Conference Agenda

Comparative reviews of educational reforms in Europe, and broadly, in the last twenty years or so, show a strong movement towards identifying key competencies in education (Rychen & Salganik, 2000) and implementing more competence-based curricula (European Education and Culture Executive Agency, Eurydice, 2012). These reform movements realized diverse ways and diverse innovations in teaching and learning practices, assessment tools and procedures, and school organization (European Commission, 2020). This movement is determined by European policy embodied in the Reference Framework of Key Competencies for Lifelong Learning (European Commission, 2019). The European policy is the result of several broad factors (Halasz & Michel, 2011) that could be summed up in the assumption that globalization and modernization are creating an increasingly diverse and interconnected world. In this paper, among all the key competencies that young people need in order to be successful in modern society and to contribute to the development of society, we focused on the social and civic competencies and the way how they are operationalized to be measured in two comprehensive international assessment studies ICCS by IEA and PISA Global Competence by OECD.
As stated in the Reference Framework of Key Competencies for Lifelong Learning (European Commission, 2019), civic competence is defined by the importance of knowledge of the development of, institutions that reflect, democracy, justice, equality, citizenship, and civil rights. In the IEA/ICC study, civic competence is operationalized through four content domains (Civic society and systems, Civic principles, Civic participation, Civic identities), four affective-behavioural domains (Value beliefs, Attitudes, Behavioral intentions, Behaviors) and two cognitive domains (Knowing, Reasoning and analyzing), (Schulz et al, 2022). Serbia participated in this assessment study in 2022 (OECD, 2).
Compared to IEA/ Civic Competence, OECD/PISA Global Competence is defined more broadly, as a multidimensional capacity which enables individuals to examine local, global and intercultural issues, understand and appreciate different perspectives and world views, interact successfully and respectfully with others, and take responsible action toward sustainability and collective well-being (OECD, 2018). Serbia participated in this assessment study in the PISA cycle 2018 (OECD, 2020).
The two constructs that are the focus of this study have a potentially great influence in the field of informing educational policies, defining the curriculum and assessment of educational achievements, as well as in designing pre-service and in-service programs for the professional development of teachers. The importance of these constructs is given by the fact that they are part of large international assessment studies in which a significant number of countries participate. A review of the literature, however, shows that there is a lack of research examining the complementarity of these constructs.
Based on the structural components and description of the two constructs (civic competence and global competence), although they were operationalized for measurement purposes in two different assessment studies, we assumed their complementarity. Examining this assumption is the fundamental question addressed in this paper. If the measures were distributed on one scale, the assumption of unidimensionality of the scale would be confirmed. The main intention that initiated this research work is to create a reliable instrument for evaluating the effects of an intervention program designed to encourage collaborative problem-solving in the secondary school educational context in Serbia.

Over the past two decades, national and transnational educational policies and agendas in Europe have focused on CE in response to societal and political challenges in our globalized, multicultural society (Loobuyck, 2020; Joris, 2021), such as the digital transformation, global migration flows, the climate crisis, etc. In this current context, ‘good’ democratic citizenship and CE have become conceptualised and promoted in terms of democratic competence(s) enabling citizens to respond effectively to the ever changing demands and opportunities posed to them by democratic societies (Council of Europe, 2018). This competence-based approach to CE has become particularly relevant in the face of the perception that youth are become increasingly politically apathetic or alienated (Keating & Janmaat, 2016; Dahl et al., 2018; Freitas et al., 2018). Generally, attention is paid to CE in terms of what young people (not yet) know, do, can, or are not (yet) willing to do in relation to the ideals of democracy and citizenship the adult generation has put forward (Hooghe & Smets, 2013).

Both within and outside of the walls of schools and classrooms however, our democracies include ‘flesh-and-blood people’, who not only think, reason or apply their ‘‘toolkit of psychological resources’ or competences (Council of Europe, 2018); but also feel things (Backer, 2017). Starting from this assumption, the current dominance of a competence-based discourse of CE is called into question for being rationalist and individualistic, because it relies on an Habermasian (1998), rational-deliberative and cognitive or disaffected model of citizenship and CE. Insights from political philosophy and psychology suggest that political emotions are central to people’s actual political engagement (Demertzis, 2014; Nussbaum, 2013; Knight Abowitz & Mamlok, 2019), are experiences that can be ascribed to bodies that are ‘socialized’, interact and exist together with others (Zembylas, 2007b) and should therefore be considered essential components of political and democratic life and be given a place within democratic CE (Zembylas, 2018).

Additionally, when the importance of political emotions in CE is acknowledged, the focus tends to be on conflictual emotions and political identities. Such agonistic approaches emphasize disagreements and the potential of anger and conflict for political action and transformative change through CE (Yacek, 2019), for instance by ‘learning to disagree’ and adversarial position-taking (Knight-Abowitz & Mamlok, 2021). Leiviskä and Pyy (2021) and Yacek (2019), however, indicate how focusing on such an understanding of the nature of the political in CE might lead to relations between different societal groups becoming increasingly conflictual; in a broader democratic culture which is already perceived as divided and polarized (Leiviskä & Pyy, 2021). Focusing on negative emotions such as conflict, differences, angers and fear in CE risks to only deepen and solidify such tendencies, and increase feelings of apathy and closed-mindedness towards the experiences of those considered ‘others’ (Yacek, 2019). They therefore turn to the existing (political) literature on constructive political emotions (Nussbaum, 2013; Leiviskä & Pyy, 2021).

This constructive approach to political emotions has been connected to CE theoretically, but appears to have not yet been translated to an actual educational-theoretical framework of CE. This research project therefore aims to develop such a framework, providing answers to the following three research questions:

1. How do political emotions relate to other, cognitive’ dimensions of competence-based models for CE (knowledge, skills, values, attitudes) and how can they be embedded and fostered within a holistic framework for CE?

2. How do negative political emotions relate to constructive political emotions, and how can both be linked to theoretical and conceptual approaches of CE?

3. How can pedagogic classroom and school practices foster youth’s constructive political emotions through CE?

The participatory paradigm is not only present in the social sciences, including education but has also become an important principle of public policies and any action aimed at introducing significant social change and transforming reality (Budzanowska, Dańda, 2022). However, “any collective action directed at social change to respond to citizens’ concerns must be based on social science evidence” (Albert et al., 2021).

In a research context, participation can refer to theoretical assumptions, methodology (participatory research), and the use of research results for a specific common purpose, both by the researchers and by the individuals/groups who are the 'subject' of the research. Participatory research refers to the idea of human science assuming a human-centred orientation, in other words - doing research from a human perspective (Ciechowska & Szymańska, 2018; Kubinowski, 2010; Reyes, Haines & Clark/Keefe, 2021). It abolishes the traditional division between the researchers and the researched - the latter become fully-fledged subjects of research. Moreover, all parties involved in the research process take full part in it - they learn from each other, they contribute their knowledge and skills, and the outcome of research activities emerges from dialogue and interaction (Pushor 2008; Bielecka-Prus, 2013). Simultaneously, this does not mean that all participating parties have the same input or perform the same roles (Bielecka-Prus, 2013).

The degree and extent of participation can vary, which is well illustrated by various models of participation, the most well-known of which (the so-called ladder of participation) situates it between two extremes - from minimal participation limited to a “decorative” function (being informed) to the highest level implying full control, i.e. the participation of non-experts on equal terms in all stages and all project activities (Arnstein 1969).

In recent years, it has been argued that participation is insufficient and new conceptualisations or concepts relating to citizen participation not only in research and knowledge production but more generally, in social change, have emerged (Beresford 2019; Blühdorn & Butzlaff, 2020). These include co-creation or responsiveness and are argued to increase the influence of participants on the social changes postulated and implemented as the result of the research process.

The way participation and the overlapping and related terms (in this case co-creation and responsiveness) are understood, framed and situated in the two European research projects is the subject of the presented analysis. Both projects are participatory, albeit to varying degrees, and implement the inclusion of citizens in the research process.

The main research question is what are the similarities and differences in the theoretical assumptions about participatory approaches in the two projects and what are the implications of these assumptions for (1) the methodological solutions adopted to guide the research process, (2) to the understanding of citizenship not only in the research but in a democratic society in general.

Educating the new generation is a major purpose of educational systems. It is a highly complex concept that means being a member of a political community. The very concept of citizenship changes over time, depending on the individual's relationship with government, the state and the rights guaranteed. Of a historical option, historical shift from a strictly political definition of the citizen - with an emphasis on his or her relationship with the state - to a broader somewhat more sociological definition, which implies a greater emphasis on the relationship of the citizen, with society as a whole. (Steenbergen, 1994).

In the Marshal’s classic essay on citizenship “Citizenship and social class” (1950), he distinguishes three types of citizenship. First, the civil citizenship in the 18^th century which established the rights necessary for individual freedom, such as rights to property, personal liberty and justice. Second, the political citizenship in the 19^th century was built and encompassed the right to participate in the exercise of political power, and third, the social citizenship in the 20the century the type of citizenship that emphasized the citizen’s rights of economic and social security and gained its expression in the modern welfare state as it developed in Western Europe. In the perception of Marshall, social citizenship marked the end of history, but new concepts of citizenship are emerging, such as cultural citizenship, European citizenship, global citizenship, ecological citizenship, digital citizenship.

Dewey stresses that ‘Since a democratic society repudiates the principle of external authority, it must find a substitute in voluntary disposition and interest; these can be created only by education. … A democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience’ (1916, p. 87). For Freire, education is always a political act. Is it impossible to remain neutral in education, all educational policies and practices have social implications (1985). Also, “It is only when one leaves one’s home and enters the public space that the dialogue about a citizen’s idiosyncrasy begins” (Kingwell 2000, p. 41). “Citizenship or civics education is construed to encompass the preparation of young people for their roles and responsibilities as citizens and, in particular, the role of education (through schooling, teaching and learning) in that preparatory process.” (Kerr 1999, p. 2).

Civic values and competences such as equity, mutual understanding and active citizenship are promoted by the European Commission (ET 2020) which has triggered the scientific discourse on this subject (EC 2017, Cockburn, 2013, Moss, 2007).

Traditional curricula promoted the 3Rs, -reading, writing, and arithmetic. Reviewing literacy is a continuous process emerging from contemporary social needs and scientific progress. In this sense, a literacy crisis is never temporary, but, rather, the constrain desired in literacy and curriculum studies. Exploring four hypotheses on literacy standards, Welch and Freebody showed that each and every era and society undergoes its own literacy crisis (1993). Maitles and Gilchrist (2004), underline that children are citizens, and not just “citizens in waiting”.

The purpose of this research was to investigate the educational practices that promote the democratic citizenship in preprimary education in Greece.

