Conference Agenda

Questions of educational equity and inclusive school development are increasingly framed through students’ subjective experiences in schooling. Against the backdrop of EU-level initiatives on whole-school well-being and mental health (e.g., UNESCO, 2025; OECD, 2023), school well-being (SWB) has become a key indicator for monitoring the quality of inclusive education (Kullmann et al., 2023). SWB, conceptualized as students’ cognitive and emotional evaluations of their school experiences, is widely recognized as vital for learning, socio-emotional development, and participation (Hascher et al., 2018). Schools are therefore not only institutional learning environments but also significant developmental contexts in which students’ emotional, social, and personal thriving must be actively supported (Schnell et al., 2025).

Within inclusive education, the question of which students experience lower or higher levels of SWB has gained particular relevance. Students with special educational needs (SEN) frequently face more challenging learning and developmental and are therefore assumed to be especially vulnerable. Yet empirical findings remain inconsistent: while some studies document lower SWB for students with SEN (e.g., Alnahdi & Schwab, 2021; Goldan et al., 2022), others report no meaningful differences (e.g., Kröske, 2020; Zdoupas et al., 2025). These inconsistencies partly stem from the fact that SEN is an administrative umbrella category encompassing highly heterogeneous support needs, limiting its usefulness as an explanatory indicator. In contrast, a more consistent body of research – both within and beyond Europe – identifies psychosocial problems as robust predictors of diminished SWB. Internalizing symptoms (e.g., anxiety, depression) and externalizing symptoms (e.g., aggression, conduct problems, hyperactivity) are systematically linked to lower emotional, social, and competence-related school experiences (Kim & Choe, 2022; Tobia et al., 2019). Epidemiological evidence across European countries suggests that psychosocial problems are widespread (pooled prevalence ≈ 15.5%), with notably higher rates for internalizing (~7–8%) compared to externalizing problems (~2–3%; Sacco et al., 2024). These difficulties often emerge early and frequently persist into adolescence, making them potent determinants of daily school functioning. At the same time, the research landscape on SWB remains conceptually heterogeneous. Existing studies employ global indicators, multidimensional frameworks, or domain-specific measures, complicating comparisons and theoretical integration (Hossain et al., 2023). The multidimensionality of SWB – spanning affective, social, and competence-related domains – has been repeatedly theorized but only unevenly tested empirically, especially within inclusive educational contexts.

The present study addresses these conceptual and empirical gaps by examining SWB in inclusive secondary schools through a multidimensional lens and by contrasting the predictive value of SEN with that of psychosocial symptoms. Specifically, the study investigates three core questions:

1. What is the optimal dimensional structure of SWB in an inclusive secondary school context? We hypothesize that a multidimensional model will provide superior fit to the data compared to a unidimensional representation (H₁).
2. Does the administrative category of SEN explain unique variance in SWB beyond that accounted for by students’ current psychosocial symptom profiles? We expect that SEN status will not contribute significant additional explanatory power (H₂).
3. How do specific internalizing and externalizing symptoms differentially relate to distinct domains of SWB? Based on established vulnerability models, we hypothesize that internalizing symptoms will show stronger negative associations with affective and social SWB, while externalizing symptoms will primarily relate to reductions in social and competence-related SWB (H₃).

The concept of giftedness has undergone substantial theoretical evolution over the past century, shifting from predominantly psychometric and intelligence-based definitions to more complex and multidimensional perspectives. Despite this development, the field continues to be characterized by conceptual plurality, theoretical tensions, and the absence of a universally accepted definition. These ambiguities have direct consequences for identification processes, educational practices, and research orientations within educational contexts. This research aims to analyze the evolution of conceptualizations of giftedness in the scientific literature, highlighting major theoretical shifts, persistent debates, and points of convergence and divergence across influential models. Drawing on a qualitative documentary analysis of peer-reviewed articles published in specialized international journals in the field of gifted education, this exploratory study adopts a phenomenological-interpretative approach. The corpus was examined through iterative cycles of reading, coding, and thematic categorization, focusing on how giftedness has been conceptually defined, framed, and operationalized across different theoretical models. The analysis aimed to identify major conceptual shifts, points of convergence and divergence, and enduring theoretical tensions within the literature. The analysis shows that early approaches, largely grounded in intelligence testing and cognitive performance, gradually gave way to broader frameworks incorporating motivational, developmental, contextual, and socio-environmental dimensions. Nevertheless, the literature reveals enduring disagreements regarding the relative weight of innate abilities versus environmental influences, as well as ongoing debates surrounding the boundaries between giftedness, talent, and high achievement. Such conceptual fragmentation contributes to variability in identification criteria and to inconsistencies in educational responses across contexts. By systematizing and interpreting the main conceptual trajectories present in the literature, this research offers a more precise theoretical mapping of giftedness as an educational phenomenon. The findings underline the importance of conceptual clarity for informing research, identification practices, and educational interventions, and support the need for more integrative frameworks capable of capturing the complexity of giftedness in contemporary educational systems.

