25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper
Defining Rights Education for Children and Young People
Jenna Gillett-Swan1, Chiara Carla Montà2, Rachel Shanks3
1Queensland University of Technology, Australia; 2University of Milan, Italy; 3University of Aberdeen, Scotland
Presenting Author: Gillett-Swan, Jenna;
Montà, Chiara Carla
Rights Education for children and young people is an important but understudied area within educational children’s rights research both in Europe and elsewhere. The United Nations connects rights to education in multiple international human rights treaties such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 26, United Nations 1948), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 42, United Nations 1989) and the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training (2011). Even so, there remains variability in the framing and substance of rights education for children and young people in its various configurations such as Human Rights Education (HRE), Children’s Human Rights Education (CHRE), and Children’s Rights Education (CRE). For those working in the field of rights education, there is a broad understanding of what it encompasses and why it is significant, but there do not appear to be any agreed definitions of subtypes of rights education aside from HRE (but even this is contested). When there is not a clear and agreed definition for terms used to refer to different forms of rights education or when the boundaries between the different types of rights education are unclear, those seeking to engage with the concepts cannot be sure they are talking about the same thing when planning, delivering, learning, and researching different aspects of rights education. The lack of conceptual clarity makes it difficult to be certain that what is being delivered within a 'rights education’ framework fulfils its obligations.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedA review using systematic processes was conducted to identify the definitions and different configurations of rights education for children used in peer reviewed academic literature. The search was conducted in the EBSCO and ProQuest search engines and resulted in 16 databases yielding 129 records. Application of exclusion criteria resulted in 36 publications for full text review. Each of these records incorporated some form of a definition or description of what the author(s) meant by the rights education term(s) used. An assessment was made of each definition against H. W. B. Joseph’s (1916/1967) criteria for defining terms. This information was used to analyse the characteristics of the definitions to understand how rights education for children has been defined in existing academic research.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsFindings confirm that few papers incorporate a specific definition of rights education for children or its subtypes such as children’s rights education (CRE) or children’s human rights education (CHRE). Despite wide recognition of the connection between rights and education, and education and rights, terms related to rights education are used inconsistently, conflated, and lack an agreed definition. The analyses conducted in this paper point to the need for definitional clarity for each of the terms CRE, CHRE, and Rights Education for Children. This will be of benefit to educational researchers in Europe and beyond.
ReferencesBajaj, M. (2011). Human rights education: Ideology, location, and approaches. Human Rights Quarterly, 481-508.
Isenstrom, L. & Quennerstedt, A. (2020). Governing rationalities in children’s human rights education, International Journal of Educational Research, 100, 1-13.
Jerome, L. (2016). Interpreting Children’s Rights Education: Three perspectives and three roles for teachers. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 15(2), 143-156.
Joseph, H.W.B. (1916/1967). An Introduction to Logic (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Quennerstedt, A. (2022a). Children’s and young people’s human rights education in school: Cardinal complications and a middle ground, Journal of Human Rights, 21(4), 383-398.
Struthers, A. E. (2015). Human rights education: Educating about, through and for human rights. The International Journal of Human Rights, 19(1), 53-73.
United Nations General Assembly (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations (217 [III] A). Paris.
United Nations (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577, 20 November 1989. UN General Assembly.
United Nations (2011). Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training (UNDHRET), adopted by the General Assembly, Resolution 66/137, A/RES/66/137, 19 December 2011.
25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper
Children’s Human Rights Education for Children in School: Conceptual Foundations
Zoe Moody1,2, Lotem Perry-Hazan3, Darbellay Frédéric1
1Centre for Children's Rights Studies University of Geneva, Switzerland; 2University of Teacher Education Valais, Switzerland; 3Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Israel
Presenting Author: Moody, Zoe;
Perry-Hazan, Lotem
The study of human rights education (HRE) has emerged in recent years, and many scholars have addressed the various definitions, pedagogical approaches, contents, and limits of such education (for an overview, see Kayum Ahmed, 2021). However, fewer HRE studies have paid specific attention to the learning processes of the schooled child as a learner of HRE. This gap in the research is surprising given the prevalence of ‘child-centred’ approaches in sociological and educational discourse (e.g., Lerkkanen et al., 2016; Parker, 2018; Power et al., 2019). The current study aims to conceptualise children’s rights learning processes in school. It focuses on rights education that explicitly concerns children’s rights. More specifically, it aims to answer the following question: What characterises rights learning processes in school when children are the learners and children’s rights is the content?
