Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:30:56 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
04 SES 05 D: Parents Navigating Inclusion: Recognition, Opportunity, and Support in Education
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
04. Inclusive Education
Paper Who Gets to Be a Math Person? Parental and Teacher Mediation of Socioeconomic Inequalities in Mathematics Identity 1: Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Serbia; 2: University of Oslo; 3: Faculty for special education and rehabilitation, University of Belgrade, Serbia Presenting Author:Inequality in mathematics education remains one of the most persistent and socially consequential forms of educational injustice. Large-scale assessments consistently demonstrate substantial achievement gaps in mathematics between students from different socioeconomic backgrounds. These differences appear early, persist throughout schooling, and correspond to several years of learning (Baucal, 2012a; OECD, 2023). Students from low-SES families are disproportionately represented among those performing below basic proficiency levels and are less likely to aspire to mathematics-related educational pathways or careers (Baucal et al., 2006; Baucal, 2012b; Saw et al., 2018). Unequal access to mathematical success therefore affects far more than achievement, shaping students’ possibilities for social mobility, while simultaneously contributing to the reproduction of existing social hierarchies (Jorgensen et al., 2014). Traditional explanations of these disparities have often relied on deficit-based frameworks, attributing lower achievement to individual, familial, or cultural shortcomings thus shifting responsibility away from educational institutions (Gorski, 2012). In contrast, sociocultural and sociopolitical approaches emphasize how mathematics education itself produces and sustains inequality (Lerman, 2000). Drawing on Bourdieu’s theoretical framework, researchers have highlighted the misalignment between the cultural capital of students from low-SES backgrounds and the norms governing school mathematics (Bourdieu, 1984; Zevenbergen, 2005). Mathematics classrooms operate as social fields structured by particular forms of language, interaction, and valued knowledge, privileging students whose dispositions align with these expectations (Jorgensen et al., 2014; Lerman, 2020). In contrast, students from disadvantaged backgrounds often enter school with a “virtual school bag” that lacks the forms of capital most valued in mathematics education, placing them at a structural disadvantage (Thomson, 2002). These structural dynamics shape not only achievement but also students’ relationships with mathematics. The concept of mathematical identity provides a lens for understanding how inequalities are lived and internalized through everyday educational experiences (Grootenboer & Zevenbergen, 2008). Rather than framing disengagement as a lack of ability or motivation, mathematical identity foregrounds issues of belonging, recognition, and meaning within the mathematical community (Daragh, 2013). Students’ self-perceptions as mathematics learners develop through participation in classroom practices and through feedback from significant others, including teachers and parents (Wenger, 1998; Anderson, 2007). For students from low-SES backgrounds, several interrelated processes contribute to a weaker mathematical identity. The gap between school mathematics and their everyday experiences and future life worlds limits opportunities to imagine themselves as participants in mathematics and to perceive the subject as personally relevant (Anderson, 2007; Mićić, 2024). Lower achievement—rooted in structural misalignment rather than ability—reinforces perceptions of incompetence and exclusion, which are further shaped by teachers’ lowered expectations and subtle institutional messages about who belongs in mathematics (Jorgensen et al., 2014). In addition, students from low-SES backgrounds often lack access to models of successful mathematics learners within their families. When parents and other significant adults are not perceived as competent or successful in mathematics and are unable to provide schoolwork assistance, students may implicitly learn that mathematics is “not for people like us,” limiting the development of a positive mathematics identity (Mićić & Jovanović, 2025). Importantly, these processes are likely to vary across educational stages. As mathematical content becomes more complex and instruction shifts from class teachers to subject teachers, both the nature of instructional support and the extent to which parents can effectively support their children’s mathematics learning change, reshaping students’ experiences of recognition, expectations, and belonging in mathematics. Drawing on sociocultural perspectives on mathematics identity, this study examines parental and teacher-related processes as mediators of the relationship between socioeconomic status and students’ mathematics identity, and tests whether these mediating pathways differ between Grades 4 and 5, a transitional period marked by increasing mathematical demands and a shift from classroom-based to subject-based instruction. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study was conducted as part of a larger research project titled “Co-constructing mathematics motivation in primary education - A longitudinal study in six European countries”. The sample for the study comprised 985 Serbian students attending Grade 4 (G4; n = 497, M_age = 10.25) and Grade 5 (G5; n = 488, M_age = 11.22) of primary school, along with one of their parents. Students were recruited from 49 primary schools. The student sample was approximately gender-balanced (52% girls), while participating parents were predominantly mothers. Students and their parents completed several questionnaires developed within the project, from which the measures used in this study were derived. Mathematics identity (MI) was assessed using a six-item scale grounded in symbolic interactionism and sociocultural perspectives (see Radišić et al., 2024). The scale captured students’ self-perceptions as mathematics learners and their perceived recognition as a “math person” by significant others, including family members, peers, and teachers (e.g., “My teacher thinks of me as a math person”). Students’ perceived teacher support consisted of four items (e.g., “Teacher encourages you to think about how you have solved a task and got the answer.”) capturing the extent to which students perceive their mathematics teachers as supportive and responsive to them personally, signaling teachers’ expectations and confidence in students’ mathematical potential. Parental support was assessed using four items (e.g., “My parents support me when I have difficulties learning mathematics”), capturing the extent to which parents provide help and encouragement related to their child’s mathematics learning, including assistance with homework and monitoring of schoolwork. Parental mathematics self-efficacy was assessed using four items (e.g., “Mathematics is easy for me”), capturing parents’ confidence in their own mathematical competence and their perceived ability to engage with and support mathematics-related tasks. Mathematics achievement was measured using a standardized score based on 14 curriculum-aligned TIMSS mathematics tasks, adjusted separately for G4 and G5. Socioeconomic status was operationalized as a composite indicator based on parental education, employment category, and the number of books in the household. All study variables were modeled as standardized factor scores. The measurement models demonstrated good reliability and satisfactory factorial structure across grades. Multi-group structural equation modeling was used to examine parental and teacher-related mediation of the relationship between socioeconomic status and mathematics identity across Grades 4 and 5, controling for mathematics achievement and gender as covariates, with indirect effects estimated via bootstrapping. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The selected model showed acceptable fit to the data (χ²(19) = 43.26, RMSEA = .051, CFI = .954, TLI = .902, SRMR = .040). In both grades, SES was positively associated with parental mathematics self-efficacy (G4: β = .27; G5: β = .28) and parental support for learning mathematics (G4: β = .15; G5: β = .21), suggesting that families with higher socioeconomic resources are more likely to feel confident in mathematics and to engage in mathematics-related support. Parental support was positively related to students’ perceived teacher support (G4: β = .41; G5: β = .26), indicating a spillover between family-based support and students’ experiences of teacher support at school. In G5, but not in G4, parental support (β = .13) and parental mathematics self-efficacy (β = .17) were positively associated with achievement, suggesting that parental involvement and confidence become more consequential as mathematical demands increase. Across grades, students’ MI was predicted by perceived teacher support (G4: β = .27; G5: β = .28), parental mathematics self-efficacy (G4: β = .09; G5: β = .13), and mathematics achievement (G4: β = .28; G5: β = .31), highlighting the combined role of recognition, achievement, and family-based resources in identity formation. Indirect effects analyses showed that SES–MI associations were mediated by parental and teacher-related processes in both grades. In G4, the total indirect effect was modest (.11) and primarily involved parental support and perceived teacher support, with achievement included as a parallel control pathway. In G5, indirect effects were somewhat stronger (.15) and more differentiated, reflecting an expanded role of parental mathematics self-efficacy and perceived teacher support. The results suggest that as schooling progresses, SES shapes mathematics identity increasingly through parental and teacher-related processes, highlighting these processes as key leverage points for reducing socioeconomic inequalities in mathematics education. References Anderson, R. (2007). Being a mathematics learner: Four faces of identity. Mathematics Educator, 17(1),7–14. Baucal, A., Pavlović-Babić, D., & Willms, J. D. (2006). Differential selection into secondary schools in Serbia. Prospects, 36, 539–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-006-9011-9 Baucal, A. (2012a). Ključne kompetencije mladih u Srbiji u PISA 2009 ogledalu (Youth key competences in Serbia, PISA 2009 in mirror). Institute for psychology, Faculty of Phylosophy and SIPRU, Belgrade. Baucal, A. (2012b). Uticaj socio-ekonomskog statusa učenika na obrazovna postignuća: direktni i indirektni uticaji. Primenjena psihologija, 5(1), 5-24. DOI: 10.19090/pp.2012.1.5-24 Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. Harvard University Press. Gorski, P. C. (2012). Perceiving the Problem of Poverty and Schooling:Deconstructing the Class Stereotypes that Mis-Shape Education Practice and Policy. Equity & Excellence in Education, 45(2), 302-319. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2012.666934 Grootenboer, P., & Zevenbergen, R. (2008). Identity as a lens to understand learning mathematics: Developing a model. Navigating currents and charting directions, 1, 243-250. Lerman, S. (2000). The social turn in mathematics education research. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning, (pp. 19-44). Ablex. Lerman, S. (2020). Socioeconomic class and socioeconomic status in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education (pp. 785–790). Springer. Jorgensen, R., Gates, P., & Roper, V. (2014). Structural exclusion through school mathematics: Using Bourdieu to understand mathematics as a social practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 87, 221-239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9468-4 Mićić, K. (2024). A sociocultural perspective on the development of mathematical competence in girls and boys: Students’ mathematics identity as both a resource and a barrier. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Belgrade. Mićić, K., & Jovanović, O. (2025). Social class and gender in an equation of students’ mathematics identity. Nastava i vaspitanje, 74(1), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.5937/niv74-56181 OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5a3db202-en Radišić, J., Krstić, K., Blažanin, B. Mićić, K., Baucal, A., Peixoto, F., & Schukajlow, S. Am I a math person? Linking math identity with students’ motivation for mathematics and achievement. EurJPsychol Educ 39, 1513–1536 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-024-00811-y Saw, G., Chang, C. N., & Chan, H. Y. (2018). Cross-sectional and longitudinal disparities in STEM career aspirations at the intersection of gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Educational Researcher, 47(8), 525–531. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18787818 Thomson, P. (2002). Schooling the rustbelt kids: Making the difference in changing times. Allen & Unwin. 04. Inclusive Education
Paper Parents’ Perceptions of Outcomes Related to an Inclusive College Program for Students with Intellectual Disabilities Texas A&M University - San Antonio, United States of America Presenting Author:This study centers on relatives’ and parents’ perspectives on students with intellectual disabilities enrolled in an 18‑month inclusive postsecondary education program (IPSE) at a public university in the southwest United States. The overarching theme is how IPSE participation functions as a catalyst for change at the family-system level, extending “inclusive education” beyond access to classrooms toward independence, self-determination, and community participation outcomes that are central to international disability and inclusion agendas. The study’s research questions addressed: (1) how family members experience and perceive students’ involvement in IPSE; (2) what barriers and challenges families and students encounter from pre‑admission through graduation; (3) how family roles, expectations, and identities change as students gain independence; and (4) how parents perceive outcomes beyond the classroom, including home, community, and self‑image developments. These questions speak directly to global concerns about the under-representation of students with intellectual disabilities in higher education and the conditions that enable successful transitions into adulthood, particularly for students from minoritized and first-generation backgrounds. Conceptually, the work is grounded in inclusive education, self‑determination theory, and family-systems perspectives, with strong connections to life-course and identity development approaches. The manuscripts explicitly situate IPSE within the legislative context of the Higher Education Opportunity Act, the international inclusion movement, and emerging scholarship on culturally responsive practices at Minority Serving Institutions, themes that resonate with European policy discussions on widening participation, equity, and disability rights. Methodologically, the panel draws on in-depth qualitative interviews with relatives (parents, siblings, grandparents). Applied thematic analysis with rigorous coding, intercoder reliability checks, and member checking underpins each study, enabling a nuanced description of developmental processes such as “evolving goals,” “letting go,” and “developments at home and in the community.” Thematically, the contributions converge on how IPSE participation prompts shifts in parental aspirations, reduces the salience of disability labels, and reframes independence in culturally situated ways at a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI), offering transferable insights for European and international contexts seeking to design inclusive, family-engaged higher education. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study adopted qualitative, exploratory designs tailored to an under-researched population and context, using relatives as key informants on student development and program quality. In the main multi-interview study, a non-random purposive sample of 8 families (18 relatives) of students with intellectual disabilities enrolled in an inclusive IPSE program at an Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) participated in two rounds of in depth interviews (entrance and exit), over approximately 2.5 years and two overlapping student cohorts. In the outcomes beyond the classroom study, 14 parents of graduating students participated in exit interviews as part of a secondary analysis of program-review data. Data collection relied on semi-structured, open-ended interview protocols designed to elicit rich, experience-near accounts of: prior schooling and expectations, perceived benefits and outcomes of the program, barriers and challenges (financial, logistical, communication), home and community skill generalization, and changes in self advocacy, identity, and family roles. Interviews were conducted individually with family units (e.g., single- or dual-parent) on campus and lasted 45–75 minutes, were audio recorded, de-identified, and professionally transcribed, with accuracy checks by the lead researchers. Applied thematic analysis guided data analysis, following iterative cycles of immersion, inductive line-by-line coding, development and refinement of codebooks, and construction of themes and subthemes. Multiple coders independently coded transcripts, discussed discrepancies, and adjusted coding rules; intercoder agreement was formally checked and improved from 71% to 89% through clarification of definitions and allowance of multiple codes per segment when appropriate. Validity strategies included negative case analysis, triangulation among research team members, visual modeling of thematic relationships (e.g., a “ladder to independence” path model), and member checking with participating families, who confirmed resonance of the identified themes. The HSI/TPSID program context itself functions as an important “instrument”: it is a culturally responsive, person-centered, 18-month certificate program combining inclusive coursework, independent-living training, internships, peer mentoring, and residence life on a predominantly Hispanic, first-generation campus. This setting allows the studies to capture how structural, cultural, and pedagogical features of IPSE shape family experiences in ways that can inform adaptation in other national systems, including European minority-serving institutions (MSIs) and widening participation initiatives. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Relatives described IPSE participation as transforming both students’ lives and family systems, with three recurrent outcome domains: evolving goals, challenges and barriers, and processes of letting go and repositioning parental roles. Parents reported observing substantial gains in students’ independence, functional and daily living skills, self-advocacy, and confidence, with skills generalizing from program settings into home and community routines. These developments were accompanied by expanded social networks, a stronger sense of belonging, and a more positive self-image, as students came to see themselves as college students and active community members rather than primarily as “disabled.” At the family level, results highlighted shifts from safety-focused, protective orientations toward more future-oriented, collaborative goal setting and encouragement of autonomy. Parents described the emotional and practical work of “letting go,” renegotiating identities as their adult children took on more responsibility, pursued more ambitious educational and career goals, and required different forms of support. These processes were especially salient in the HSI context, where collectivist family values and experiences of marginalisation intersected with new opportunities for higher education and employment, underscoring the need for culturally responsive, family-engaged IPSE models. The study also documented persistent systemic barriers (e.g., financial complexity, transportation constraints, communication gaps, and limited prior knowledge of higher education) that intensified stress but also functioned as “crucibles” in which students and families developed problem-solving, advocacy, and resilience. Overall, the findings suggest that inclusive university programs can serve as powerful levers for improving post school outcomes for students with intellectual disabilities and for reshaping parental expectations, but only when coupled with intentional supports such as financial literacy training, structured family communication, networking opportunities, and coordinated community partnerships, all of which have clear relevance for European and international efforts to expand inclusive higher education. References Agarwal, R., Heron, L., & Burke, S. L. (2021). Evaluating a postsecondary education program for students with intellectual disabilities: Leveraging the parent perspective. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 51(7), 2229–2240. Alqazlan, S., Alallawi, B., & Totsika, V. (2019). Postsecondary education for young people with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review of stakeholders’ experiences. Educational Research Review, 28, 100295. Grigal, M., Hart, D., Papay, C., et al. (2021). Executive summary of the annual report of the cohort 2 TPSID model demonstration projects, Year 5 (2019–2020). Think College Fast Facts, 30. University of Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion. Miller, K. D., Schleien, S. J., White, A. L., & Harrington, L. (2018). Letting go: Parent perspectives on the outcomes of an inclusive postsecondary education experience for students with developmental disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 31(3), 267–285. Shurr, J., Minuk, A., Holmqvist, M., et al. (2021). Parent perspectives on inclusive education for students with intellectual disability: A scoping review of the literature. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 69(5), 633–643. Taylor, A., Domin, D., Papay, C., & Grigal, M. (2021). More dynamic, more engaged: Faculty perspectives on instructing students with intellectual disability in inclusive courses. Journal of Inclusive Postsecondary Education, 3(1). Taylor, Z. W., & Burnett, C. A. (2021). Hispanic-Serving Institutions and web accessibility: Digital equity for Hispanic students with disabilities in the 21st century. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 20(4), 402–421. Think College. (2020). What is a TPSID? Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston. Watts, G. W., Davis, M. T., López, E. J., & Reynolds, M. A. (2025). Parents’ perceptions of outcomes of a college program for students with intellectual disabilities: Beyond the classroom. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 50(4), 411–423. Watts, G. W., Davis, M. T., & López, E. J. (2023). How are you doing? College instructors’ relationships and communication with students with intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Intellectual Disabilities. 04. Inclusive Education