Research questions:

What is the place of social sciences in the curriculum framework?

What are the views of educators on citizenship education?

What pedagogical strategies do preschool educators use to develop social science topics?

How do they handle challenging issues related to religious and ethnic differences?

This symposium will focus on education for democracy in the age of global digitality. On an empirical basis, we will ask how democracy and education for democracy are understood by teachers and learners, what meaning they attribute to it and what this means for teaching and learning in schools in their orientation towards the future. Particular attention will be paid to revealing the contextuality of these understandings and, by looking at the different perspectives together, to uncovering a common core for the further development of democracy-promoting education under conditions of glocality (Robertson, 1995). A unifying element for all contributions is their localisation within the horizon of global digitality (Grünberger, 2022; Stalder, 2017). This provides a common reference point for reflecting on the empirical findings, namely on the potential of digitality for the democracy-promoting education. With its various contributions, the symposium aims to provide suggestions for the democracy-promoting education in the context of digitality, which can develop relevance for different contexts.

The often described crisis of democracy (Abramowitz, 2018) is a global challenge for school education. Crisis and threat have different contextual manifestations: Some are political developments such as the rise of populist parties or the observed increase in autocratic forms of governance, others are socio-cultural developments such as the dominance of an isolated individualism in the age of performance (Ball, 2003). All of these developments are being significantly accelerated by the shift to the digital realm, undermining democratic consensus. These challenges to deliberative democracy are faced with problems that, because of their complexity, require the participation of as many people as possible in order to address them in a way that is based on justice (Culp, 2019), in a society that is as stable as possible. This applies to the climate crisis as well as the equitable distribution of resources and goods, issues of intergenerational sustainability, and peacekeeping and conflict mitigation. Democratic consultation and decision-making processes are needed. Democratic education will not be able to solve the (global) social problems per se, but as a stimulus for the development of democratic skills, it is an indispensable prerequisite for their possibility (Honneth, 2015).

The symposium will explore the possibilities of promoting democratic education in schools in different contexts and from different perspectives. This plurality is essential for two reasons: First, comparative reflections allow the identification of a core that can be more clearly summarised due to its emerging variability. This makes it possible to answer the question of how to conceptualise a context-independent education that promotes democracy. Secondly, all contexts are characterised by common conditions such as globality and digitality and by the same abstract challenges (global justice, inclusion), which in turn requires a high degree of abstraction (Scheunpflug, 2019; Scheunpflug & Schröck, 2000, 2002). The specific design of educational processes that promote democracy will therefore have similarities. According to our common hypothesis, democracy education can be better understood if a deeper understanding of the relationship between context-specific (e.g. the specific political system or the specific demographic situation) and context-independent aspects (digitality, peacekeeping) can be achieved. In this respect, the symposium can also be seen as an intervention against nationally reduced concepts and curricula of democracy-promoting education in the globalised (world) society.

The symposium will present studies from different contexts (Tanzania, Cameroon, Nigeria, Germany, Ghana). In a short introduction, the connection between digitality and globality as well as teaching and learning will be outlined, it will be explained in terms of epistemic challenges. This introduction provides the framework for the empirical analysis of issues of democracy education in migration societies and in societies with precarious democratic development.

This quantitative study explores school actors’ understanding of democracy and civic education in non-democratic countries. Thereby, the article builds on the assumption that teachers are a crucial factor in the success of learning in general (Hattie, 2003) and that their (pedagogical) beliefs influence their teaching practices (Knowles, 2018; Reichert et al., 2021). Not only because of their role model function, their pro-democratic attitudes and values are the linchpin in the implementation of democracy education (Große Prues, 2022, p. 17). Although a large number of studies have already contributed to this discourse (Chin & Barber, 2010; Reichert & Torney-Purta, 2019), there is a research desideratum with regard to the Global South in general and Sub-Saharan Africa in particular, where the majority of countries are still autocracies. In addition, many of these contexts are characterized by very different access to IT and internet connection. This applies especially to schools. In Tanzania, which serves as a case for this study, internet penetration in 2023 was only 31.6%, whilst 86.4% of the total population had access to cellular mobile connection. Especially mobile internet connection had increased by almost 8% compared 2022 (DataReportal, 2023). Given that internet connection comes along with increased access to information, this development bears a potential to generate informed citizens, which are a prerequisite for a well-functioning democracy. At the same time, the spread of fake news is only one example for how increasing digitalization can challenge democracy. Moreover, in Tanzania all materials used for teaching actually need to be officially recognized by the Tanzanian institute of Education. This paper presents findings of a study based on the survey instruments of the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) 2016 (cf. Schulz et al., 2016) on Tanzanian teachers’ and principals’ attitudes towards democracy and digitalization. As a result, 85% of the respondents answered that obtaining news through the Internet, television, newspaper, etc. is part of their daily life. Also, 63% believed that following political issues is “very important” for being a “good citizen.” At the same time more than one third replied that their students analyze information gathered from multiple sources including online research. Therefore, the question raises whether how a democratic dealing with the potential and threats of digitalization can be fostered when access to digital means limited. Based on this, I will address the role of information and knowledge for democracy.

References Chin, K., & Barber, C. E. (2010). A Multi-Dimensional Exploration of Teachers' Beliefs About Civic Education in Australia, England, and the United States. Theory & Research in Social Education, 38(3), 395–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2010.10473432 DataReportal. (2023). Digital 2023: Tanzania. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2023-tanzania Große Prues, P. (2022). Demokratie-Erziehung als Querschnittsaufgabe: Eine Studie zu Subjektiven Theorien von Lehrkräften. Studien zur Professionsforschung und Lehrerbildung. Verlag Julius Klinkhardt. https://elibrary.utb.de/doi/book/10.35468/9783781559615 Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers Make a Difference: What is the research evidence? Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). ACER Research Conference, Melbourne, Australia. http://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2003/4/ Knowles, R. T. (2018). Teaching Who You Are: Connecting Teachers’ Civic Education Ideology to Instructional Strategies. Theory & Research in Social Education, 46(1), 68–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2017.1356776 Reichert, F., Lange, D., & Chow, L. (2021). Educational beliefs matter for classroom instruction: A comparative analysis of teachers’ beliefs about the aims of civic education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 98, 103248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103248 Reichert, F., & Torney-Purta, J. (2019). A cross-national comparison of teachers' beliefs about the aims of civic education in 12 countries: A person-centered analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77, 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.09.005

This article examines the experiences of Christian Church leaders about the contribution of peace education in Nigerian faith-based schools as a basis for a just and democratic society. The mitigating role of education during an ongoing conflict is pertinent, yet curiously under-researched (Davies, 2005). In conflict and challenging democratic context, peace and transformative education is argued to be appropriate as it challenges pedagogy that is rooted in hierarchical forms of power but rather seek to respond to democratic participation, freedom and social justice that surmount national limits (Basedau, 2023, p. 1, Magro, 2015, p. 109). Even though peace education understanding is complex, its overarching questions address inequality gaps, democratic processes of dealing with conflict and issues of global social justice (Jäger, 2015). There is however little empirical research about peace education in Sub-Saharan Africa that is hit by conflicts (Njobati, 2021), however existing studies mainly address wars, unstable governments and economy (Brunori et al., 2019, Babajide et al., 2021). For instance, little is known about the conflict in the Middle Belt region of Nigeria and its effects on education where schools have been attacked and children forced out of schools with girls violated (Opara & Inmpey, 2019, p.109). Meanwhile, Christian Church organizations are playing an important role in conflict resolution and peace education (Ilo, 2015, p. 99). This paper explores how peace education activities in the faith-based education sector in Nigeria is shaping learning conditions. The qualitative research was conducted in the Middle Belt region and included 13 semi-structured interviews with leaders of Roman Catholic and Protestant churches. Findings show the two-sided nature of the relationship between conflict and schooling. On the one hand, peace clubs in schools offer safe spaces for mediation. On the other hand, everyday school life is still characterized by social feedback that stir conflict. Moreover, peace education pays little attention to the conditions of learning. Aspects such as good learning climate, critical thinking and cooperative learning which have been identified by research as key elements of peace education (Burde et al., 2017, p. 620; Bajaj, 2015, p. 1-2), do not feature in the pedagogical framework of the schools. The paper concludes that further professional development for educational leaders is needed to enhance schools’ role in contributing to justice and peace education as a landscape of shaping safe learning spaces in conflict context.

Babajide, A., Ahmad, A. H., & Coleman, S. (2021). Violent conflicts and state capacity: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Government and Economics, 3, 100019. Bajaj, M. (2015). “Pedagogies of resistance” and critical peace education praxis. Journal of Peace Education, 12(2), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.20 14.991914. Basedau, M. (2023). Under pressure: Democratisation trends in Sub-Saharan Africa. Brunori, P., Palmisano, F., & Peragine, V. (2019). Inequality of opportunity in sub-Saharan Africa. Applied Economics, 51(60), 6428-6458. Burde, D., Kapit, A., Wahl, R. L., Guven, O., & Skarpeteig, M. I. (2017). Education in emergencies: A review of theory and research. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 619-658. Ilo, P. (2015). Faith-based Organisations and conflict resolution in Nigeria: The case of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN). Journal of Global Initiatives: Policy, Pedagogy, Perspective, 9(2), 9. Jäger, U. (2015). Peace education and conflict transformation. Berghof Foundation Operations GmbH. Njobati, F. F. (2021). Shaping resilience through peace education in schools: results from a case study in Nigeria. Zeitschrift für internationale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspädagogik, 44(4), 25-31. Opara, S. C. & Inmpey, J. C. (2019). Open–grazing in the Middle Belt region Nigeria: Implications for sustainable development. Sapientia Global Journal of Arts, Humanities and Development Studies, 2(2), 106–116.

