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, 21:30:13 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
25 SES 10 A: Students' Rights, Migration and Inclusion
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper Integrating Human Rights Education and Social Skills Development: An Educational Program to Foster School Inclusion in Primary Schools 1: University of Lausanne, Switzerland; 2: Universitiy of Padova, Italy Presenting Author:In today's diverse European classrooms, children from different backgrounds often face discrimination and social exclusion, constituting violations of their fundamental rights (Juvonen et al., 2019). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of an program integrating Human Rights Education (HRE) and Positive Youth Development (PYD) in promoting school inclusion, enhancing social skills, and improving peer acceptance among primary school children. The research evaluates the efficacy of a five-session educational program designed to: (1) promote knowledge and respect for children’s rights from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989); (2) develop social skills to assertively address discrimination situations; and (3) foster meaningful social relationships among all students, including those with stigmatized attributes or identities (e.g., disabilities, immigrant status, ethnic minorities). This program integrates two complementary theoretical approaches that align with European educational values and policies on inclusion and equity. From a developmental perspective, late primary school (ages 8-10) represents a crucial period for intervention. Children at this stage reach Piaget's concrete operational stage, enabling them to think logically about complex issues like rights violations and analyze situations from multiple perspectives (Babik & Gardner, 2021). However, this age is also associated with increased intergroup biases and stronger negativity toward out-groups (Nesdale & Dalton, 2011), emphasizing the urgent need for effective programs. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used A quasi-experimental design with repeated measures was implemented. Ten classes from four Italian public primary schools were randomly assigned to an experimental group or a control group. The study involved 167 children (85 boys, 82 girls; Mage = 9.11 years, SD = 0.90) in 4th and 5th grades. The experimental group included 85 children (Mage = 9.08, SD = 0.91) and the control group included 82 children (Mage = 9.13, SD = 0.87). The experimental group participated in five weekly 90-minute sessions conducted in small groups (8-10 students) by a researcher expert in developmental psychology. Each session focused on one human right, presenting hypothetical discrimination situations and teaching social skills to address them. The program focuses on four children’s rights from the CRC (UN, 1989): right to play and recreation (Art. 31), right to cultural participation (Art. 31), right to express opinions and be heard (Arts. 12-13), and right to protection from discrimination (Arts. 19, 37). These rights were selected following consultation with European scholars and Italian primary school teachers, ensuring relevance to contemporary school contexts. Educational strategies included mental simulation, role-play, modeling, and homework assignments for generalization. The protocol of this study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and Applied Psychology (University of Padova, Project identification code: 465-b). To evaluate the efficacy of the educational program, multiple assessment methods were administered two weeks before and after the program. Validated self-report questionnaires measured social skills, collaboration, and intention to help peers whose rights are violated. A sociometric procedure was used to evaluate positive and negative peer nominations. Additionally, direct naturalistic observations assessed social interactions of children identified as at risk of social exclusion (n = 10). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Results Mixed-effects models revealed significant Time x Condition interactions, demonstrating that children in the experimental group showed significant improvements compared to control group in: Positive nominations received (F(1,164) = 8.53, p = .004), Social skills (F(1,164) = 6.33, p = .013), Collaboration (F(1,164) = 9.99, p = .002), and Intention to help peers whose rights are violated (F(1,164) = 8.53, p = .004). Simple effects analyses showed that only the experimental group’s children demonstrated significant improvements in Positive nominations provided and decreased Negative nominations (both provided and received). Wilcoxon tests showed that at-risk children in the experimental group received significantly more positive social behaviours from classmates after the intervention, while at-risk children in the control group showed no significant changes. Discussion These findings confirm that integrating HRE with PYD promotes inclusive school environments, addressing core values of equity, diversity, and human rights. The intervention program's efficacy demonstrates that teaching human rights alongside social skills can support creating rights-respecting, inclusive school contexts. The study advances European educational research by: (1) providing empirical evidence for combined HRE-PYD approaches; (2) demonstrating measurable inclusion outcomes using multiple assessment methods; (3) showing benefits for vulnerable children at risk of social exclusion. Building on these results, we are developing and implementing an adapted versions for younger children (aged 4-6) and teacher-led implementation models to ensure sustainability across diverse school systems. Extending the educational program to this age adopts a preventive approach: while older children (8-10 years) can analyze complex discrimination situations, younger children benefit from foundational social skills development before low peer acceptance and social excusion patternes become entrenched (Kutnik & Colwell, 2024). This responds to calls for schools to act as agents of change in promoting inclusion and human rights (Losinski et al., 2019), contributing to Europe's commitment to equitable, inclusive education for all children. References Babik, I., & Gardner, E. S. (2021). Factors affecting the perception of disability: A developmental perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 702166. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.702166 Bajaj, M. (2011). Human rights education: Ideology, location, and approaches. Human rights quarterly, 33(2), 481-508. https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2011.0019 Blaisdell, C., McNair, L. J., Addison, L., & Davis, J. M. (2022). 'Why am I in all of these pictures?' From learning stories to lived stories: The politics of children's participation rights in documentation practices. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 30(4), 572–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2021.2007970 Gonzalez, M., Kokozos, M., Byrd, C. M., & McKee, K. E. (2020). Critical positive youth development: A framework for centering critical consciousness. Journal of Youth Development, 15(6), 24–43. https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2020.859 Jones, S., & Manion, K. (2023). Critical literacy: An approach to child rights education in Uganda and Canada. Literacy, 57(2), 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12327 Juvonen, J., Lessard, L. M., Rastogi, R., Schacter, H. L., & Smith, D. S. (2019). Promoting social inclusion in educational settings: Challenges and opportunities. Educational Psychologist, 54(4), 250–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1655645 Kutnick, P., & Colwell, J. (2024). Promoting social competence and social inclusion in the preschool: a peer-based relational intervention. Early Child Development and Care, 194(11-12), 1212-1229. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2024.2412639 Lerner, R. M. (2005). Promoting positive youth development: Theoretical and empirical bases. White paper prepared for the workshop on the science of adolescent health and development. National Academies of Science. Losinski, M., Ennis, R., Katsiyannis, A., & Rapa, L. J. (2019). Schools as change agents in reducing bias and discrimination: Shaping behaviors and attitudes. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28, 2718–2726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01452-2 Lundy, L., & O'Lynn, P. (2019). The education rights of children. International Human Rights of Children, 259–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4184-6_11 Taylor, R. D., Oberle, E., Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Promoting positive youth development through school-based social and emotional learning interventions: A meta-analysis of follow-up effects. Child Development, 88(4), 1156–1171. United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/crc.pdf Zajda, J. (2020). Current research on human rights education globally. In Human rights education globally (pp. 1–12). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1913-9_1 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper Children’s Access to Scientific Knowledge and Understanding: a Study of University-based Programs University of Helsinki, Finland Presenting Author:The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) Article 28 focuses on children's right to education as an equal opportunity (United nations, 1989). Specifically, article 28 (c) urges state parties to “make higher education accessible to all on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means” (ibid). However, as Moody (2020) argues, barriers and enablers such as socioeconomic background tend to affect access to education, leading UNCRC’s mandates of equal education to be idealistic. Empirical research shows that socioeconomic background continues to have an impact on access to higher education in Europe (Palmisano et al., 2022). Nevertheless, various science education initiatives have emerged across Europe with the aim of tackling these barriers (Neher-Asylbekov and Wagner, 2023). As a way to familiarize children at an early age with higher education and thus lower the threshold for participation, universities across Europe introduce children to higher education through programs, courses and activities in science education and children’s universities (European Children’s University network, 2025). Through interactive practices, children explore science and critical thinking in addition to school education, adding to the science capital of children (Archer et al., 2015; European Children’s Universities Network, 2025; Takala, 2020). From this perspective, initiatives such as science education programs and children’s universities can challenge the existing inequalities in education (Aksela et al., 2017; Gary and Dworsky, 2013). Finland, which ratified the UNCRC in 1991, is formally committed to ensuring equal access to education, including higher education (United Nations, 1989). Equity and equality are also central principles of the Finnish National Agency for Education (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2024). Children's universities and science education in Finland have expanded significantly since the late twentieth century (Luma, 2025; Aksela et al., 2017). The Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture published a proposal in 2014 to promote and strengthen Finnish science education in aims to make Finland a world leading country in educational science within 2020 (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2014). Since then, extracurricular science education has been practiced across the country, primarily in higher educational settings, such as University of Helsinki, University of Tampere, Aalto University, and Luma network. Despite these developments, previous research suggests that socioeconomic background continues to shape access to higher education in Finland (Nevala, 1993; Thrupp et al., 2023). Consequently, structural exclusion in education persists