The analysis presents various features of children’s human rights education (hereafter CHRE) learning processes in school, organised into three dimensions. The first dimension highlights the individual child, whose learning is influenced by developmental and socio-cultural factors (see Vygotsky, 1978), and considers child-centred aims, content, and approaches (see Lundy & Martínez-Sainz, 2018). The second dimension accentuates the prominent role of interactions and relationships in CHRE. It is embedded in the daily interactive experiences that comprise CHRE in schools and CHRE’s underscoring of children’s participation rights and agency, which requires adults to share power (see Author 2, 2020). The third dimension emphasizes the role of the school environment as the multidimensional space where CHRE learning processes transpire (see Isenström & Quennerstedt, 2020). This dimension stresses the importance of a whole-school approach for effective CHRE (see Author 1, 2020) and the challenges that may constrain children’s ability to make sense of CHRE in school in light of gaps between CHRE aims and more traditional institutional practices (see Osler & Starkey, 2010; Author 2, 2021). Whereas these three dimensions are interconnected, the analysis aims to discern the distinctive features of each to promote a comprehensive understanding of the CHRE learning processes in school.
The prominent link between the different features of CHRE learning in school is student participation rights (UNCRC, Article 12). These rights are central in all the dimensions we conceptualised: developing child-centred content, aims, and approaches for CHRE requires participatory pedagogy, relational learning of CHRE implies reducing power gaps between educators and students, and whole-school CHRE programmes should provide children with opportunities to participate in organisational decision making. This insight aligns with the fundamental role of participation rights in the interpretation and implementation of all the other rights in the UNCRC (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2009; Hanson & Lundy, 2017). It also underscores the significance of analysing CHRE as a concept embedded in the children’s rights discourse, which partly overlaps with HRE but also has distinct features.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis conceptual paper builds upon an extensive review of literature focusing on children’s human rights education for children in school. The scant literature specifically addressing HRE for children about children’s rights is analysed and critically reviewed, as well as the broader literature focusing on HRE for children. In a complementary manner, other relevant works relating to children’s rights and learning in school are drawn upon. The study is carried out as a review of literature, with the objective of “selectively discussing the literature on a particular topic to make the argument that a new study will make a new or important contribution to knowledge” (Siddaway et al., 2019, p. 750-751). Thus, the study does not aim to undertake a systematic literature review; rather, its approach leans towards Grant and Booth’s description of critical reviews that seek “to identify most significant items in the field” and provide a “conceptual contribution to embody existing or derive new theory” (2009, p. 94).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsWhereas some features of CHRE learning in school have been addressed in various studies, the current study is the first scholarly endeavour to integrate them into a conceptual framework, showing how CHRE should be translated into pedagogical language and practices and adapted to children as learners in school. This framework is anchored in children’s rights and HRE narratives. It also relies on robust literature elucidating how children learn and should learn, including developmental studies, prominent educational theories, school climate, and school administration research. Thus, the conceptual framework we offer may foster the development of effective whole-school approaches to CHRE, which are intertwined with various learning processes. It may also help educators make sense of CHRE, link it to their professional foundation of pedagogical knowledge, and ultimately improve their practices.
ReferencesAuthor 1 (2020).
Author 2 (2020).
Author 2 (2021).
Bajaj, M. (2017). Human rights education: Theory, research and praxis. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26, 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Hanson, K., & Lundy, L. (2017). Does exactly what it says on the tin?: A critical analysis and alternative conceptualisation of the so-called “general principles” of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 25(2), 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718182-02502011
Isenström, L., & Quennerstedt, A. (2020). Governing rationalities in children’s human rights education. International Journal of Educational Research, 100, 101546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101546
Kayum Ahmed, A. (2021). Human rights education. Oxford Research Encyclopaedias, Education. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1573
Lerkkanen, M. K., Kiuru, N., Pakarinen, E., Poikkeus, A. M., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Siekkinen, M., & Nurmi, J. E. (2016). Child-centered versus teacher-directed teaching practices: Associations with the development of academic skills in the first grade at school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.12.023
Lundy, L., & Martínez Sainz, G. (2018). The role of law and legal knowledge for a transformative human rights education: Addressing violations of children’s rights in formal education. Human Rights Education Review, 1(2), 04–24. https://doi.org/10.7577/hrer.2560
Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2010). Teachers and Human Rights Education. Trentham Books.