With empirical data from Madagascar, Cameroun and further Sub-Saharan countries we ask for opportunities that arise from digitalisation for democracy-promoting education in the global horizon. Our question overarches four sub-questions, namely 1. What are the experiences of school leaders and those responsible for partnerships with school partnerschips and how do they relate them to the democracy-promoting education? 2. What ideas can be identified for the localisation in a digital global society? 3. What digital opportunities and resources are used in the context of South-North partnerships? 4. What supporting and adverse factors can be identified for the practice of South-North partnerships? In this project, we theoretically presuppose the fact of digitality (Stalder, 2017) in the global society (Luhmann, 1982) for all contexts. At the same time, we assume that digitality is realised locally, in different traditions, with different resources and under different political conditions. We are therefore dealing with a glocal phenomenon (Robertson, 1995). From a pedagogical perspective, we draw on research on learning democracy, which increasingly emphasises democratic experiences and emotions beyond the mere transfer of knowledge about democratic rules and values. There are also claims for reflection democracy-promoting education on a transnational level (Culp, 2019). Other scholars ask for relating digital education to democracy and citizenship (Choi & Cristol, 2021; Knowles et al., 2023). We also draw on research on South-North partnerships, in which their embedding in processes of reflection can be identified as a condition for sustainability (Krogull & Scheunpflug, 2013; Jääskeläinen, 2015; Bourn & Cara, 2012). Based on the qualitative content analysis of group discussions (n=7) and interviews (n=10), we can show the following results. Material resources and, in some cases, political constellations make it difficult to sustain South-North partnerships that can stimulate educational processes that promote democracy. In addition, there are different attitudes to the opportunities offered by digitality, a spectrum of understandings of democracy and the need for curricular harmonisation. On the other hand, we can formulate the following chances deriving from South-North-partnerships: By engaging with an external perspective, the understanding of democracy in its complexity is enhanced for all participants. Participants acquire skills to articulate and reflect on their own involvement in an educational and political culture. The practical use of digitality becomes more complex and accessible for reflection.

Bourn, D., & Cara, O. (2012). Evaluating partners in development: Contribution of international school partnerships to education and development. In Research Paper (Vol. 5). London: Development Education Research Centre. Choi, M., & Cristol, D. (2021). Digital citizenship with intersectionality lens: Towards participatory democracy driven digital citizenship education. Theory into Practice, 60(4), 361-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2021.1987094 Culp, J. (2019). Democratic Education in a Globalized World: A Normative Theory. Taylor & Francis. Jääskeläinen, L. (2015). Learning in, about and for development partnerships. What Competences Does a Global Citizen Need for Building a Development Partnership? In. Knowles, R. T., Camicia, S., & Nelson, L. (2023). Education for Democracy in the Social Media Century [Academic Journal Report]. Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 8(2), 21-36. Krogull, S., & Scheunpflug, A. (2013). Citizenship-Education durch internationale Begegnungen im Nord-Süd-Kontext? Empirische Befunde aus einem DFG-Projekt zu Begegnungsreisen in Deutschland, Ruanda und Bolivien. ZSE Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation(3), 231-248. https://doi.org/10.3262/ZSE1303231 Luhmann, N. (1982). The Differentiation of Society. Columbia University Press. Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: Time-Space and Homogeneity-Heterogeneity. In M. Featherstone, S. Lash, & R. Robertson (Hrsg.), Global Modernities (S. 25-44). Sage Publications. Stalder, F. (2017). The Digital Condition. John Wiley & Sons.

Democracy and social justice increasingly play out in the digital context as digital ‘technology is already embedded in, and entangled with, existing social practices and economic and political systems’ (Knox, 2019: 3). Digital technology is increasingly prevalent in schools across the world and is often positioned, by policy, as a means to close attainment gaps (Scottish Government, 2016) and ‘level the field of opportunity for students’ (US Department of Education, 2017). This suggests that digital technology has a key role to play in relation to equity, justice, and inclusion, to education for democracy. However, digital technology has been observed to ‘exacerbate pre-existing inequalities, establish new ones and further marginalise communities’ (Hall et. al., 2020: 436). Student-teachers need to be prepared to navigate digital spaces, digital spaces which are susceptible to manipulation. Democracy and global citizenship increasingly play out online where filter bubbles (Berners-Lee, 2014), algorithms (Tufekci, 2016) and corporations (Bollier, 2010) manipulate what is accessed. Understanding how digital tools and spaces inform student-teachers knowledge and understanding, and the development of their pedagogic beliefs, is therefore a pertinent concern. In Scotland, a democratic European country, school education is informed by professional values which espouse social justice and sustainability. Scottish education works on a presumption of inclusion (Scottish Government, 2019) with research, teacher-education and professional development promoting inclusive pedagogy (Florian, 2016). In this research study the professional development of student-teachers, during a one-year Professional Graduate Diploma in Education (PGDE) teaching qualification was observed, with consideration of the digitised context of the 21st century. The programme which the student-teachers were enrolled onto had been recently redesigned to support the student-teachers journey towards becoming agentive professionals; with the development of a digital portfolio to support praxis (connecting theory and practice) on placement, and a re-designed assessment structure which provided multiple opportunities for professional dialogue and collaboration. The research applied a thematic approach analysing qualitative data which included interviews, surveys, visual mapping, and learning artefacts. Analysis observed how the local was situated in the global. Digital technology ‘nudged’ practice, promoting small changes at a local level which reflected global discourses of neo-liberalism and accountability (Peters, 2020). As education moves into an era where digital technologies are increasingly ‘embedded across everyday aspects of teachers work’ (Starkey, 2020: 49) it is important that we, as teacher-educators, are aware of the ways in which the digital context impacts student-teachers professional development.

Bollier, D. 2010. ‘The Promise and Peril of Big Data’ Community and Society Program Report on the Eighteenth Annual Aspen Institute Roundtable on Information Technology, The Aspen Institute: Washington DC Hall, J., Roman, C., Jovel-Arias, C., & Young, C. 2020. Pre-service teachers examine digital equity amidst schools' COVID-19 responses. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 435-442. Knox, J., 2019. What Does the ‘Postdigital’ Mean for Education? Three Critical Perspectives on the Digital, with Implications for Educational Research and Practice. Postdigital Science and Education. 1 (1). pp.1-14. Peters, M.A., 2020. An educational theory of innovation: What constitutes the educational good?. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52(10), pp.1016-1022. Scottish Government. 2016. Enhancing Learning and Teaching through the use of Digital Technology (ISBN:9781786524737). Learning Directorate. Scottish Government. https://www.gov.scot/publications/enhancing-learning-teaching-through-use-digital-technology/ Starkey, L. 2020. A review of research exploring teacher preparation for the digital age. Cambridge Journal of Education, 50(1), 37-56. US Department of Education. (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 national education technology plan update. Office of Educational Technology. https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf

In these precarious times, children and youth require (and are demanding) education on how to address the myriad of convergent global challenges. The United Nations attest that only by working with children and youth across diversity and difference will global communities be able ‘to achieve peace, security, justice, climate resilience, and sustainable development for all’ (Clark et al., 2020, p. 617). Engaging in dialogue about global challenges involves global meaning-making that acknowledges and capitalises on diverse understandings and ways of knowing to re-imagine and transform realities (Tierney, 2018). In developing these capabilities, education has a critical role to play—as made clear in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD, 2018a, 2018b) appeal for collective action and a re-thinking of educational approaches that address global challenges in ways that place ‘collaboration above division, and sustainability above short-term gain’, so that children might ‘value common prosperity, sustainability and well-being’ (p. 3). Global citizenship education (GCE) is a response to this clarion call of enabling globally aware and engaged citizens (Thomas & Banki, 2021).

On review of authoritative texts (OECD, UN, UNESCO, UNICEF) on global citizenship, we see global citizenship education as centring two concepts: global mindedness and taking action

(i.e., to enact change). We do not see ‘global mindedness’ in a literal sense, but rather more broadly like Andreotti (2010) proposed as how individuals multidimensionally think and feel about and engage with otherness and difference. There are multiple GCE approaches that challenge western-centric, neoliberal interpretations of GCE for global market competence and employment (Torres & Bosio, 2020). These approaches include post-colonial and critical theory approaches (e.g., Torres, 2017); transformative approaches oriented to cultural diversity, human rights, and collaboration (e.g., Gaudelli, 2016); and approaches favouring a value-creating orientation to nurture students’ humanity through creative co-existence with others (e.g., Sharma, 2018). We take a critical theory approach informed by Carlos Torres (2017) with emphases on social justice, diversity and difference, peace, planetary rights and responsibilities and local and global political participation. We also draw from Vanessa de Oliveira Andreotti (2014) who argues that “responsible education in current “global times” requires a deeper understanding of the social, cultural, economic and historical forces and flows that connect peoples, places, spaces and world views, and of the difficulties of intervening in complex and dynamic systems” (p. 33).

We see education playing a key role in developing broad awareness of diverse perspectives

(ethical and intercultural understanding), political literacy, contestation and dialogue, and strategic civic action (e.g., see Collins, 1992; Torres, 2017). However, the space afforded to GCE remains contested in Australian education policy pronouncements (Peterson, 2020). Much of the burden is predominantly borne by the goodwill of teachers who understand the value of global citizenship education and so locate and assess materials and novel ways to squeeze in complex concepts and controversial topics in an already overcrowded curriculum (Buchanan et al., 2018).

To support teacher uptake of global citizenship education in Australia, we searched for and mapped open-access global citizenship education materials to create a systematic, research-based resource catalogue for teachers and students. Our scoping study inquiry broadly asked: what are the open access online curricular resources available for critical global citizenship education? With the following sub-questions:

1. How do these curricular resources align with Australian curricula components (i.e., outcomes of the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) for Australia and relevant general capabilities and cross-curricular priorities of the Australian Curriculum)?

How do these curricular resources align with international GCE-related frameworks (i.e., OECD dimensions of global competence and UN Sustainable Development

The concept and practice of global citizenship education (GCE) is now widespread in schools and universities across the world. At a surface level, the meaning of the term appears self-evident. Yet, within the context of U.S. higher education, Stein (2015) has argued that ‘global citizenship remains untheorized’ (p.242). Nevertheless, various scholars have sought to understand the different ways in which GCE is conceptualised as an agenda for education, often with reference to its implications for global and local policy and curriculum (Gaudelli, 2009; Oxley & Morris, 2013; Pashby et al., 2020; Bourn, 2021). A further study conducted by Goren & Yemini (2017) has aimed to identify differences in regional approaches to GCE. According to their analysis, European research on GCE is: often framed by the context of population changes related to immigration; viewed as an alternative model to national citizenship, and; aimed at inclusion and social cohesion (p.174). The typical European approach to GCE, they argue, is connected to moral and cultural concern rather than, for example, political advocacy.

The intentions behind GCE raise questions about its function and role in education settings. While GCE is often thought about in connection to the curriculum, the focus of this paper is on the practice of teaching. The first key question driving the analysis is: what do the teaching choices related to GCE suggest about how it is conceptualised? In responding to this question, we have adapted the now common way of framing different orientations to assessment (Schellekens et al., 2021), to consider three orientations in teaching GCE: teaching of, as, and for, global citizenship. Teaching of global citizenship can be understood as teaching about global citizenship as something connected to but distinct from, for example, national citizenship. This orientation may aim for impartiality, or a dispassionate approach. Teaching as global citizenship can be understood as a politicising orientation, whereby the teaching of global citizenship is connected to enacting global citizenship. For example, experiential service learning. Teaching for global citizenship can be understood as a moralising orientation, whereby students are encouraged - perhaps even implored - to embrace the values and dispositions connected to global citizenship as a moral response to global issues.

