How a board game can help future teachers work better with parents

How a board game can help future teachers work better with parents

by | NW 14 Communities, Families, and Schooling in Educational Research, NW 27 Didactics - Learning and Teaching

Working with parents is a central yet often challenging part of teachers’ everyday practice. While teacher education programmes emphasise its importance, many future teachers feel unprepared when they first encounter real-life situations involving parents. This gap between theory and practice raises an important question: how can we better prepare teacher trainees for meaningful home–school collaboration?

Parental involvement is key to student success. Yet, teacher trainees often report that they hear about the importance of working with parents in theory but receive little practical guidance or training. This disconnect between theory and practice inspired us to experiment with game-based learning.

Imagine stepping into the shoes of a trainee teacher who must handle a parent upset about their child’s progress, while also coordinating a school event and supporting students. That’s exactly the kind of scenario our board game lets players experience – without the real-life stress.

Why focus on parental involvement?

Studies across the globe (e.g., Epstein, 2010; Goodall & Vorhaus, 2011; OECD, 2019, 2020) have shown that parental involvement improves student achievement, strengthens school climate, and fosters trust. However, many novice teachers feel unprepared or even reluctant to communicate with parents, especially parents of students from disadvantaged or marginalised backgrounds (see Pusztai et al. 2025).

In many countries, including Hungary, teacher education provides little practical training for future teachers on building strong home–school partnerships (Epstein, 2018; Graham-Clay, 2024, Pedditzi et al., 2021). Recognising this gap, our research group set out to develop an innovative tool: a board game designed to simulate the real‑life challenges of working with families. This board game was developed within a research project led by Prof. Dr. Gabriella Pusztai and a multidisciplinary design team (Dániel Bodnár, Zsolt Csák, Zsófia Miklódi-Simon and Zsófia Kocsis). We tested this board game in with over 110 participants, including both pre‑service teacher trainees and in‑service teachers (Kocsis et al. 2025).

Learning through play: serious board games for serious topics

Board games are more than just entertainment – they can serve as powerful educational tools. Research has shown that games support active learning, motivation, and collaboration (Ezezika et al., 2023, Radzi et al. 2020, Viray 2016). They also help learners approach complex or emotionally charged topics in a less intimidating way.

Our board game was designed by researchers and students together. The game presents realistic school scenarios. Players face communication challenges with parents, plan joint activities, and respond to unexpected events together as a team. Humour, cooperation, and decision-making are key elements of the gameplay (Kocsis et al. 2025).

The board game – set up

The board game invites players to step into the everyday reality of educators and explore the challenges of working with parents in a playful, collaborative way. The game is built on real-life situations, research findings, and educators’ experiences. While cooperation is key, luck also plays a role, occasionally helping or hindering progress. The game is designed for 4–7 players.

The game is fully cooperative: all players form one team representing the school staff. One player takes on the role of the school principal, while the others take on different staff roles. Cooperation means that players discuss each situation together and must agree on a shared solution. There are no individual winners or losers – the team either succeeds or fails collectively.

A green board game with a 10-space path from start to finish, featuring a school and a teacher. The writing is in Hungarian.

The game follows a school year, represented by a 10-space path, each space corresponding to one month. Each round represents one month in the school year, and players move forward together from one space to the next as the game progresses. Each month is associated with a specific challenge: at the beginning of every round, players draw and read aloud a new Challenge card that introduces the situation they must address as a team. In the centre, players find Parent, Action, and Quiz card decks.

At the bottom of the board, three scales track the school’s indicators in achievement, reputation, and community connectedness. These indicators, inspired by a previous theoretical framework, reflect what players must balance and improve by the end of the game. To keep the game replayable, different difficulty levels are available. The starting status of the school is based on data from the Hungarian 2019 National Assessment of Basic Competencies, resulting in four school profiles that combine levels of parental involvement and school effectiveness.

The cards

A green card with a graphic depicting a teacher, whose name is given as Katedra Károly. The English translation reads: Charles Chair, high school mathematics teacher. Communication: 3, Connectivity: 3, Expertise: 4, and Innovation: 1.

Character

Players take on the roles of school staff members, each with a Character card showing their position and four key competencies: Communication, Connectedness, Expertise, and Innovation.