Language practices are central to identity in Deaf communities. Deafness is not merely a sensory impairment but also a cultural–linguistic identity (Higgins & Lieberman, 2016; Marschark et al., 2017). Deaf communities coalesce around shared sign languages and norms, yet Deaf individuals are internally diverse and often straddle multiple social groups (Leigh, 2009). Many identify both with Deaf culture and with an ethnic heritage (Leigh & Crowe, 2015).

Deaf individuals are often bimodal multilingual (e.g. a sign language, written language and a spoken language) (Kusters et al. 2021) and may even navigate multiple sign languages if multi-ethnic (Lim, 2022). Contemporary Deaf education emphasizes a translanguaging approach – leveraging all of a Deaf child’s language modalities and codes fluidly – to support learning and identity. Swanwick (2016) found that Deaf children often engage in bimodal translanguaging, mixing sign and speech (or sign and print) in creative ways to fully express themselves. In multilingual minority settings, Deaf individuals often develop the ability to switch between or blend languages depending on context (Baker & Scott, 2016) Such code-blending is not seen as confusion but as a natural adaptation to a multilingual environment, reflecting a “multilingual habitus” (Benson, 2013) that flexibly navigates multiple languages. Research has found that allowing Deaf students to use all their languages (sign and spoken/written) flexibly improves academic achievement and self-esteem (Marschark & Spencer, 2011).

In multi-ethnic societies like Romania, Deaf people inhabit overlapping minority worlds. Ethnic Hungarian Deaf people in Romania exemplify this “double minority” status: they are simultaneously members of a national minority (Hungarian) and a linguistic minority within the Deaf population. These youths face stigma and marginalization as Deaf persons in the predominantly hearing society, while also encountering pressures on their Hungarian identity within the largely Romanian Deaf community. Romanian Sign Language (RSL) dominates in Deaf institutions and gatherings, which can create subtle pressure for Hungarian Deaf individuals to assimilate linguistically.

Schools are pivotal for identity development in the Deaf community. Residential Deaf schools—though historically aimed at “normalization”—often became incubators of Deaf culture. Many Deaf children (especially those from hearing families) first encounter a signing peer group at school, enabling them to communicate in their natural language and develop a positive Deaf identity (Lane, 1995). At the same time, for ethnic minority communities the language of schooling profoundly affects ethnic identity. In Romania, ethnic Hungarian Deaf children historically had two main options for primary education: attend the sole Hungarian-language Deaf school (in Cluj-Napoca, Transylvania) or enrol in a local Romanian-language Deaf school. Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) predicts divergent identity outcomes from these choices. A Deaf child educated in the minority-language (Hungarian) school receives institutional support for their heritage language and culture, likely reinforcing both Deaf in-group affiliation and Hungarian ethnic belonging.

This paper examines how school socialization affects the dual identities (Deaf and Hungarian) of youth in this multi-minority situation. Specifically, the research addressed three questions:

• Language socialization in school: How do language practices and peer interactions in Hungarian-medium vs. Romanian-medium Deaf primary schools influence students’ Deaf cultural identity and ethnic (Hungarian) identity development?
• Bicultural identity in Hungarian Deaf schools: In the Hungarian-language Deaf school environment, in what ways are Deaf identity and Hungarian national identity jointly fostered through formal instruction and informal student life?
• Transition and identity trajectories: What is the impact on identity when ethnic Hungarian Deaf students transition from a Hungarian primary school to a Romanian-language secondary/vocational school? How do they negotiate shifts in language environment and cultural affiliation during this stage?