Commonly, scholars have concerned themselves with conceptualisations of global citizenship (ie. the ‘G’ and the ‘C’). However, the second key question raised in this paper asks what each of the above orientations suggest about the nature and role of education (ie. the ‘E’) within the construct of GCE. Responding to this question, the current paper is primarily conceptual. However, our theorising draws on data collected in Austria, Azerbaijan, and Australia pertaining to how GCE is enacted in the classroom and how teachers describe their understanding of GCE. These perspectives on the teaching of GCE problematise abstract conceptualisations of GCE from ‘above’ and instead suggest that global citizenship is understood by teachers in relation to grounded everyday experiences, both within and outside the classroom. In this paper, we make the argument that GCE from both ‘above’ and ‘below’ tends to involve moralisation and politicisation, and that this raises questions about the role and nature of education itself within GCE practice. In other words, this paper asks whether teaching as and for global citizenship can properly be considered education and, if so, how contested views regarding globalism and citizenship can be addressed in a way that allows students to genuinely inquire into such matters.

In today's uncertain, inequity-ridden world, children and youth are increasingly called upon, and call upon themselves, to engage with hope as active global citizens to help advance collective wellbeing and sustainability for all – as evidenced in UNICEF’s open letter to the world’s children (2019). These calls are well grounded in research that has long supported children’s participation as capable, insightful active citizens (Harris, 2013; Mayall, 2002; Phillips, Ritchie et al, 2020). Such calls, too, situate children as globally minded individuals and communities who, in networked relationships with people and the planet, act beyond state limitations to advance actions for human rights and justice (Bachelet, 2018). Such is the essence of active global citizenship (AGC), which involves enacting social, political, and civil responsibility in service of the common good (Phillips, 2011; Peterson, 2011)—including dialogue about what constitutes ‘the common good’.

But just what are the literacies required for children’s hopeful participation as globally minded citizens in uncertain times, and how do we ensure they have access to these literacies? This question is the focus of this paper. Our objective is to foreground globally-minded literacy practices that are oriented to global mindedness and involved in building and negotiating common worlds that foster collective wellbeing and sustainability. Our objective supports education’s pressing imperative for children to have the necessary capabilities, including literacies, to participate as globally minded citizens – as made clear in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 4.7 (2015), UNESCO’s learning objectives for this goal (2017), OECD’s global competence framework (2018a), and UNICEF’s open letter to the world’s children (2019). As the United Nations attests, it is only by working with children as globally minded citizens that global communities can achieve collective wellbeing and sustainability (Clark et al, 2020).

Viewed multidimensionally, global mindedness concerns individuals’ engagement with otherness and difference in complex, uncertain, inequity-ridden contexts (Andreotti, 2010). We emphasize the relational basis of global mindedness within which understanding the interests and lives of others is fundamental, and without which injustices cannot be fully recognized and addressed—while critically heeding how cultural and national specificities shape how individuals engage.

We draw on cosmopolitan and cosmopolitical perspectives to consider what it means for global citizens to engage across diverse humanities, and historic, social, economic, and political divides – acknowledging tensions between these perspectives (see Stournaiuolo & Nichols, 2019). While we value cosmopolitanism scholars’ focus on engaging with diversities (e.g., Hansen, 2014), we acknowledge its problematic assumptions about mobility, access, and dispositions for engaging in and across cultures, without which cultures are essentialized rather than engaging with lived realities (e.g., Kurasawa, 2004). In response to these critiques, cosmopolitics emphasises the labor in constructing common worlds across historic, social, and political conditions that divide us (e.g., Saito, 2015), which resonates with our quest to lay bare the literacy practices involved in AGC work across diversities, differences and divides in an uncertain world.

Making visible these literacy practices is founded on understanding literacy as lived, multimodal practices travelling and changing across time and space (Pahl & Rowsell, 2020), and connected with social, cultural, political, environmental, and economic interests and contexts (Street, 2017). Our search encompassed literacies vis-à-vis wide-ranging texts, platforms, media, and modes including written, spoken, visual, auditory, spatial, corporeal, digital, haptic, multimodal, and socio-material modes (McVee & Boyd, 2016). This conceptualization aligns with our quest to pursue a broad vision of AGC literacy practices that are enabling and accommodate complexity, contradiction, and uncertainty.

Our society is at a pivotal moment where human impacts on the planet are undeniable, presenting urgent sustainability challenges like climate change, biodiversity loss, and security concerns (Schröder et al., 2020). Amidst these crises, rethinking educational models is vital for nurturing the civic engagement of our youth, who are the inheritors of these global issues (Wals, 2015) and the architects of tomorrow (Hickman & Riemer, 2016). In this context, the need for their empowerment is emphasised so that they are trained to transform unsustainable environmental, social and economic structures (Schank & Rieckmann, 2019). It is recognised that much is expected of young people when it comes to taking responsibility for creating a sustainable future (UN, 2015; UNESCO, 2014).

The transition toward a sustainable future requires fundamental changes in existing ways of thinking and acting. The most important tool for such a transition is education, especially in the context of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (UN, 2015). There is a need to create appropriate mechanisms and conditions for educating new generations that promote the development of sustainability citizenship characteristics. These characteristics involve the interrelation between 1) cognitive, 2) socio-emotional, and 3) behavioral domains. Education for sustainable development (ESD) should motivate educational institutions to provide platforms where students can practice what they have learned, as captured by the phrase "walk the talk" (Holst, 2023). The aim is to equip young people with skills that enable them to actively participate in sustainable transformation (Rieckmann, 2021), and ultimately to cultivate sustainability citizens (UN, 2015).

Volunteering is recognized as a key factor in solving social issues, promoting solidarity and empathy, and redefining the fundamental structures of society (European Volunteer Centre, 2019; UNV, 2021). In this context, school volunteer programmes (SVPs) are recognised as platforms with the potential to cultivate sustainability citizens. SVPs are seen as models of ESD as they embody its main characteristics. The fundamental characteristics of ESD include holism and pluralism (Rudsberg & Öhman, 2010). Moreover, it is crucial for ESD models to incorporate experiential and transformative learning that promotes a shift in thinking, creative problem-solving, and the cultivation of reflective citizens (Rončević & Rafajac, 2012). Additionally, teaching in such programmes should be student-centered, connect course content, and promote interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. In this sense, the connection with the community is also crucial (Wals, 2011). All these characteristics are necessary for the development of sustainability citizenship characteristics in students, particularly because previous research indicates that ESD programmes focusing only on certain elements have an impact on knowledge but limited impact on attitudes and behaviours (e.g., Boeve-de Pauw & van Petegem, 2017; Krnel & Naglič, 2009; Pirrie et al., 2006).

There is limited research on SVPs, particularly those exploring their relationship with the concept of sustainability citizenship among students. Given the increasing implementation of these programmes in Croatian primary and high schools, there is a need for comprehensive research to capture the complexity of this phenomenon. The research question is therefore: What experiences, processes, and activities that are part of SVPs, are encouraging high school students' potential in developing characteristic of sustainability citizenship and how?

This paper presents part of the results from a larger study conducted for the purpose of a doctoral thesis. It focuses on presenting the development of students' knowledge, attitudes, values, and behaviour in the context of school volunteer programmes.

Short Abstract

We live in a time of increasing political polarization. This makes it important for teachers to be able to aptly navigate controversial issues within the classroom. This mixed-methods study examines the stances of preservice teachers regarding the limits of legitimate positions for controversial classroom discussions. The research questions focus on identifying and understanding the range of strategies preservice teachers anticipate adopting when confronted with controversial issues as well as the theoretical and practical implications of these stances for democratic education. As a normative approach to teacher education, we propose a strategy of "reflective balancing" by avoiding false equivalences between fundamentally unequal positions while maintaining a space for conflict and controversy where it is fruitful.

Objectives

To Develop and Validate a Questionnaire Instrument: Our first objective is to conceptualize and validate a standardized instrument that can detect preservice teachers' ideas about handling controversial discussions. This tool is intended to assist in the broader understanding and training of teachers regarding controversial issues.

To Explore Preservice Teachers' Stances on Controversial Issues in the Classroom: The study aims to unveil the array of approaches that future educators anticipate adopting in response to controversial topics in their classrooms. Through two convenience survey samples of 162 and 90 German preservice teachers and qualitative interviews with a subset, our study seeks to uncover the nuanced strategies ranging from avoidance to the emerging trend of committed balancing.

To Theorize 'Reflective Balancing': The study proposes and explores the concept of committed balancing, a method of addressing controversial issues that acknowledges the necessity of weighing different viewpoints while remaining committed to democratic and epistemic values.

Theoretical Framework

This study situates itself within the discourse of civic and citizenship education, particularly focusing on how teachers handle controversial issues in the classroom, a task critical to the practice of deliberative democracy as conceptualized by Gutmann & Thompson (2004) and, especially in educational contexts, Hess & McAvoy (2015). Prior research suggests that teachers, both novice and experienced, frequently hesitate to engage with controversial issues in the classroom. This reluctance may be particularly pronounced among younger educators, who often attribute their avoidance to a lack of confidence and preparedness for addressing these challenging topics (Bickmore & Parker, 2014; Gindi et al., 2021; Nganga et al., 2020). Empirical insights (Flensner, 2020; Pollak et al., 2017; Oberle et al., 2018) highlight the varied and often problematic strategies and attitudes teachers exhibit towards controversial discussions, reflecting a broader need to understand how preservice teachers approach these complex topics. In this context, our study builds upon Hess' (2004) typology of teacher strategies for controversial issues—avoidance, denial, privileging one side, and balancing—which are reassessed under the proposed model of 'reflective balancing.' This approach is particularly pertinent in light of the challenges of false balancing and the need for epistemic integrity in educational contexts (Barzilai & Chinn, 2018; Leiviskä, 2023).

To discuss questions surrounding the limits to classroom controversy, the study further engages with the debate around possible criteria for teaching about such issues in school contexts (Hand, 2008; Yacek, 2018; Drerup, 2021). Within this debate the teaching of controversial issues is often distinguished in ‘directive’ and ‘non-directive’ styles. In the attempt to distinguish issues that should be discussed in a controversial, non-directive fashion from those that require more active teacher steering, several criteria are often discussed – particularly the behavioral, political, and epistemic criteria. These three respectively relate to a) the degree of controversy in wider society, b) the compatibility with liberal-democratic norms, and c) rational, factual justification. This debate directly informs our methodological approach to develop a standardized way of capturing different stances towards these issues.

