and all people.

Hence, the importance of the role of teachers and the learning environment in fostering and supporting each child's creative potential is critical (RIF, 2015). In the Italian context, the documents in which we misrepresent these principles are the Elementary School Programmes (1985), the National Curriculum guidelines (2012, 2018), and, more recently, Legislative Decree No. 60/2017.

From these principles, multiple pedagogical perspectives have emerged. Among them, this research aims to embrace an artistic and philosophical horizon.

One of these is the philosophical research community. It is considered by Lipman (1988, 2005) to be the cradle of the development of creative thinking, understood as one of the three components of complex thinking. According to the author, creativity is the transformation of what is given into something radically different, thus emphasizing the generative value of creativity itself. The development of complex thinking in children finds expression in Philosophy for Children (P4C), an educational practice characterized by the dialogic-argumentative method and the didactic model of the research community (Santi, 2005). In the literature, there are many researches aimed at investigating creative thinking through P4C (De Puig, 2003; Sátiro, 2006, 2019; Santi, 2007), but no studies highlighting the possible link between generativity and creative thinking in the perspective of complex thinking. Therefore, mobilizing generativity as an interpretative model to read an empirical investigation of creativity promoted through P4C can open a new pedagogical and didactic view of what has already been explored. The research aspires to give a generative reading of creativity, as an object of teaching, by investigating the horizon of generative didactics of creativity through PhilosophArt.

PhilosophArt is an educational-didactic practice that aims to generate creativity through art and dialogue in the community, taking into account the complexity of thought. It combines the dialogical-discursive method and the research community of P4C with the realization of community works of art through graphic signs (Kandinsky, 1968, 2005). P4C develops creative, critical, and free minds in community members so that they can live in a complex and democratic society open to difference. At the same time, artistic semiotics (Peirce, 1980) refers to the trivalence of the sign and to the possibility that the same sign can contain different meanings.

The concept of heteronormativity describes patterns of perception, thoughts and actions based on the assumption of a binary gender system (Degele, 2005). In this context, the two biologically and socially compatible sexes (male and female) relate their sexuality and attraction to each other (Pöge et al., 2020). This assumption of heterosexual gender dichotomy permeates and creates hierarchical relationships in many social and cultural spheres and determines the everyday life of individuals: those who do not conform to heteronormativity are marginalized and discriminated against (Hartmann et al., 2017). Thus, many LGBTIQ+ individuals still experience that their non-heteronormative ways of life are positioned in the socially deviant (Oldemeier, 2017). The acronym LGBTIQ+ stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex, queer, and other self-designations beyond the heterosexual and two-gendered norm. According to research, approximately 5-15% of the population is LGBTIQ+ (Dalia Reseach, 2016).

For LGBTIQ+ youth, in addition to age-typical challenges, deviation from heteronormativity poses further challenges (Gaupp & Krell, 2020). This includes becoming aware of their own sexual orientation and/or gender identity, coming out, and dealing with homo-, bi- and transnegativity in school (Gaupp & Krell, 2020; Krell & Oldemeier, 2015). LGBTIQ+ youth at school report experiences of victimization, a lack of supportive school staff and LGBTIQ+ inclusive teaching as well as LGBTIQ+ exclusive infrastructure (Krell & Oldemeier, 2015).

These research findings can be located within the multidimensional construct of school climate under the dimensions of (1) perceived safety, (2) teaching and learning, (3) social relationships, and (4) the institutional environment (Thapa et al., 2013). These four dimensions encompass the characteristics of the school environment that influence students behavioral, cognitive, and psychological development (Thapa et al., 2013).

Negative school experiences, in relation to the National School Climate Council's concept of school climate (National School Climate Council, 2007), can inhibit the psychological well-being of LGBTIQ+ students. For example, qualitative research indicates that LGBTIQ+ students attribute their psychological distress to perceived discrimination and exclusion at school (Watzlawik et al., 2017). Further research from Anglo-Saxon countries indicates a higher prevalence of suicidality, depression, and anxiety disorders compared to non-LGBTIQ+ youth (Russell & Fish, 2016).