Parker, W. C. (2018). Human rights education’s curriculum problem. Human Rights Education Review, 1(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.7577/hrer.2450
Power, S., Rhys, M., Taylor, C., & Waldron, S. (2019). How child‐centred education favours some learners more than others. Review of Education, 7(3), 570–592. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3137
Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M., & Hedges, L. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 747–770. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803
UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2009). General comment No. 12: The right of the child to be heard. UN Doc. CRC/C/GC/12.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper
The Elusive Content of Children’s Human Rights Education
Ann Quennerstedt1, Katarzyna Gawlicz2, Guadalupe Francia3, Dorota Duda2
1Örebro University, Sweden; 2University of Lower Silesia, Poland; 3University of Gävle, Sweden
Presenting Author: Quennerstedt, Ann;
Gawlicz, Katarzyna
What are teachers supposed to teach and students supposed to learn about human rights? The international community, nations, and teachers widely support the idea that children and young people should receive human rights education in school. Several studies have, however, shown that alongside this strong support, there is widespread uncertainty about what this education should consist of – or phrased in another way: what the educational content of children’s human rights education should be (Parker, 2018‚ Quennerstedt, 2022). This paper maps and analyses the educational content in children’s human rights education examined or advocated for in previous research.
There is currently no established term for human rights education given to children and young people. In this research, children’s human rights education – CHRE – is used inclusively for other terms for educating children about rights. The overarching aim of human rights education is to promote respect for and observance of human rights, and to empower people to contribute to the building of a universal culture of human rights (UN, 2011). The 2011 UN Declaration for Human Rights Education and Training launched the now-established tripartite definition and conceptualisation of HRE. It is to include education
- about human rights: knowledge and understanding about the norms, principles and values, and the mechanisms for their protection,
- through human rights: teaching and learning in a rights-respecting way, and
- for human rights: empowering learners to enjoy and exercise their rights and respect and uphold the rights of others.
The UN conceptualisation emphasises that what is learned and how this learning occurs are vital and intertwined aspects of HRE – learning about rights requires certain educational surrounding and relations.
When the UN’s definition is to be translated to concrete education, a content selection must be made – it is not possible to teach everything. The selection of educational content is not a representation of truth but is always normative, resting on the culture and views of a particular society (Willberg, 2015). What knowledge students should be able to acquire at school therefore needs to be considered by each society (Young, 2013). In many countries, there is a division of labour between the state and the teachers concerning the selection and delivery of educational content: the state prescribes the main topics of instruction (an intended curriculum), while the planning and enactment of the concrete teaching are left to the teacher (the enacted curriculum). Content and pedagogy are thus drawn apart. This may be problematic in the case of CHRE, with its’ bearing idea of content and pedagogy as a whole.
The theoretical backdrop to our analysis is two perspectives on whether content and pedagogy are separable. Traditional curriculum theory assumes that this separation is possible and also needed to ensure that qualified knowledge content is maintained when disciplinary knowledge is transformed into school knowledge (Young, 2013). Didaktik theorising, on the other hand, emphasises a close connection between subject matter and subject meaning and argues that the meaning does not reside in the matter but emerges in the teaching situation. Therefore, content and pedagogy are entangled (Hopmann, 2007). Awareness and consideration of these two countering views form the analytical gaze in this study.
The analysis presented in this paper demonstrates how education about, through and for human rights appear in research publications as intended, enacted or suggested educational content of children’s human rights education.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study analysed research publications that address the educational content of CHRE. 140 articles published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals in English, French, Polish, Spanish or Swedish during 2013-2022 were identified as potential publications. In two screening rounds, the publications were checked for the inclusion criterion that they must more than very marginally address educational content in children’s human rights education. After these screenings, 71 publications were selected for further analysis.