Schools are important in the formation of a democratic society and teachers play a crucial role in in enhancing basic democratic values as equity, equality and tolerance and in fostering diversity and inclusion. In a globalized world the student population in European schools is becoming increasingly diverse. As recurring studies show that teachers’ attitudes and skills matter in creating structures of inclusion and opportunity for all students there are strong reasons to train future teachers in intercultural perspectives and diversity (Milner 2013). One way to strengthen intercultural perspectives among students is through different form of internationalization activities. However previous reseach indicate less mobility and international exchange among student teachers compared to other groups (Hauschildt 2015) as well as limited internationals features in teacher education (Alexiadou et al 2021). One reason put forward for this is that teacher education is primarly educating for a national labour market (Egron Polak et al., 2015; Alexiadou et al 2021) which limits the focus on intercultural and international competencies. At the same time, as issues of diversity and inclusion are increasingly pressing the European educational systems, the need for intercultural competences among teachers in order to to train cultural competence and responsiveness to better address the needs of today's diverse student populations is more important then ever (Banks 2021). Previous reseach indicates a number of obstacels for the lack of internationalization in teacher education (Hauschildt 2015), but provide less knowledge about how student teachers perceive their future work in relation to intercultural values and increasingly globalized and diverse school. Hence, in order to improve intercultural and international work in teacher education we need to understand how student teachers think and how they perceive their future work in relation to internationalization and intercultural competences.

This study aim to improve teacher education, by understanding how student teachers reason about global values and culturally diverse societies guided by the reseach question: How do student teachers approach to their studies and their profession from an international perspective?. By conducting focus group interviews with student teachers in Sweden, the Netherlands and France the study will add to increased understanding of national and cultural differences in the creation of the education for future democratic citizens

The necessity for belonging constitutes a fundamental human drive and is essential for optimal human functioning (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Belongingness represents a core human experience, integral to individual identity and emotional health, and is defined by the perception of acceptance and inclusion within a group or community. Recent research highlights the role of belonging in addressing inequity and injustice within the educational system (Parker, Marsh, Jerrim, Guo, & Dicke, 2021). This underscores the critical impact that a sense of belonging has on creating a fair and supportive educational environment for all students. For students, the sense of belonging often starts at home, within the family, and continues in school, where they feel part of the school community. Recent cycles of the IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) (Schulz, Ainley, et al., 2023; Schulz, Ainley, et al., 2018) emphasize the importance of students' sense of belonging in citizenship education. IEA ICCS ICCS results highlight factors such as an open classroom climate, participation in civic activities both inside and outside school, and understanding of diversity as an important for creating and improving sense of belonging and identity. During school time of their life students learn to act, behave, and create relationships aligned with their values and sense of belonging in a relatively safe environment together with their teachers and schoolmates. Another survey (OECD, 2017) mentions that students who have a sense of belonging perform better academically and are more motivated to learn. Academic achievements in school are a crucial factor for a successful future, offering more opportunities to pursue higher education, secure better jobs, choose a comfortable lifestyle, and attain a higher socioeconomic status (SES).

Nowadays, the sense of belonging plays a vital role in identity creation and sharing common values with others of similar thinking, contributing to building a communal space for coexistence in civic society. Several levels of identity can be identified - individual, national, international, and global. European integration has fostered a sense of collective European identity; this identity coexists and sometimes competes with the strong national identities of European Union member states (Wiener, Börzel, & Risse, 2019). The balance and interaction between these identities vary greatly among individuals and countries, influenced by historical, cultural, and political factors. Given the challenges of immigration, inclusion, and integration, there have been threats to collective identity in the European Union in recent decades. In this context, positive attitudes towards belonging might not be universally consistent and need to be examined to understand how to synergize the sense of belonging at both national and European levels while maintaining a unified European identity. Therefore, the aim of the study is to determine the factors influencing students' sense of belonging to Europe, first within the national context, and then to compare whether these factors differ among the European Union countries. The survey seeks what are the common factors influencing students' sense of belonging among the European Union countries?

Populism is one of the current challenges of democracies. Yet, relatively little is known how education in general and schools specifically can prepare students to withstand populistic strategies (Noack & Eckstein, 2023; Schäfer, 2022). This paper explores the relationship of schooling, complex identities and confidence in the political system. For political systems to persist, that is to change in accordance with the needs of its (emerging) citizens while retaining a stable core, it depends on the political support of its participants (Easton, 1975; Norris, 2011). The most diffuse and stable aspect of political support is the identification of people with their political system: Only when people feel like they are part of the system they will participate in the maintenance of it.

The relationship between identity, system support and populism is not clear-cut: While identity is important for the stability of nation, populism employs specific constructs of identity to destabilize the political order of a system. Populism employs ideas of identity as monothematic and oppositional (Kinnvall & Svensson, 2022). Populist strategies include the reduction of complexity by suggesting that the membership with an in-group implies the exclusion of the other (Kinnvall & Svensson, 2022; Rico et al., 2017). This idea is in tension with conceptions of complex identities from social psychology. Complex identities are characterized by a feeling of belonging to multiple different groups at the same time: People can feel part of the country they inhabit and a sports team and a religious community. Reporting a complex identity is positively related to measures of tolerance and decreased outgroup dehumanization (Prati et al., 2016). Within the context of migration, complex identities are referred to as hybrid identities. Students with families that migrated have a hybrid (and complex) identity when they identify with the country they are living in and the country of (parental) origin. Students’ hybrid identities are assumed to be connected to better psychosocial and academic outcomes (Berry, 2013).

The adolescence is a formative age of identity formation (Erikson, 1959/1994). According to Marcia (1966) the active engagement with information (identity exploration) and finding modes of belonging (commitment) are central mechanisms of identity formation. Schools have the opportunity to foster identity formation by giving students access to relevant information, to reflect and to interact with other students in a safe manner (Waterman, 1989). It was also shown, that positive social relationships at school are positively related to national as well as an European identities (Ziemes et al., 2019). Social support might enable students to explore different identities safely.

To date, relatively little is known concerning the schools ability to foster complex identities among students. As shown, complex identities are not only relevant for the psychosocial development of students, but also for the persistence of the political system and its resilience against populistic polarization. To engage with this research gap this paper will investigate the identity structure of students and what aspects of schooling might be used to foster complex identity.

To achieve this we use data from the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) 2022. In a first step, questions on belonging will be used in a latent class analysis to identify patterns of identity among students. In a second step, aspects of socialization at school will be explored that relate to these patterns. Finally, the classes will be related to measures of political trust and system satisfaction.

Crises are characterised by an interweaving of external, real problem situations, their societal and individual perception, and a level of action (Bösch et al., 2020). Phenomena that present themselves in a crisis-like manner, such as climate change, social inequality, and global security risks, will significantly shape the future and also pose challenges for (civic) educational institutions (Abs, 2021). It seems inappropriate to view crises as isolated phenomena, as crisis phenomena can be interconnected: for instance, climate changes with political instability, migration, and conflict (Lawrence et al., 2024). Educational processes can contribute to developing an understanding of current and future challenges and support learners in developing the skills and knowledge needed to address these challenges.

In this context, according to Urry (2016), the future can be described as 'contested'. This description refers to the idea that different social groups have different visions and interests regarding the future, which often conflict with each other. Thus, it is recognized that the future is not simply an inevitable process, but a field where different social, political, economic, and cultural conceptions are in conflict. The extent to which adolescents have threatening expectations of the future, suggesting different social and political conceptions, is the subject of this contribution.

In adolescence, future perspectives are individually shaped under changing conditions. In the process of building a future orientation, future expectations interact with cognitive processes and emotions such as optimism, despair, fear, and anger (Nurmi, 2005). Against this background, willingness to participate politically also unfolds. In connection with the climate movement, hopeful optimism about a possible change in climate policy was observed (Cattell, 2021). A less optimistic view of the future was also described as a motivator for political participation: young people who felt that their concerns about climate change were not adequately addressed by national and international institutions participated, for example, in the international conferences of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Kolleck & Schuster, 2022). Emotions further play a major role in explaining populistic and right-winged mobilization (Gerbaudo et al., 2023). Consequently, reactions to crisis perception can vary greatly. Both the characteristics of the content of the focused crisis and the knowledge and emotions of the adolescents might influence the formation of the response.

The perception of future threats is one variable examined by the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS; Schulz et al., 2023). In ICCS 2016, adolescents in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) were particularly sensitive to climate change as a global threat, more so than students from other European countries (Deimel & Buhl, 2017). Environmental pollution and terrorism were issues that concerned a large part of the youth in both NRW and the European comparison group, while armed conflicts were perceived as less threatening in 2016 compared to environmental issues. Initial analyses of ICCS 2022 show an expected change over time in threat perception (Birindiba Batista et al., 2024): in the shadow of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, war or armed conflicts are the issues that most adolescents in NRW describe as a 'large threat'. However, climate change and environmental pollution continue to play an unchanged significant role for them. Terrorism, however, has significantly receded as a threat scenario. The prioritization of perceived crisis phenomena has shifted in the light of external events.

This paper takes these findings as an opportunity and pursues three overarching research questions against the theoretical background of Urry's (2016) concept of contested futures:

1. What patterns of crisis perception do adolescents show?
2. What relationship do these patterns show to civic knowledge?
3. What relationship do they show to aspects of intended political participation?

The panel will discuss new perspectives for strengthening the education for democracy in contemporary European context based on the 1,5 years of work in the Horizon Europe Democrat project. We examine both the conceptual and empirical aspects of education for democracy, with case studies in six EU countries, with a special attention to responsible democratic citizenship and the possibilities to achieve change through educational interventions.

Strengthening education for democracy has become an increasingly urgent need due to several recent and ongoing crises in Europe. Challenges such as mediatization, technocratization, disenchantment, radicalization, populism, securitization, digitalization, illiberalism and others (e.g. Hay 2007, Papadopoulos 2013, Guillaume, Huysmans 2013, Moffitt 2016, Bigo, Isin, Ruppert 2019, Keane 2020, Schäfer, Zürn 2021, Sajo, Uitz, Holmes 2021) put pressure on the democratic system and citizens. An autonomous, constructive and effective citizen agency is under threat as citizens increasingly turn to either extreme ideologies or feel alienated and withdraw from civic life. How to better use education in supporting responsible democratic citizenship is nowadays a very relevant question.

The discussion will be based on but not limited to the EU Horizon Europe Democrat project that aims to strengthen liberal democracy in the European Union by supporting its embedding and sustainability through participatory redesign and implementation of innovative and context-sensitive Education for Responsible Democratic Citizenship curricula and learning methods. Both content- and process- related aspects can support the development of citizens as reflexive, autonomous and constructive democratic agents and address the challenges outlined above. Contemporary digital tools for learning and participation are taken into account, as are aspects of democracy and responsible democratic citizenship that include the individual’s relation to the natural environment and sustainability in its interconnected environmental, social, economic and governance dimensions, as per the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

The Democrat project includes both conceptual and empirical work, both supported by national and transnational living labs. The conceptual work is based on relevant academic literature and policy documents from Europe and beyond that is used to develop an approach to facilitate responsible democratic citizenship building into education content and pedagogies that respond to today’s requirements.