In addition, it could be suggested that LGBTIQ+ students have lower levels of student well-being than non-LGBTIQ+ students (Krell & Oldemeier, 2015). Student well-being is defined by Hascher (2004) as the prevalence of positive emotions and cognitions toward school, school members, and the school environment. Experiences of victimization and exclusion on the part of classmates and teachers, as well as structural discrimination based on LGBTIQ+ identity, could thus reinforce negative emotions and cognitions toward school.

To date, the authors are not aware of any study linking school climate to psychological distress and student well-being. A theoretical foundation for this relationship can be provided by an adapted version of Meyer's (2003) minority stress model. The model conceptualizes the influence of external and internal minority stress factors such as LGBTIQ+ specific harassment or internalized stigma on the well-being of LGBTIQ+ individuals with resilience factors moderating and mediating this relationship.

Accordingly, this study aims to answer the following questions:

• How do LGBTIQ+ students in Switzerland perceive their student well-being and psychological distress?
• How do LGBTIQ+ students in Switzerland perceive their school climate?
• After accounting for control variables, how are LGBTIQ+ specific school climate factors related to participants' student well-being and psychological distress?

For over 4 decades, Life Skills have been explored as a means of preventing health-compromising behaviour, especially with adolescents (Botvin, 1985). In 1993, WHO proposed its own definition of Life Skills as “the abilities for adaptive and positive behaviours that enable individuals to effectively deal with demands and challenges of everyday life” (WHO, 1994).

In the literature, Life Skills are described as a set of “personal and cognitive skills” which derives from “cognitive-behavioural techniques” to develop self-esteem and social skills, resist persuasion, and cope with anxiety (Botvin, 1985). The development of Life Skills in schools is also identified as a lever for promoting pupils’ health and well-being as a health-protection factor (Simar et al., 2020), as a means of preventing risk behaviour (Botvin, 2000; Botvin & Griffin, 2004, 2007), mental health problems (Department of mental health social change and mental health cluster, 1999), as well as violent and risky sexual behaviour (Mangrulkar et al., 2001). Furthermore, the development of Life Skills fosters sociability, positive social interactions, cognitive development, as well as academic and professional achievements (Lamboy et al., 2021). Finally, Life Skills programmes and interventions are more efficient when founded on research, conducted by adults with strong life skills and through regular exposure (Lamboy et al., 2021).

In France, they were developed from the end of the 1990s (Darlington & Masson, 2020) when the notion of competence was integrated into the French education curriculum. Initially known as “compétences émotionnelles et relationnelles” (i.e. emotional and relational skills) (Lamboy et al., 2021), the term “compétences psychosociales” (i.e. “life skills” in French) was truly adopted in 2016 with the introduction of the Parcours Éducatif de Santé (an educational pathway for pupils, focused on the development of various skills towards individual and collective health) (Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, 2017; Lamboy et al., 2021). Recently the “Vademecum de l'École Promotrice de Santé” (Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, 2020) has set out an important framework for the integration of Health Promotion in schools, with a particular focus on the development of pupils’ Life Skills to reinforce positive health behaviours and develop skills useful to the future adults whom pupils will become.

Thus, Life Skills appear to be fundamental. However, in both French and English, different terms are used as synonyms to refer to Life Skills: a semantic clarification is therefore necessary. Moreover, in French, the term adopted in translation of the expression "Life skills" proposed by the WHO in 1993 seems to operate a semantic shift by becoming "compétences psychosociales” (which can be translated as "psychosocial competences"). This illustrates the fact that the notion of “Life Skills” remains rather vague; a global perspective on the terms used and their definitions seems to be required (Simar et al., 2020), in both languages. Thus, the purpose of this study is to analyze the terms and definitions used in French and English to discuss Life Skills, to reach a consensual definition.