These form the K.Ö.SZ.I. index and determine how effectively players can handle challenges (The ‘K.Ö.SZ.I. Index’ was created through the combination of these skills. K.Ö.SZ.I. is an acronym made up by the initial letters of the skills’ Hungarian names, respectively). One player must always take on the role of the school principal; other roles can be freely chosen.

Note: A school professional character (high school math teacher). This character is a mature and respected teacher who has experienced a lot in his long career. He is respected for his great knowledge and fairness. However, he struggles to understand the problems of the modern school and does not know the latest and most effective solutions. The English translation of the text directly visible on the card reads: Charles Chair, high school mathematics teacher. Communication: 3, Connectivity: 3, Expertise: 4, and Innovation: 1.

A Parent card showing Yvette, a parent influencer

Parent

At the start of the game, each player draws a Parent card. These cards influence characters’ competencies in different ways:

  • Blue cards represent actively involved parents and usually have positive effects.
  • Red cards represent passive parents and typically have negative effects – though in some cases, the right school role can turn this into a positive.
  • Orange cards represent caregivers such as grandparents or siblings, with mixed effects.

 

Note: Meet Yvette, the influencer mom. Her superpower? Hunting for likes!  She is highly active on social media and brings a creative, trend-aware perspective to school life. Her presence boosts your team’s innovation skills by +1—showing how digital engagement can also contribute positively to the school community.

Challenge

Each round begins with a Challenge card that matches the current “month.” Players respond to the situation by choosing from a shared set of solution options. Once a solution is used, it cannot be selected again for the next two rounds, encouraging strategic thinking and variety.

Action

Action cards introduce unexpected events. Problem Action cards reduce one or more school indicators, while Good Practice Action cards increase a chosen indicator and showcase real-world examples worth reading aloud.

Quiz

At the end of each round, players draw a Quiz card and answer the question as a team. Correct answers allow the group to increase one school indicator by one point. The quizzes range from quick multiple-choice questions to short open-ended tasks, and QR codes link to further information for those who want to dive deeper.

The Solution Table

Players collaborate using a shared Solution Table that outlines possible actions for addressing each challenge. The table offers a range of evidence-informed options, such as home visits, workshops, communication tools, and community-based activities, each linked to different aspects of school–family–community partnerships.

The gameplay

Working as a team, players select and combine actions strategically, taking into account their competencies and the current situation, including the effects of Parent cards. Successful choices contribute to improving the school’s indicators, such as achievement, reputation, and community connectedness.

To summarise the game flow, the main steps of gameplay can be described as follows:

Start of game

  • Select school Character (fixed role throughout game)
  • Set initial school indicators (achievement, reputation, community connectedness)

Each round (1 month in the school year)

  • Move forward on the 10-space school-year path
  • Draw & read Challenge card (new situation)
  • Collaborative decision-making and select a strategy from the Solution Table
  • Apply outcome
  • Draw an Action card
  • Draw a Quiz card (team answers together, and possible further improvement of school indicators)

End of round

  • Discard current Parent cards
  • Draw new Parent cards (symbolising the continuously changing nature of school–family interaction)
  • Next round begins


The game starts at the beginning of the school year (first month) and ends after completing all ten rounds. The team’s success depends on how well they manage and improve the school indicators by the end.

Our results

In our first project, 110 teacher education students played the cooperative, scenario‑based game. They appreciated its collaborative structure, realistic situations and humorous tone. Many reported new insights into parental roles and strategies for effective home‑school communication, suggesting deeper reflection and engagement than traditional theory alone could trigger.

The intervention was in spring 2024. Teachers and teacher trainees participated in separate groups. Based on anonymous identifiers, 31 matched responses were analysed, including 17 pre-service and 14 in-service teachers. The pre-test and post-test were conducted using the same self-developed questionnaire consisting of 70 items measured on a 10-point scale related to PI.

The results (analysed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test and effect-size calculations) showed:

  • In‑service teachers demonstrated greater attitudinal change, particularly in commitment to parent engagement, compared with teacher trainees.
  • Participants improved significantly across multiple indicators: partnership orientation, communication with parents, and social sensitivity.
  • Attitudes toward parent involvement with adolescents remained low both before and after the intervention, underscoring a persistent belief that adolescent students require less parental engagement.
  • Teacher trainees showed more limited change, likely due to lack of real-world experience to connect with the game’s scenarios.

These findings indicate the board game is a promising tool for reflexive learning, especially for teachers with some school experience, boosting both professional attitudes and social awareness in evidence‑based ways.