The empirical work includes statistical analysis, targeted research on specific key topics and educational interventions. Statistical analysis focuses on identifying the contextual factors relevant to education for democracy. Targeted research identifies i.a. the educational arrangements, aims, objectives and measures, competences, and the key agents and their discourses on education for responsible democratic citizenship. The educational interventions are designed and implemented, and their results reflected on and discussed in the project network.

The living labs offer a key channel for reflection and including the perspectives of key stakeholders in education for democracy and responsible democratic citizenship. Altogether ca. 40 living lab events will be conducted at various stages of the Democrat project.

The panelists will discuss key conceptual and empirical aspects based on the first 1,5 years of the work of the Democrat project, including initial results and designs for further work.

Symposium will offer first insights into the empirical results of the HORIZON EUROPE project ‘Democracy meets arts: critical change labs for building democratic cultures through creative and narrative practices - CRITICAL CHANGELAB’ which is currently being conducted in 10 European countries.

Among others, project’s main goals relevant are to:

• examine the current state of democracy within education institutions
• identify and compare perspectives on everyday democracy of youth living in challenging contexts iacross Europe;
• design a scalable and tailorable model of democratic pedagogy in formal and non-formal learning environments.

Symposium consists of three papers from Croatia, Spain and Ireland. First paper focuses on a presentation of the development of an instrument for assessing the state of democracy in formal and non-formal education institutions in 10 European countries. The Democracy Health Questionnaire (DHQ) measured the state of democratic practices in educational programmes in more than 1500 educational institutions across Europe. The DHQ was designed in such a manner that its concepts provide a foundation for the development of the Democracy Health Index (DHI). Paper presents results of the quantitative analysis in which schools’ and organisations providing non-formal educational programs are compared. Psychometric analytical procedures allow for a discussion on the nature of indexes probing democratic health. In the future, this instrument will serve as a self-assessment tool for various learning environments – both formal and non-formal.

Using qualitative methodology, second paper deals with in depth perspective through the exploration of the youth perspectives on everyday democracy. Ten case studies on groups of young people that are growing up in challenging contexts for the development and practice of everyday democracy were conducted. Some of the groups that were covered in this phase of the project were immigrants, refugees and migrants, ethnic minorities (Roma youth…), LGBT youth, those living in remote areas, girls and young people living in less privileged socioeconomic environments. In each of ten countries an in-depth case study consisting of semi-structured interviews, focus groups and ethnographic accounts were conducted. Each case study will consist of focus groups with youth (n=7-9 participants per case study), series of semi-structured interviews with educators, pedagogical coordinators, civil society organisations living and working in the selected contexts (n=5 interviews per case study) and ethnographic accounts of the contexts that include secondary historic analyses. In the paper the Spanish case from Barcelona will be presented.

Finally third paper offers perspectives on development of a conceptual and methodological framework for developing critical literacies for democracy using creative and narrative practices. The framework articulates the Critical ChangeLab Model of Democratic Pedagogy. The development of the framework considered national curricula and pedagogical frameworks on citizenship education, as well as existing competence frameworks for democracy education, such as the Council of Europe’s competences for democratic culture development. Furthermore, creative and narrative practices for supporting cultural and critical literacies, with special consideration to those informed by critical pedagogy, critical historical learning, theatre of the oppressed, critical and speculative design, and futures thinking methodologies, were used as benchmarks in the development of the framework. Using interdisciplinary methodologies and approaches, these methods were linked with a variety of digital technologies, such as social media and gaming platforms, and prototypes that enable its deployment in various settings (face-to-face, hybrid, and virtual) using transmedia approaches. Third paper presents development of this model in Ireland.

This paper aims to describe the development of an original instrument for the assessment of the current status of democracy within educational institutions. Existing instruments (e.g. Booth & Ainscow, 2002; Köhler, Weber, Brese, Schulz & Carstens, 2018; Scheerens, 2011; Skidmore & Bound, 2008) did not encompass the concept of institutional democracy holistically and were limited to certain aspects of democratic functioning and specific types of educational setting. Within Critical ChangeLab project, we developed Democracy Health Questionnaire (DHQ) and Democracy Health Index (DHI) to assess the democracy health of both schools and institutions providing non-formal educational programmes. DHQ is envisaged as a self-assessment tool that educational institutions can use to estimate the current state of their democracy and plan future activities to improve this important organisational characteristic. Democracy health is conceptualised through two broad areas that indicate the democratic culture of the institution: democratic values and democratic practices. The DHQ measures four democratic values: Participation, Accountability and transparency, Equality, diversity and inclusion, and Eco-social responsibility, and 26 practices that are organised in four domains representing the life-cycle of educational programmes: Development, Access, Delivery, and Outcomes and Impact of educational programmes. DHQ is designed to address the existing diversity of educational institutions, educational programmes, and various European contexts. It is developed in two parallel versions, one for schools and one for institutions providing non-formal educational services. In DHQ the participants are asked to estimate each of the democratic values and practices in their respective institutions on three dimensions: Importance, Current level, and Expectation in five years, using a scale from 0% (not at all) to 100% (very much). In the process of development of the instrument, the DHQ was applied in year 2023/24 across ten EU countries. In total, more than 1500 participants (school directors and individuals in charge of educational programmes within institutions providing a wide range of non-formal educational programmes to youth aged 11 to 18) completed the questionnaire through the online research platform Alchemer. Based on their responses, three indicators of DHI will be calculated: DHI Total and DHI Domain (indicating the current level of institutional democracy weighted by the estimated importance of corresponding items), and DHI profile, indicating democracy health gap between the current state and expectations in five years. In this paper we discuss the usability and validity of DHQ and DHI in measuring and comparing the levels of democracy within educational institutions.

Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion: developing learning and participation in schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE). Köhler, H., Weber, S., Brese, F., Schulz, W., & Carstens, R. (2018). ICCS 2016 User Guide for the International Database. IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016. IAEEA Scheerens, J. (2011). Indicators on informal learning for active citizenship at school. Educational assessment, evaluation and accountability, 23, 201-222. Skidmore, P., & Bound, K. (2008). Everyday Democracy Index. London: Demos.

This paper builds on the European project Critical ChangeLab («Democracy Meets Arts: Critical Change Labs for Building Democratic Cultures through Creative and Narrative Practices»). The main aim of the project is to revitalise the relationship between young people and democracy at a time when polarisation, deep political divisions and declining trust in democracy are spreading across the continent. To this end, the project examines the current state of democracy in learning environments across Europe, generating a strong evidence base for participatory democratic curriculum design. As part of this research goal, the project includes 10 case studies developed in 10 European countries, aimed at exploring young people’s perceptions of everyday democracy in challenging contexts. In this communication, we will report on the design and outcomes of the case study that took place in a public training and placement program (so called PFI) in Barcelona, Spain. The program is designed for young people aged between 16 and 21 who have not completed compulsory secondary education. The main aim of this program is to offer these students basic training to access the labour market and, eventually, help them in returning to the regulated education system. The case study comprises: 1) a focus group with 10 participants aged between 16 and 18; 2) 5 interviews with teachers and educators involved in the program; and 3) a short ethnographic analysis through researchers’ diaries. Both the focus group and the interviews were guided by semi-structured prompts, focusing on participants' experiences and reflections regarding their perceptions of being young, their relations with the institutions, their experiences about democracy and participation and their perspectives regarding their future. The outcome of the study contributes to the existing literature by offering insights into the lived experiences and perspectives of marginalised young individuals regarding democracy in their everyday lives. Furthermore, by entering in dialogue with the case studies carried out with other groups of youth in Critical ChangeLab, it helps to construct a landscape of voices who are often at the margin of decision-making and democratic practices.

Cammaerts, B., Bruter, M., Banaji, S., Harrison, S., & Anstead, N. (2014). The myth of youth apathy: Young Europeans’ critical attitudes toward democratic life. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(5), 645-664. Carratalà Puertas, L., & Frances Garcia, F. J. (2017). Youth and expectations on democracy in Spain: The role of individual human values structure of young people in dimension of democracy. Partecipazione e Conflitto, 9(3), 777-798. Grassi, E. F. G., Portos, M., & Felicetti, A. (2023). Young People's Attitudes towards Democracy and Political Participation: Evidence from a Cross-European Study. Government and Opposition, 1-23. Johnson, L., & Morris, P. (2010). Towards a framework for critical citizenship education. The curriculum journal, 21(1), 77-96. Simó-Gil, N., & Gelis, J. F. (2018). Ampliar la participación democrática del alumnado en los centros educativos¿ Es posible?. Voces de la Educación, 3-10.

This paper discusses the application of the framework of critical literacies developed by the research partners on the EU-funded ‘Critical ChangeLab: Democracy Meets Arts’ project (hereafter ‘Critical ChangeLab’) in educational settings in Ireland. Critical ChangeLabs respond to calls to reinvent and reinvigorate creative democracy in the everyday lives of young people (Dewey, 1939; Bernstein, 2000). They are a scalable model of democratic pedagogy for use in formal and non-formal learning environments, which use transdisciplinary arts and science practices (Mejias et al., 2021) to engage youth (11-18 years) with issues across human and more-than-human relationships. Using the first iteration of Critical ChangeLabs in Ireland as a case study, the paper will examine the iways that critical literacies can facilitate transformative learning processes that support individuals' civic engagement across a range of settings. The framework of critical literacies defines dimensions of learning required to develop these critical literacies in participants. It was created following a systematic literature review of critical literacies frameworks developed and used in educational settings with young people. At a time when post-truth paradigms influence the ways in which education is understood and enacted critical literacies are more important and relevant than ever (Pandya et al., 2022). The first iteration of the Critical ChangeLab in Ireland took place in an informal education (youth work) setting with young people (11-18 years) experiencing disadvantage. The Critical ChangeLab used participatory, creative and critical approaches to facilitate exploration of ideas about community and identity. This was particularly pertinent as the young people live in an urban area undergrowing rapid demographic expansion and change. The Critical ChangeLab incorporated historical and cultural perspectives, and the young people created artistic interventions around concepts of inclusion and belonging. Our paper will discuss how the application of the framework of critical literacies in a Critical ChangeLab setting strengthens democratic society through the promotion of the competences identified in the Council of Europe Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture (2016).  Our analysis underscores the significant potential of applying our critical literacies framework in Critical ChangeLab settings to foster transformative agency, encourage youth ownership of everyday democracy, and imagining alternative futures. As the Critical ChangeLab is a scalable model, application of the framework has the potential to strengthen democracy education on issues of global significance and democratic process in any formal or non-formal learning environments.