Paper Parental Perceptions of Inclusive Education Implementation in Kazakhstan: Evidence From a National Survey Y.Altynsarin National Academy of Education, Kazakhstan Presenting Author:This study examines parental perceptions of the implementation of inclusive education in Kazakhstan, with a specific focus on curriculum accessibility, school practices, leadership, teacher preparedness, and the overall inclusion climate experienced by children. While inclusive education has been formally embedded in national education policies in Kazakhstan, empirical evidence on how these policies are perceived and experienced by parents remains limited. Parents play a critical role in advocating for inclusive practices and supporting children’s learning and well-being; however, their voices are often underrepresented in policy implementation research. Guided by international frameworks on inclusive education (UNESCO, OECD) and ecological perspectives on family–school partnerships, this study addresses the following research questions: The study adopts a quantitative survey design using a structured parental questionnaire administered nationally. The instrument captures multiple dimensions of inclusive education implementation, including curriculum design and adaptation, leadership and governance, teacher training and motivation, availability of resources, inter-agency collaboration, and parental access to information. In addition, the Parental Perception of Inclusion Climate Scale (PPICS) is used to assess parents’ views on their child’s sense of belonging, peer relationships, teacher support, emotional safety, and overall well-being at school. The conceptual framework integrates policy implementation theory with inclusive education models that emphasise stakeholder engagement, systemic support, and school climate. By focusing on parental perspectives, the study complements existing research that predominantly examines inclusive education through institutional or teacher-centred lenses. The international relevance of this research lies in its contribution to comparative discussions on inclusive education in middle-income and post-Soviet education systems undergoing systemic reform. Findings are expected to inform policymakers, school leaders, and researchers by highlighting alignment gaps between policy intentions and parental experiences. Moreover, the study offers insights relevant to other countries seeking to strengthen inclusive education through family–school partnerships and evidence-informed policy implementation. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study employs a quantitative, cross-sectional survey design. Data will be collected using a structured parental questionnaire administered to parents across different regions of Kazakhstan. Participation is voluntary, and all responses will be anonymous to ensure ethical compliance and data confidentiality. The questionnaire consists of two main sections. The first section collects demographic information, including parents’ gender, age group, educational background, number of children, type of school attended (public or private), awareness of inclusive education policies, and whether the family includes a child with a disability. These variables allow for subgroup analyses and contextual interpretation of parental perceptions. The second section measures parental perceptions of inclusive education implementation using a series of Likert-scale items (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Items assess perceptions of curriculum relevance and adaptability, transparency of school admission processes, leadership commitment, teacher preparedness and training, availability of resources, inter-institutional collaboration, and the extent to which evidence-based practices guide inclusive education. In addition, the study incorporates the Parental Perception of Inclusion Climate Scale (PPICS), which captures parents’ views on their child’s school experience, including emotional well-being, peer relationships, teacher support, fairness, inclusion in school activities, and responsiveness to bullying or learning difficulties. This scale enables an assessment of the social and emotional dimensions of inclusion from a parental perspective. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses will be conducted to examine patterns in parental perceptions and relationships between inclusive education implementation and perceived inclusion climate. The use of a validated inclusion climate scale strengthens the reliability and comparability of findings with international research. The questionnaire design and content align with international inclusive education literature and are adapted to the national context of Kazakhstan. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The study is expected to provide empirical evidence on how parents perceive the implementation of inclusive education in Kazakhstan. Anticipated findings include variation in parental perceptions across dimensions such as curriculum adaptability, teacher preparedness, leadership commitment, and availability of resources. The results are also expected to highlight areas where inclusive education policies are perceived as well-articulated but inconsistently implemented at the school level. With regard to inclusion climate, the study is likely to reveal differences in parental satisfaction related to children’s sense of belonging, peer relationships, emotional safety, and access to support. These findings may underscore the importance of school climate as a critical mediator between inclusive education policies and students’ lived experiences. The outcomes of this research will contribute to evidence-informed policy discussions by identifying strengths and gaps in current inclusive education practices from a parental perspective. The study is expected to support the development of targeted strategies aimed at strengthening family–school partnerships, improving communication with parents, and enhancing inclusive practices at the curriculum and school levels. Furthermore, the findings will be relevant for international audiences interested in inclusive education reform in diverse sociocultural and policy contexts. References OECD. (2012). Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools. Paris: OECD Publishing. UNESCO. (2017). A Guide for Ensuring Inclusion and Equity in Education. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO. (2020). Global Education Monitoring Report: Inclusion and Education. Paris: UNESCO. Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Forlin, C. (2022). Measuring parental perceptions of inclusive school climate. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(8), 1–17. Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: Lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 7–16. | ||