A coding scheme was constructed to support the analysis. To identify educational content of different types, we drew on the analytical distinctions made in earlier curriculum analyses between the curriculum that precedes concrete education (Porter & Smithson, 2001; Seitz & Hill, 2021) and the one that takes form in the educational situation (Pilz et al., 2014). We labelled two types of content intended content (i.e. formulated by educational authorities or educators) and enacted content (i.e undertaken in practice). As we had noticed in the selection process that the primary endeavour of many publications is to argue for specific content, we added a third type: suggested content. The UN tripartite education about-through-for rights was then used to form analytical questions for each content type.
The 71 publications underwent full reading and coding. During this, another 13 publications were excluded, leaving the final number of analysed publications at 58. Of these, 45 are published in English, 5 in Polish, 2 in Spanish, and 2 in Swedish.
The data underwent deeper analysis to identify and describe content patterns in the following analytical step. Drawing on thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2019; Peel, 2020), we developed and undertook a four-step condensation and abstraction analysis as follows:
1. Meaningful units of data were identified and noted.
2. The meaning units were condensed into unit categories.
3. Themes were generated by scrutinising the unit categories. Some categories became themes, while others were merged to form a theme.
4. The themes were named and described.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe analysis demonstrated that enacted content was slightly more addressed (26 articles) than intended and suggested content (19 and 18 articles respectively).
Educational content aiming towards the education of children about rights was addressed most in all three types of content. Content seen as vital to educate the child about rights often included:
- philosophy of rights, concepts, discourses and values;
- main documents and organisations;
- historical aspects of human rights;
- rights of specific groups (children, ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people or workers in the Global South),
- rights violations.
Legal knowledge that would enable students to identify and reflect on rights violations was found only as suggested content.
Educational content aiming towards education through rights was mainly presented as activities or situations that give rise to two kinds of rights-educating experiences:
- experiencing respect for one’s rights – e.g through a rights-respecting school atmosphere or participating in decision-making,
- experiencing rights violations – either one’s own or other people’s.
Experiencing respect for rights as a way to learn through human rights was found in all three content types, while experiencing rights violations was only visible as enacted and suggested content, never as intended.
Educational content aiming towards education for rights often focuses on activities that develop children’s capacity to take action for human rights. This included ability to
- yourself respect and promote human rights,
- act against rights violations in one’s own environment or elsewhere,
- seek appropriate legal means.
Also, activities that develop the capacity to cooperate and communicate with others, seek information and engage in discussions about HR were seen as important educational content in the education for rights. Importantly, some articles explicitly presented education for rights as connected with education about rights: knowledge is needed to take informed action to protect rights or address violations.
ReferencesBraun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health, 11(4), 589-597.
Hopmann, S. (2007). Restrained teaching: The common core of Didaktik. European educational research journal, 6(2), 109-124.
Parker, W. C. (2018). Human rights education’s curriculum problem. Human Rights Education Review, 1(1), 05-24.
Pilz, M, Berger, S., & Canning, R. (2014). Pre-vocational education in seven European countries: A comparison of curricular embedding and implementation in schools. European Journal of Educational Research, 3(1), 25-41.
Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. L. (2001). Chapter IV: Are content standards being implemented in the classroom? A methodology and some tentative answers. Teachers College Record, 103(8), 60-80.
Quennerstedt, A. (2022). Children’s and young people’s human rights education in school: cardinal complications and a middle ground. Journal of Human Rights, 21(4), 383-398.
Seitz, P., & Hill, S. L. (2021). Cognition in 21st Century Skills: A Mixed Methods Study. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 13(3), 2232-2252.
United Nations (2011). Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training. General Assembly, Resolution 66/137, A/RES/66/137, 19 December 2011
Willbergh, I. (2015). The problems of ‘competence’and alternatives from the Scandinavian perspective of Bildung. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(3), 334-354.
Young, M. (2013). Overcoming the crisis in curriculum theory: A knowledge-based approach. Journal of curriculum studies, 45(2), 101-118.
|