Bernstein, Richard J. “Creative Democracy: The Task Still Before Us”. American Journal of Theology & Philosophy, 21, no. 3, September 2000, pp. 215-228. DOI: 27944123. Dewey, John (1939). “Creative Democracy: The Task Before Us”. John Dewey and the Promise of America, Progressive Education Booklet, no. 14, 1939, American Education Press. Mejias, Sam, Naomi Thompson, Raul Mishael, Mark Rosin, Elisabeth Soep, Kylie Peppler, Joseph Roche, Jen Wong, Mairéad Hurley, Philip Bell, Bronwyn Bevan. “The trouble with STEAM and why we use it anyway”. Science Education, 105, no. 2, March 2021, pp. 209-231. DOI: 10.1002/sce.21605. Pandya, Jessica Zacher, Raul Alberto Mora, Jennifer Helen Alford, Noah Asher Golden, Robert Santiago de Roock (eds.). The Handbook of Critical Literacies. Routledge: London, 2022. Reference Framework for Competences of Democratic Culture”. Council of Europe, 2016.

The purpose of this systematic review was to provide an overview of research on the question: Which teaching practices promote students' democracy learning? We utilized a rigorous approach to thoroughly survey the literature and report research findings. The studies chosen focused on teaching practices with the explicit goal of enhancing students' democracy learning in school. Our review encompasses both intervention studies, which investigate the hypothesized causal relationship between specific teaching methods and students’ democracy learning, and correlational studies, which examine the connection between the classroom environment and students’ democracy learning. The studies indicate that teaching methods involving a high degree of student participation, such as discussions, group work, role-playing simulations, and student involvement in decision-making, effectively foster democracy learning. Furthermore, the studies suggest that an open and positive classroom environment, and teacher engagement, leadership and attitudes, are crucial factors in promoting students’ democracy learning.

As democracy is born anew with each generation (Dewey, 1916), an ongoing debate revolves around the type of citizens we aspire to create through education—whether they be reproducers of societal norms, future voters, responsible community members, or active participants in democratic processes. Within education systems of many countries, there exists a lack of consensus, leading to the coexistence of different and at times conflicting discourses on citizenship (Bickmore, 2014). Over the past decade, discussions within education have particularly reflected the tension between deliberative and agonistic democracy, with representatives advocating for different visions (Hanson & Howe; 2011; Ruitenberg, 2009; Tryggvason, 2018;). Agonistic democracy, proposed by Chantal Mouffe in 2000, stands out as an alternative that recognizes conflict as a typical and potentially beneficial aspect of democratic life. In response to global polarization and in deliberate contrast to deliberative democracy, agonistic democracy views conflict not as a threat but as a dynamic force propelling democracy forward. This approach is especially important in the contemporary landscape marked by widespread alienation and disconnection from democratic processes, emphasizing the pressing need to confront political challenges, particularly the surge in populist rhetoric (Tryggvason, 2018).Embracing a perspective that considers conflicts as opportunities for cultivating democratic citizenship within schools has the potential to bring about transformative changes in student participation and the learning process (Ruitenberg, 2009).

In Lithuania, the curriculum for democratic citizenship education was established three decades ago, following the country's regaining of independence after nearly half a century under totalitarian rule. From a study conducted by the Civil Society Institute a decade ago (Žiliukaitė, Stonkuvienė, Šupa, Petronytė, 2012), which argued that there is a need for a change in the approach to civic education (that it is not only about knowledge, but more about values, relationships, way of thinking, and the relationship between the educator and the student), we can assume (since no other studies have been done on this approach to civic education), that in the practice of education in Lithuania, the processes are moving slower than the global tendencies (Haste, Chopra, 2020). Given the absence of a robust tradition of democratic education, the post-independence era saw the implementation of foreign practices from older, more mature democracies without meticulous consideration. The educational system did not necessarily adopt a singular approach or democratic theory for integration into school life (NVO Švietimo tinklas, 2017). Therefore, this study will seek to find out how democratic citizenship education in Lithuania relates to the agonistic democracy approach.

Despite limited research into citizenship education in Lithuania, available insights suggest a notable shift, especially around 2004 during the country's accession to the European Union. In the present landscape influenced by the conflict in Ukraine, themes of patriotic education and military training gain prominence in public citizenship education. The crucial inquiry centers on the current state of democratic citizenship in Lithuania, seeking to discern inklings of agonistic democracy within the nation's citizenship education policies and practices. This study, by analyzing the democratic citizenship education landscape in Lithuania through the prism of agonism, aspires to offer a fresh outlook and unveil previously overlooked opportunities for enhancing democratic citizenship education in this country.

The focus of this study is on a mandatory course in Chinese higher education – ideological-political education (IPE) – and the widespread political slogans known as the Core Socialist Values (CSVs), promoted by the Chinese authorities (Gow, 2017; MoE, 2018). This study of IPE in Chinese higher education explores how CSVs are introduced in this mandatory course. It draws on the literature of democratic citizenship education and applies Gramscian concepts to the Chinese context (Adamson, 2014; Gramsci, 1971). While previous Chinese literature has extensively suggested the successful implementation of CSVs in IPE classes, there is a lack of comprehensive empirical studies in English (Vickers & Zeng, 2017). This investigation of CSVs in IPE includes analysing policy documents, and official textbooks, observing IPE classes in four universities, and conducting interviews with 40 IPE students and lecturers. The collected data is analysed to reveal the ways in which the Chinese authorities employ political indoctrination and political socialisation (Greenstein, 1970; Merry, 2005) to develop hegemonic common-sense understandings within Chinese civil society.

The study provides substantial evidence of the implementation of commitment to CSVs. It investigates the top-level design of policies from the governmental perspective, and how CSVs and official requests are enacted in IPE classrooms in detail. It also includes specific evaluations and assessments from IPE lecturers and students. The study reveals that the authorities are eager to establish a new form of common sense, leading people to believe that CSVs are essential values for the Chinese people. This fosters a cultural hegemony that reinforces the power of the authorities’ integral state (Gramsci, 1971). To fulfil official requests, lecturers also employ various distinctive strategies in terms of introducing and promoting CSVs, which can be categorised into three types of teaching approaches: 1) Confirmist, 2) Compromiser, and 3) Innovator. Additionally, both lecturers and students recognise the functions and aims of CSVs in education, but they also express reservations and offer suggestions for improvement in various perspectives, including policy-making, teaching practices, and assessment. Notably, these perspectives are often considered abstract, ambiguous, and lacking specificity.

IPE promotes CSVs as the standards that ensure the political and social stability necessary for China’s economic development and social evolution. This reinforces the ruling party’s perceived legitimacy and justifies civil society's compliance with political control. This educational model is distinctively Chinese and contrasts with more liberal models prevalent elsewhere in the world for building cultural hegemony. IPE was an important agent created by the authorities within political society, intended to consolidate the authorities’ dominance through training and education within civil society. The evolution of the IPE curriculum consistently reflects crucial socio-political changes within Chinese authorities since 1949. In a broader sense, IPE was established and modified for political purposes within political society, with its detailed curriculum and practices specifically reflecting this form of education within civil society. Changes to IPE might encompass pedagogical goals like citizenship awareness and moral education, but it is primarily oriented towards the ideological and political purposes of political society.

Although the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) officially ended in 1995 with the Dayton Peace Agreement, it is fair to say that the post-war era is still characterized by various forms of divisions in political, economic, and public life. This profound division in BiH is also clearly visible at all levels of education in the country, with three independent educational systems containing several additional sub-systems in different geographical areas (i.e., cantons). These three educational programs roughly correspond to existing ethnic divisions that dominate the political, economic, and social situation in BiH (i.e. Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnjak ethnicity).

There currently exists extensive literature describing various dilemmas associated with history narration in BiH, ranging from traditional educational textbooks (Šimic, 2020), empirical analysis (Pilvi, 2007), to various cinematic representations of the war (Abazovic, 2014). The nearly unanimous agreement in contemporary literature is that the content of these textbooks provides grounds for inappropriate educational practices that might negatively influence free thinking and the construction of a healthy, functional society. Thus, educational programs in BiH are consistently evaluated as being instrumental in the creation of strong and uniform ethnic nationalism and ethnic politics (Pilvi, 2007; Baranovic, 2001).

Considering the widely accepted idea that education represents one of the most important building blocks of a functional society and civic behavior (Pilvi, 2009), a comprehensive analysis of textbooks in BiH would be of paramount importance if one aims to induce political and cultural changes supporting progress, stability, and development. Furthermore, the existence of different historical narratives might represent a challenge to peace-making processes in the country and have a negative impact on the development of democratic attitudes in young people who are expected to participate in decision-making processes in the future (Pilvi, 2009).

However, the conclusions in the previous research, with some exceptions (e.g., Pilvi, 2007), are predominantly based on sheer theoretical reasoning and, more importantly, on relatively narrow data material concerning the content of the history books used as a curriculum on various levels of youth education in BiH. As such, there is very little work that makes the connection between concrete, broad, and transparent empirical material on one side and the conclusions reached on the presented material on the other. Thus, the majority of the previous research on this topic fails to (1) nuance the differences between the three ethnically based educational programs, (2) include multiple educational levels (i.e. both elementary and secondary education), and, more importantly, (3) offer transparent data to support the claims. Based on previous research (Pilvi, 2007), it is expected that all books contain the two main categories, namely “us” vs. “them.” However, there presently exists very little knowledge concerning the nuances between these two categories, the tools used to achieve such separation, and the discursive tone used to promote the idea of ethnic division.

With this knowledge gap in mind, the aim of the present study is to examine the content of a relatively large quantity of various textbooks used in BiH, ranging from the 8th and 9th grades of elementary school up to the 4th grade of high school, including all three educational programs. The empirical point of departure in this paper is based on exploratory content analysis and the search for dominant and common codes that, in an aggregated manner, tend to form central themes in these books. Thus, the main aim is to identify and analyze the central themes that underlie “us” versus “them” divisions and consequently make recommendations for future history textbooks that increase the chance of shared perspectives among young future generations.

Networks hold a meeting during ECER. All interested are welcome.

Democracies all over the world are currently facing a variety of challenges. The rise of right-wing populist actors, particularly in Europe, and the associated erosion of democratic electorates or the establishment of autocratic systems, such as in Russia or China, reveal a glaring problem: the required diffuse support for democratic systems, as analysed by Easton (1975), is not as strong as assumed. In view of the strengthening of authoritarian regimes, e.g. through the election of Donald Trump, even Francis Fukuyama (2019) had to acknowledge that the triumph of liberal democracy is not a law of nature.