What we learned

The players highlighted three main benefits:  
  • Cooperative learning: The team-based format fostered a sense of shared responsibility and decision making.
  • Realistic scenarios: Players said they could easily imagine facing these situations as teachers, which made the experience feel relevant.
  • New insights: Many participants reported that the game helped them understand the role of families better and offered strategies they had never considered before.

    • What makes this approach valuable? Why it matters

    In many teacher education systems, preparation for engaging with parents is still minimal and inconsistent (Willemse et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2025). Our board game offers one small but practical solution. It helps student teachers move beyond fear or assumptions and encourages them to reflect on how they can build meaningful relationships with families.

    This approach is scalable. The game can be integrated into teacher education courses, adapted for different cultural contexts, or even used in in-service training. More broadly, it demonstrates the value of serious games in bridging the gap between academic learning and the everyday realities of teaching.

    1. Validated outcomes : two empirical studies, including statistical analysis, support claims of attitudinal change.
    2. Relevance across contexts: the game frames challenges that teachers worldwide face, such as collaborating with diverse families or negotiating partnerships for school events.
    3. Reflective, active learning: players explore dilemmas in a safe, teamwork‑based setting, bridging theory and practice.
    4. Versatile application: beyond initial teacher training, the game can be adapted for in‑service training, community workshops or multicultural contexts.

    A call to educators and researchers

    If we want future teachers to succeed, we must support them in learning how to work with families, especially in diverse and challenging environments. Tools like this board game are not replacements for direct experience, but they are a valuable bridge. We encourage colleagues worldwide to explore similar tools, contribute to evidence‑based evaluation, and advocate for experiential pedagogies in teacher education.

    Key Messages

    • Though research shows that parental involvement boosts student achievement, strengthens the school climate, and builds trust, many trainee teachers feel unprepared to work with parents.
    • A new board game lets trainee teachers practice tricky parent conversations without real-life stress, simulating the everyday challenge of home-school collaboration in a fun, cooperative setting.
    • In the study, over 110 student and in-service teachers played the game to improve school-family partnerships, leading to improved attitudes toward parent engagement, better communication skills, and insights that went beyond theoretical teaching.
    • The evidence-based game sees players work as a team to tackle realistic challenges, balance school indicators, and navigate unexpected events.
    • Fun games can have serious potential. The board game shows that playful, scenario-based learning can bridge the gap between theory and practice in teacher education.
    Zsófia Kocsis

    Zsófia Kocsis

    Institute of Educational and Cultural Studies, Faculty of Humanities, University of Debrecen

    Zsófia Kocsis is an assistant lecturer at the Institute of Educational and Cultural Studies, Faculty of Humanities, University of Debrecen. Her research focuses on student work and the relationship between work and academic performance. In recent years, she has also expanded her research and teaching activities to include the use of board games in higher education. She led the development of two self-designed board games (K.Ö.SZ.I., Study hard, work hard!), which aim to develop students’ competencies and broaden their knowledge in the given field.

    Other blog posts on similar topics:

    References and Further Reading

    Epstein, J. L. (2010). School/Family/Community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(3), 81–96 https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200326

    Epstein, J. L. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships in teachers’ professional work. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44, 397–406. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324721985_School_family_and_community_partnerships_in_teachers’_professional_work

    Ezezika, O., Fusaro, M., Rebello, J., & Aslemand, A. (2023). The pedagogical impact of board games in public health biology education: The Bioracer board game. Journal of Biological Education, 57(2), 331–342 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350860649_The_pedagogical_impact_of_board_games_in_public_health_biology_education_the_Bioracer_Board_Game

    Goodall, J., & Vorhaus, J. (2011). Review of best practice in parental engagement. UK Department for Education. Available online: https://purehost.bath.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/146139638/DFE_RR156.pdf (accessed on 30 July 2025).

    Graham-Clay, S. (2024). Communicating with parents 2.0: Strategies for teachers. School Community Journal, 34(1), 9–60. https://www.adi.org/journal/SS2024/Graham-Clay1.pdf

    Jones, C., Sideropoulos, V., & Palikara, O. (2025). Do teachers have the knowledge and skills to facilitate effective parental engagement? Findings from a national survey in England. Educational Review, 1–24 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131911.2025.2506802

    Kocsis, Z., Csák, Z., Bodnár, D., & Pusztai, G. (2025). Designing a Board Game to Expand Knowledge About Parental Involvement in Teacher Education. Education Sciences, 15(8), 986. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15080986

    OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (volume III): What school life means for student’s lives. OECD Publishing.