even in a country internationally recognized for its commitment to education. (Thrupp et al., 2023). In light of Bourdieu’s (1986) theory of cultural capital, education and scientific knowledge can be understood as a form of capital that is unevenly distributed and reproduced across social groups. As Thrupp et al. (2023) suggest, this implies that education remains not accessible to all in Finland. Grounded in Bourdieu’s understanding, this study analyzes the landscape of science education and children’s universities’ program structures and accessibility models. The aim is to identify key barriers and enablers shaping participation in science education and evaluates the role of science education initiatives in promoting educational equity in the Finnish context. Research for this study draws on a qualitative thematic analysis (TA) of publicly available materials from science education initiatives and children’s universities in Finland. The study asks the following research questions: -How are research-based activities fostering scientific understanding and thinking portrayed and conceptualized in Finland? -How accessible are the research-based activities fostering in Finland? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study adopts a qualitative thematic analysis (TA) to examine how children’s universities and science education programs foster scientific understanding and thinking in Finland. We explore accessibility to these programs by examining barriers and enablers within science education and children's universities. Following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase framework, we have conducted a thematic analysis of 17 science education projects and children’s universities in Finland. We have analyzed websites of these 17 institutions that are publicly available materials online. The data consists of program descriptions, institutional websites, publicly available course information, and policy-related texts produced by universities. Data for this study was collected between June and December 2025. The 17 institutions were selected based on systematic searches of publicly available information and prior knowledge of science education programs in Finland. Together, the cases provide an overview of the landscape of science education initiatives in Finland. Braun and Clarke’s (2006) TA approach allows for the identification of patterns across the data, specifically regarding accessibility and equality of outreach in science education in the Finnish context. While themes were allowed to emerge from the data, the analysis was guided by a Bourdieusian understanding of education as cultural capital, particularly in relation to equality, equity, and the reproduction of educational disparities. When analyzing the data, focus was oriented towards scientific variety in programs, participation costs, format of the programs (onsite and online activities), language, geographic location of activities, and target age groups. Following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase TA approach, the analysis moved from familiarization with the data to systematic coding of the materials. We identified three interrelated themes throughout the data: accessibility, participation, and content of science education activities. These three dimensions were examined as key indicators of how children’s rights to education and equal access are supported or constrained within science education initiatives in Finland. The final phases involved reviewing, defining, and naming themes, and producing the report, linking the findings to broader discussions on children’s rights, educational equity, and access to higher education. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The findings reveal three interrelated themes within science education and children’s universities in Finland: Accessibility, participation and content. Together, these themes illuminate how children’s rights to education and equal opportunities are supported and constrained within science education initiatives in Finland. Accessibility emerges as a key structural condition shaping children’s opportunities to science education. Access is influenced by the language of instruction, geographical location, program format (onsite or online), and participation costs (Neher-Asylbekov and Wagner, 2023). While some initiatives offer free or low-cost activities and online options that potentially broaden access, many programs are primarily delivered in Finnish, concentrated in urban areas, and hosted within higher education institutions. These conditions may unintentionally privilege children with proximity to universities and families with greater cultural and economic resources, limiting access for children from diverse linguistic, socioeconomic, and geographic backgrounds (Archer et al., 2015). Participation represents a second central theme. Although children’s universities are commonly framed as inclusive, the analysis indicates limited attention to children’s diverse backgrounds. In line with Moody’s (2020) argument, inclusive education requires not only physical access but also meaningful participation and recognition of children as active rights-holders. From a children’s rights perspective, uneven participation raises concerns about whose educational rights are effectively realized. Finally, content is characterized by a strong emphasis on natural sciences and STEM-oriented activities, which dominate across children’s universities and science education initiatives in Finland (Aksela et al., 2017). Focusing on natural sciences and STEM-oriented activities narrows the representation of scientific knowledge and learning pathways offered to children. This content orientation may influence which forms of knowledge are valued and which children feel addressed or included within science education initiatives. Our conclusion of this study follows Archer et al. (2015) argument; children’s universities have the potential to redistribute science capital, but only if designed inclusively. References Aksela, M., Oikkonen, J. and Halonen, J. (2017). Yhteisöllistä tiedekasvatusta Helsingin yliopistolla vuodesta 2003. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Archer, L., Dawson, E., DeWitt, J., Seakins, A. and Wong, B. (2015). “Science capital”: a conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 52. 10.1002/tea.21227. Bourdieu, P. (1986). ‘The forms of capital’, in Richardson, J. (ed.) Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. New York: Greenwood Press, pp. 241–258. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006). ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), pp. 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. European Children’s Universities Network. (2025). The European Children’s Universities Network. Home - The European Children's Universities Network (Accessed: 16.12.2025). Finnish National Agency for Education. (2024). Strategy of the Finnish National Agency for Education 2024–2027. Helsinki: Finnish National Agency for Education. Available at: The Organisation of the Finnish National Agency for Education | Finnish National Agency for Education (Accessed: 26.1.2026). Gary, C. and Dworsky, C. (2013). Children’s universities – A “leading the way” approach to support the engagement of higher education institutions with and for children. Journal of Science Communication, 12(3), JCOM 12(03): C04. Ministry of Education and Culture. (2014). Finland as a world leading country in science education in 2020. Proposal to promote children’s and young people’s science education development (Reports of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland 2014:17). http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/75252/tr17.pdf Moody, Z. (2020). Children’s Rights to, in and through Education: Challenges and Opportunities. Šolsko polje. XXXI. 11-25. 10.32320/1581-6044.31(3-4)11-25. Neher-Asylbekov, S. and Wagner, I. (2023). Effects of Out-of-School STEM Learning Environments on Student Interest: a Critical Systematic Literature Review. Journal for STEM Educ Res 6, 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-022-00080-8 Nevala, A. (1993). Socioeconomic Background of University Students in Finland after World War II. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 37(4), 293–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/0031383930370403 Palmisano, F., Biagi, F. and Peragine, V. (2022). Inequality of Opportunity in Tertiary Education: Evidence from Europe. Res High Educ 63, 514–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-021-09658-4 Takala, S. (2020). What is science education? Responsible Research. Available at: What is science education? | Responsible Research (Accessed 10.12.2025). Thrupp, M., Seppänen, P., Kauko, J. and Kosunen, S. (eds.) (2023). Finland’s famous education system: Unvarnished insights into Finnish schooling. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8241-5 United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: United Nations. Available at: Convention on the Rights of the Child | OHCHR (Accessed: 26.1.2026). 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper Bridging the Gap: Dissonance Between Legal Rights and Pedagogical Realities in Special Education for Ukrainian Migrant Children in Poland 1: Faculty of Applied Linguistics, University of Warsaw, Poland; 2: Research Laboratory on Diversity, University of Warsaw, Poland; 3: Institute of Sensory Organs, Kajetany, Poland; 4: Faculty of Education, University of Warsaw, Poland; 5: Fundation Kalejdoskop Kultur, Ukraine/Poland Presenting Author:The Polish educational landscape has undergone a transformation over the last decade, shifting from a predominantly monocultural environment to a multicultural setting marked by significant national, linguistic, religious, and social diversity (Górak-Sosnowska & Markowska-Manista, 2022). This evolution has necessitated a robust legal and pedagogical response to ensure that the rights of all students are upheld, grounded in international and national laws that guarantee the right to education and rights within the educational process. The full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 triggered one of the largest and fastest displacements of children in Europe since World War II, with Poland receiving the highest number of refugees (Bhabha et al., 2025). This influx strained the Polish system, particularly in inclusive education and SEN for war-affected children. Poland’s legal framework - the Constitution, the CRC (United Nations 1989; Journal of Laws, 1991), and the Education Law 2016 (Journal of Laws, 2024a), which recognises migration adaptation as SEN – contrasts with systemic dissonance between de jure rights and de facto realities. Our research question is: How and why does dissonance arise between de jure rights and de facto pedagogical realities in special educational support for war-affected Ukrainian children within the Polish inclusive education framework? The objective is to critically analyse this gap, map its manifestations, and identify systemic barriers to inform policy and practice at national and European levels. The 2016 Education Law (Journal of Laws, 2024a) requires schools to support ethnic and linguistic identities (Piwowarska, 2020). Migrant groups include Vietnamese, returning Poles, 2022 Ukrainians, and others (Szulgan, 2019; Zieliński, 2010; Szydłowska, 2017). Regulation (Journal of Laws, 2017) recognises migration as SEN, allowing preparatory classes and curricula adaptations (Journal of Laws, 2024b). Our analysis employs a multi-layered framework:
This paper critically examines legal-SEN alignment for Ukrainian children aged 6–18, focusing on de jure vs. de facto barriers (Markowska-Manista, Ovcharenko & Zelazowska-Sobczyk, 2025). Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study employs multidimensional desk research and a comprehensive literature review of sources since 2022. Since the outbreak of the war in 2022, the educational trajectories of Ukrainian students in Poland have become a focal point of intense academic and social inquiry. Our methodology focuses on analysing the various ways in which Ukrainian children continue their education, which often depends on their families’ future plans and intentions regarding permanent residency (Bobryk & Kochan, 2022). The analysis identifies and examines four primary schooling models currently used by Ukrainian families:s: 1. Exclusive Online Learning: Students who continue their education solely through online Ukrainian schools. 2. Hybrid Education: Students who attend Polish schools during the day while maintaining online studies with Ukrainian institutions in the evenings or at weekends. 3. Full Integration: Children enrolled exclusively in the Polish education system. 4. Non-enrolment: Cases where children are not enrolled in any system, a scenario the Polish government sought to eliminate via the Regulation of the Minister of Education on 26 August 2024, mandating school attendance for Ukrainian children (Journal of Laws, 2024b). Against this backdrop, the study examines international and national regulations against the lived experiences of three key stakeholder groups: students, Polish teachers, and Ukrainian intercultural assistants. The desk research involves a systematic analysis of current legislative acts, educational reports, and qualitative studies conducted between 2022 and 2026. By synthesising these findings, the research highlights discrepancies between de jure rights – the theoretical legal protections for students with SEN – and de facto barriers encountered in the classroom. This comparative approach facilitates a nuanced discussion of whether the Polish system is providing genuine inclusivity or merely formal, administrative access. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Our analysis reveals a significant gap between protective legal frameworks and the practical reality of school integration. While the rights of migrant students are formally safeguarded by international and national laws that promote inclusive education, the delivery of Special Educational Needs support faces substantial obstacles. Ukrainian students often face a “dual school” burden, juggling two distinct curricula, calendars, and peer groups. This often leads to significant cognitive fatigue and hampers social integration within the Polish classroom. Furthermore, many students experience a persistent sense of “temporariness” and trauma, leading to loneliness and reluctance to form deep bonds with local peers. From a professional perspective, Polish teachers often lack the specific experience and institutional support needed to work effectively with children who have experienced the trauma of war and displacement. There is a notable shortage of specialised training in trauma-informed pedagogy and intercultural communication. Additionally, while “intercultural assistants” are vital bridges between the school and migrant families, their roles remain precarious and ill-defined. They face uncertainty about their responsibilities and lack a clear professional status within the school hierarchy. In conclusion, while Poland has established the necessary legal foundations for inclusive education, the system requires more robust psychological support services, better training for educators, and a legalised, stable status for intercultural assistants. To truly meet the special educational needs of children with migration backgrounds, the focus must shift from administrative enrolment to meaningful, trauma-informed pedagogical inclusion that upholds children’s rights. References 1.Bhabha J., Digidiki Lucero V., & Markowska-Manista, U. (2025), Solidarity towards distress migrants: how changing frontline communities depend on states to build a new public space, RR. Marín et al.(eds). Handbook on migration and human rights, Edward Elgar Publishing. 2.Bobryk, A., & Kochan, I.(2022), Between integration and assimilation. Ukrainian students in Polish schools. Studia z teorii wychowania XIII: 2022(4/41),291–304. 3.Górak-Sosnowska, K. & Markowska-Manista, U. (2022), Intercultural education in a monocultural context: global and local dimensions of sensitive topics. Society Register, 6(1),7-18. 4.Journal of Laws (1991). Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 20 November 1989 (Dz.U.1991 no120 poz. 526). 5.Journal of Laws (2017). Regulation of the Minister of National Education of 9 August 2017 on the principles of organisation and providing psychological and pedagogical assistance in public kindergartens, schools and facilities (Dz.U.2017 poz. 1591). 6.Journal of Laws (2024a). Announcement of the Marshal of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland of 21st March 2024 on the publication of the consolidated text of the Act “Education Law” (Dz.U.2024 poz. 737). 7.Journal of Laws (2024b). Regulation of the Minister of Education of 26 August 2024 amending the Regulation of the Minister of Education and Science on the Organisation of Education, Upbringing and Care of Children and Adolescents who are Citizens of Ukraine (Dz.U.2024, poz. 1302). 8.Markowska-Manista, U., Ovcharenko, O., & Zelazowska-Sobczyk, M.(2025), Students with migration background and special educational needs versus their rights to and in education – the Polish context. Bacakova, M., Veck, V., & Wharton, J. (eds.), Forced Migration, Disability and Education. Routledge. 9.Piwowarska, E. (2020). Discrimination against the Child in Access to Education Based on Ethnic Origin as Examplified by the Roma Minority in Selected Countries. Rocznik Administracji Publicznej 6: 76–94. 10.Szulgan, A. (2019), Working with foreign children in a Polish school: methods of action, own experience. Języki obce w szkole, 3: 79–83. 11.Szydłowska, P., et al. (2017). (Un)even treatment of returning children in Polish school. Edukacja Międzykulturowa 2(7): 200–224. 12.United Nations (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. 13.Zieliński, P.(2010). Vietnamese multicultural education in Poland with the regard of children from Polish-Vietnamese families. Rędziński, K. (ed.), Multicultural education as a challenge for educational science,177–191. | ||