In order to ensure the stability of democracies and to strengthen the acceptance of democratic values and human rights worldwide, democracies must address the question of how they manage to anchor democratic beliefs among their citizens. Friedrich Ebert's guiding principle "Democracy needs democrats" seems more relevant than ever. The central key to achieving this lies in the political education of children and young people. Research on political socialization has long focused primarily on adolescence and young adulthood as the formative phase for the development of political attitudes and identity (Abendschön, 2022). Even if political socialization can be understood as a lifelong process (Rippl, 2015), current research suggests that the foundation for the internalization of political and democratic beliefs and values is laid in childhood (Abendschön, 2010). While there are large-scale studies on the political attitudes of young people, such as the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2022 (Abs et al., 2024), there are still significant research gaps with regard to political socialization processes in childhood (Becher & Gläser, 2019). For example, it is still "open and controversial which orientations and skills are socialized at what time and in what way." (Abendschön, 2022, p. 644)

Three major research gaps will be addressed and further closed during this symposium. The first paper, entitled "Democratic values as basic values of children. An analysis of the correlation for children in primary school." sheds light on the connection between basic values according to Schwartz's model and democratic values in children in elementary school. Particularly in adulthood, interesting results were found on the relationship between political values and the basic values of individuals (Schwartz et al., 2014). However, democratic values and beliefs were not considered, nor was this relationship investigated for children. The creation of synergies between the research areas of basic values and democratic values in childhood seems particularly promising, also for the design of political education programs in childhood.

The second article entitled "Politics is only for men! - The impact of gender role attitudes on children's political interest, political knowledge, and political efficacy", focuses on possible influences of gender role attitudes on the political socialization of children at the beginning of lower secondary school. A large number of studies have repeatedly confirmed differences between girls and boys in terms of their political attitudes. Against this background, the study asks whether and how gender roles have an influence on children's political interest, knowledge and self-efficacy.

The third article entitled "Implementing a short-term human rights education program in Greek primary schools to promote adjustment" links the empirical analysis of political socialization processes in childhood with practical implementation. An intervention on human rights values in childhood was carried out and empirically monitored in Greek elementary schools. This not only strengthened the children's political knowledge of democratic and human rights values, but also improved their emotional feelings and social behaviour. The results illustrate that human rights education not only has a positive effect on children's values, but also on their social perception and behaviour within the school.

The stability of democracies depends to a large extent on the development of democratic attitudes and values among their citizens (Easton, 1975). Childhood has emerged as an important phase in socialisation research (Döring, 2018). Although there are initial findings that democratic values and attitudes can already be observed in children, there is still a lack of empirical evidence in this regard (Abendschön, 2010). The research field of basic values has been researched more extensively in relation to childhood, but not with regard to a possible connection between basic values and democratic values. In order to further close this research gap, more than 400 children in third and fourth grade in North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany were asked about their basic values and their democratic values and attitudes. The basic values were recorded using the Picture-based Value Survey for Children (PBVS-C; Döring et al., 2010) based on Schwartz's (2012) value model. In the case of democratic values, the focus was placed on five dimensions: Preference for democratic decision-making, equality, freedom of expression, acceptance of rules and renunciation of violence. Two central questions are addressed with the present study: 1. To what extent can correlations between basic values and democratic values and attitudes already be found in children? 2. Are there any indications of explanations for possible differences between the children with regard to their preference for democratic values? The results indicate that children from the third grade onwards already have quite complex basic democratic values. They are already able to differentiate between different situations with regard to their evaluation of decision preferences. Furthermore, significant correlations can be identified between basic values and democratic values. In particular, the higher-order value dimensions "self-enhancement" and "self-transcendence" appear to play an important role in the preference for democratic values. Furthermore, there is a significant effect of the socioeconomic status. In addition, there are indications of possible influencing factors on children's democratic values. Both the person of the teacher and the opportunities for participation at class level seem to play an important role.

Abendschön, S. (2010). Die Anfänge demokratischer Bürgerschaft: Sozialisation politischer und demokratischer Werte und Normen im jungen Kindesalter (1. Aufl). Nomos. Döring, A. K. (2018). Measuring children’s values from around the world: Cross-cultural adaptations of the Picture-Based Value Survey for Children (PBVS-C). Studia Psychologica, 18(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.21697/sp.2018.18.1.03 Döring, A. K., Blauensteiner, A., Aryus, K., Drögekamp, L., & Bilsky, W. (2010). Assessing Values at an Early Age: The Picture-Based Value Survey for Children (PBVS–C). Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(5), 439–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.497423 Easton, D. (1975). A Re-Assessment of the Concept of Political Support. British Journal of Political Science, 5(4), 435–457. Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116

Men and boys are more interested in politics (Fraile and Sánchez‐Vítores 2020), know more about politics (Abendschön and Tausendpfund 2017; Oberle 2012; Vollmar 2007) and have a greater political efficacy (Gidengil et al. 2008) than women and girls. This well-researched Gender Gap is as alarming and requires further investigation. One explanatory approach is provided by socialization theory, according to which boys and girls internalize different ideas about politics and their gender-specific roles within the political system during socialization processes (Bos et al. 2022). In line with their environmental influences, they familiarize themselves with politics as a male-dominated sphere and adapt their perspective accordingly. Following on from this approach it can be assumed that political gender role attitudes are crucial for the development of political interest, political knowledge, and political efficacy. This article therefore aims to investigate the relationships between these concepts, which are particularly relevant in democratic societies. The underlying research question is: Do political gender role attitudes have an impact on political interest, political knowledge, and political efficacy and, if so, how? Particular attention is paid to possible differences between girls and boys and between children with and without a migration background. To take into account the complexity of the relationships, the analysis is based on structural equation models. This method allows the simultaneous consideration of several directed relationships (Aichholzer 2017, p. 9) and is therefore appropriate for addressing the research question. The data used originates from our research project on political socialization, in which almost 1,300 fifth-graders were surveyed. The data collection was conducted between October 2022 and February 2023 in a total of 20 schools using a specially developed paper questionnaire adapted to the age of the respondents. First results indicate that there are complex but interesting relationships between the concepts investigated. As suspected, the gender role attitudes have an effect, which, however, must be considered in a differentiated way regarding both the dependent variable and the comparison groups.

References Abendschön, Simone, and Markus Tausendpfund. 2017. Political Knowledge of Children and the Role of Sociostructural Factors. American Behavioral Scientist 61:204–221. Aichholzer, Julian. 2017. Einführung in lineare Strukturgleichungsmodelle mit Stata. Wiesbaden, Heidelberg: Springer VS. Bos, Angela L., Jill S. Greenlee, Mirya R. Holman, Zoe M. Oxley and Celeste J. Lay. 2022. This One’s for the Boys: How Gendered Political Socialization Limits Girls’ Political Ambition and Interest. American Political Science Review 116:484–501. Fraile, Marta, and Irene Sánchez‐Vítores. 2020. Tracing the Gender Gap in Political Interest Over the Life Span: A Panel Analysis. Political Psychology 41:89–106. Gidengil, Elisabeth, Janine Giles and Melanee Thomas. 2008. The Gender Gap in Self-Perceived Understanding of Politics in Canada and the United States. Politics & Gender 4:535–561. Oberle, Monika, ed. 2012. Politisches Wissen über die Europäische Union. Subjektive und objektive Politikkenntnisse von Jugendlichen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Vollmar, Meike. 2007. Politisches Wissen bei Kindern - nicht einfach nur ja oder nein. In Kinder und Politik. Politische Einstellungen von jungen Kindern im ersten Grundschuljahr, eds. Jan W. van Deth, Simone Abendschön, Julia Rathke and Meike Vollmar, 119-160. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

The active implementation of human rights at school seems to foster an inclusive environment based on democratic values (e.g., Bajaj et al., 2016. Stavrou et al., 2023). Studies show that the educational value of human rights is gradually recognized by both students and teachers shifting from traditional to more participatory and cooperative teaching methods. Although human rights education has different forms, there is currently a general research interest on its transformative nature (Bajaj, 2017. Tibbitts, 2017). Transformative human rights education describes learning about, through and for human rights. However, the evidence demonstrating its effectiveness at school is scarce (Bajaj, 2017). For example, little is known about its effect on children’s adjustment at school, which reflects their interpersonal relationships, school perceptions, school attitudes, and feelings at school (Vassilopoulos et al., 2018). Thus, the aim of the present study was the evaluation of a 12-session, short-term, school-based transformative human rights education program on children’s knowledge of human rights and their school adjustment. Specifically, it investigated whether the children’s perceptions of human rights, empathy, school liking, school avoidance and loneliness would change after the implementation of the program. Sample selection was based on the availability of the teachers who contributed as group facilitators. Research participants were 340 Greek primary school students, who were allocated in the intervention group (n = 187) and the control group (n = 153). Intervention group members participated in 12 weekly human rights education sessions with activities from the Compasito manual on human rights (Flowers et al., 2007). Control group members followed the official school curriculum and did not participate in any human rights education program. Research data were collected through a written questionnaire, measuring knowledge of human rights, interpersonal relationships with their teacher and peers, empathy, and perceptions, attitudes, and feelings towards school. The questionnaire was administered to all participants one week prior and one week after the termination of the program. A follow-up measurement was conducted four months later. Results were encouraging in the intervention group, showing an increase in the members’ knowledge of rights, emotional support from their teacher and peers, and school liking, as well as a decrease in school avoidance, and loneliness. On the other hand, control group members did not report any improvement over time. Human rights education seems beneficial to children and schools, enhancing adjustment through strong human bonds and engaging school environments. Benefits and further human rights education possibilities are discussed.

Bajaj, M. (Ed.). (2017). Human rights education: Theory, research, praxis. University of Pennsylvania Press. Bajaj, M., Cislaghi, B., & Mackie, G. (2016). Advancing transformative human rights education: Appendix D to the report of the global citizenship commission. Open Book Publishers. Flowers, N., Santos, M. E. B., & Szelényi, Z. (2007). Compasito: Manual on human rights education for children. Council of Europe. Stavrou, V., Brouzos, A., Vassilopoulos, S. P., & Koutras, V. (2023). Evaluating the impact of human rights education on the adjustment of Greek primary school students. International Journal of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12937 Tibbitts, F. L. (2017). Revisiting ‘emerging models of human rights education’. International Journal of Human Rights Education, 1(1), 2. Vassilopoulos, S. P., Brouzos, A., & Koutsianou, A. (2018). Outcomes of a universal social and emotional learning (SEL) group for facilitating first-grade students' school adjustment. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 6(3), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2017.1327830