    OECD. (2020). Parental involvement in school activities. In PISA 2018 results (volume III): What school life means for students’ lives.

    Pedditzi, M. L., Nonnis, M., & Nicotra, E. F. (2021). Teacher satisfaction in relationships with students and parents and burnout. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 703130. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34659016/

    Pusztai, G., Bacskai, K., Ceglédi, T., Kocsis, Z., & Hine, M. G. (2025). Mission possible? Institutional family-school-community partnership practices and parental involvement in Hungarian majority and minority schools in three central and eastern European countries. Social Sciences, 14(2), 107.  https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/14/2/107

    Radzi, S. H. M., Ying, T. Y., Abidin, M. Z. Z., & Ahmad, P. A. (2020). The effectiveness of board game towards soft skills development for higher education. Ilkogretim Online—Elementary Education Online, 19(2), 94–106. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348213416_The_effectiveness_of_board_game_towards_soft_skills_development_for_higher_education

    Viray, J. S. (2016). Engaging students through board games: Measuring its effectiveness on academic performance. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 6(10), 5–7.  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317032619_Engaging_Students_through_Board_Games_Measuring_Its_Effectiveness_on_Academic_Performance

    Willemse, T. M., Thompson, I., Vanderlinde, R., & Mutton, T. (2018). Family-school partnerships: A challenge for teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(3), 252–257. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02607476.2018.1465545

    Making participation part of everyday childhood: the Everyday Model of Children’s Participation (EMCP)

    Making participation part of everyday childhood: the Everyday Model of Children’s Participation (EMCP)

    by | NW 25 Research on Children's Rights in Education

    Children have a right to be heard and to see their voices make a difference. These rights are central to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989), yet in early childhood education, they are often inconsistently realised—sometimes limited to tokenistic gestures rather than meaningful engagement (Chicken & Tyrie, 2023). Our research seeks to deepen our understanding of how participation rights can actually be enacted for young children. We propose a new, empirically grounded model that addresses limitations in existing frameworks, particularly for younger children who are often overlooked (Alderson, 2008).

    The Everyday Model of Children’s Participation (EMCP) was developed through the Children’s Participation in Schools Project, a three-year ESRC-funded study involving lower primary classrooms in Wales (Dec 2022–Nov 2025). The Research was undertaken by a team of researchers, Dr Sarah Chicken, Jacqui Lewis, Dr Patrizio De Rossi, Dr Alison Murphy, Dr Jennie Clement, Prof. Jane Williams and Dr Jane Waters-Davies.

    Drawing on interviews with 14 early years educators, the model highlights how participation rights can be integrated into everyday teaching in relational, responsive, and practical ways. It also maps ecological factors – individual, organisational, and cultural – that enable or constrain adults’ ability to support these rights in daily practice.

    The model in brief

    The image shows three dimensions, the first is Children’s Participation Rights which includes; the right to be heard and listened to; the right to influence decisions that affect the child; the right to know about the right to be heard. The second dimension is about Actions for Adults , this Cycle of Meaningful Children’s Participation: a five-step reflective and action-oriented routine for adults. The third dimension of the Ecological Context which includes three tiers of enabling or constraining factors: the individual adult, the school/organisation, and the wider cultural environment.

    The first dimension, (1) Children’s Participation Rights, encompasses the child’s entitlement to be heard, to have their views taken seriously in decisions that affect them, and to be informed about these participatory rights.

    The second dimension, (2) Actions for Adults, is articulated through the Cycle of Meaningful Children’s Participation, a five‑step reflective and action‑oriented process designed to guide adults in creating and sustaining participatory practices.

    The third dimension, (2) Ecological Context, recognises that the realisation of children’s participation is shaped by enabling or constraining factors operating across three interconnected levels: the individual teacher/adult, the organisational environment (such as the school or service), and the wider cultural context.

    Together, these dimensions provide a holistic, multi‑layered framework for understanding and enhancing children’s meaningful participation. Without all three elements being fully understood and enacted, children’s participation rights cannot be effectively realised.

    Dimension 1

    At the heart of the EMCP are three interdependent rights. These rights work together: listening enables influence, action builds understanding, and explanation encourages further participation.

    We define participation as a multidimensional right that extends beyond Article 12 of the UNCRC (1989), recognising children as agentic rights-holders (Olsen, 2023). Informed by key literature,* participation encompasses three interdependent rights: the right to be heard and listened to, the right to influence decisions, and the right to know these rights. This framing views participation as a holistic, inherent right, not something granted by adults. While its realisation is shaped by cultural, structural, and relational factors (explored in our model), these rights are not contingent on adult permission.

    *Lundy, 2007; Lundy et al., 2019; McMellon & Tisdall, 2020; Ree & Emilson, 2020) and additional UNCRC articles, particularly 13, 15, and 17, and General Comments 7 and 12 (CRC/C/GC/7; CRC/C/GC/12)

    Dimension 2

    The model’s second dimension is a call for action to adults to engage in a recurring, iterative cycle that makes children’s participation a sustained part of daily practice. Inspired by Fletcher’s (2005) five-step Cycle of Meaningful Student Involvement; listening, validating, authorising, mobilising, and reflecting, and drawing on work related to listening to young children (Wall et al., 2019) and the principles of the Lundy model (2007). Our adapted model retains the cyclical logic from Fletcher (2005), while the components reflect our definition of participation and the specific needs of early educational setting and the everyday practices of teachers.

    The action points within our cycle align with the conditions for meaningful, everyday child participation by considering the core principles from Lundy’s (2007) model alongside our empirical findings, yielding a coherent, evidence-informed roadmap for practitioners and researchers seeking to embed participation rights in a consistent and responsive way.

    Step 1) Create space and time

    This involves protecting moments where their interests can shape activity, co-constructing environments, and adapting routines around unpredictable, child-led directions. In our data, teachers described carving out dialogue moments and observational windows to attune to each child’s needs, rhythms, interests and modes of expression. It is where participation begins, not with children speaking, but with adults creating the space and time to truly listen. Teachers in the study described co-constructing learning environments to reflect children’s needs and interests, yet they also recognised the challenge of adapting planning around unpredictable child-focused directions.

    To enact this step, educators could ask themselves:

    • Have I made time today to truly listen to each child? 
    • Does the environment invite children to express themselves, including non-verbally? 
    • Am I prepared to act on what I hear from children, even if it challenges my original plans? 

     

    Step 2) Listen and be attentive

    The second step of the cycle is informed by the data which showed that teachers’ sustained, sensitive attention to both verbal and nonverbal cues is central to participation. This step focuses on the adult’s sustained presence and responsiveness while listening and being attentive to children’s diverse “languages” of expression: verbal, non-verbal, gestural, affective, playful, and silent, all of which carry meaning within a relational and rights-respecting framework (Edwards et al., 1998).

    To enact this step, educators should ask themselves:

    • Am I present and open to everyday forms of communication from children? 
    • Am I enabling a range of “languages” through which children can be heard, such as movement, play, gesture, and silence? 
    • Do I actively listen outside of formal or expected moments of expression? 

     

    Step 3) In-the-moment response

    This involves acting on spontaneous cues, adapting learning as it unfolds, and following children’s evolving curiosities. This responsiveness positions children as collaborators and builds ownership. By centring learning around children’s cues, teachers ensure that their in-the-moment adaptations honour children’s agency and reinforce the authenticity of participation.

    Ephgrave (2020) highlights how this responsive approach supports children’s agency, engagement, and participation. As Baker et al. (2023) observe such strategies ‘make space for the child to continue making meaning through their learning… the child is… in the driving seat’ (p. 374). By positioning children as rights-holders whose views directly shape learning, teachers honour the principle that participation is not tokenistic but substantive. In short, immediate response respects children as agentic collaborators in decisions related to their learning, extending engagement and self-directed exploration.

    To enact this step, educators could ask themselves:

    • When a child expresses a view, idea, or feeling, how quickly do I respond in a way that shows I have truly listened? 
    • Do I use children’s spontaneous comments as opportunities to extend or deepen learning in the moment, rather than putting them off until later? 
    • Am I attentive to when a child’s interest shifts, and am I prepared to adjust planned activities accordingly? 

     

    Step 4) Visible action or feedback

    Visible action or feedback enables children to see that their contributions have an effect; whether through a direct change, a class decision reflecting their input, or feedback explaining why an idea can’t be adopted. Teachers suggested that authentic engagement hinges on children seeing their ideas translated into real change. As Karan noted, when children see “some sort of manifestation in change in school,” they know their voices matter, avoiding tokenism and reinforcing trust in the participatory process. When actions are visible or feedback is given, participation becomes a relational experience rather than a performative gesture (Lundy 2018). Thus, this is an essential element of adults’ enactment of participative rights, as when children receive honest feedback, they learn that participation is a meaningful right.

    To enact this step, educators could ask themselves:

    • Have I shown the child that their view has been heard and considered? 
    • Have I taken their idea to a person or place where it can lead to meaningful change? 
    • Have I communicated any actions taken (or not taken) in a way the child can understand? 

     

    Step 5) Intentional reflection

    Both in the moment and afterwards, this means adjusting as events unfold, and using team discussions to evaluate what worked, what was missed, and how power has shaped decisions.

    This stage of the cycle emphasises the value of intentional, retrospective reflection as a key driver of meaningful participation in early childhood settings. Teachers in our research found that regularly engaging in reflective practices—such as discussing children’s voices in planning meetings, evaluating the impact of initiatives like recycling schemes, and critically examining their own professional dispositions—supported participation enactment.

    Fletcher (2005) and Cahill & Dadvand (2018) position reflection as essential for adults to surface power dynamics and biases, while Venninen & Leinonen (2013) argue that without ongoing reflection, participation degrades into a procedural checklist. Hultgren & Johanssen’s (2018) multidirectional models likewise insist that reflection be woven through every stage of the cycle.

    By recognising and structuring these reflective routines, the model supports a dynamic and responsive approach to children’s rights, ensuring that participation remains authentic, equitable, and grounded in lived experience.

    To enact this step, educators could ask themselves:

    • How did I respond, and was that response appropriate, respectful, and empowering? 
    • What can I learn from this interaction to improve future participation opportunities? 
    • Did my own assumptions, routines, or time constraints limit children’s input? 
    • How can I involve colleagues or children in reflecting on this engagement? 

    Dimension 3: The ecological context

    The final dimension if a surrounding layer showing that participation enactment is shaped by the broader ecological context. The wider ecological context encompasses; individual practitioners, organisational structures, and cultural norms.

    Drawing on Gal’s ecological framework (2017), participation is understood as context-sensitive and shaped by dynamic systems. Others have similarly emphasised how power, decision-making, and community dynamics impact children’s voice and agency (Driskell, 2002; Jans & De Backer, 2002). The ecological layer signals that meaningful participation requires more than individual effort; it involves cultivating supportive environments across all levels. It also highlights the often-invisible factors that enable or constrain participation, prompting action across classrooms, schools, and broader systems.

    Key Messages

    Embedding children’s participatory rights is an ongoing commitment. It means listening with genuine curiosity, making space for their ideas, and showing that children’s contributions matter. The EMCP offers one practical route, but sustained effort from teachers, schools, and the wider system is needed to make participation part of the everyday fabric of learning. The takeaway message from this work has been:

    • Children’s participation rights are often tokenistic applied – despite the UNCRC, young children’s voices are inconsistently heard in early childhood education
    • Participation rests on three interdependent rights – children’s rights to be heard, to influence decisions, and to know about these rights
    • Adults can use a five-step reflective cycle – creating space, listening attentively, responding in the moment, providing visible feedback, and reflecting intentionally. Each step requires critical self-questioning – educators must examine their assumptions and be prepared to adapt practice based on what children communicate.
    • Participation needs supportive ecological conditions – meaningful change requires commitment from individual practitioners, schools, and wider education systems
    Dr Jacky Tyrie

    Dr Jacky Tyrie

    Department for Education and Childhood Studies at Swansea University

    Jacky Tyrie is a Senior Lecturer in Early Childhood Studies in the Department for Education and Childhood Studies at Swansea University. Her research focuses on young children’s participation, voice in decision‑making, and their human rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

    Lauren Henderson

    Lauren Henderson

    Swansea University, UK

    Lauren Henderson is a PhD researcher at Swansea University, specialising in young children’s (0–5) participation rights in early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings in Wales. Prior to her doctoral studies, Lauren spent over ten years teaching in primary schools across England and Wales, where she developed a strong interest in children’s rights and inclusive pedagogies.

    The Project Team

    • Dr Sarah Chicken is the Principal Investigator and an Associate Professor in Childhood and Education at the University of the West of England.
    • Jacqui Lewis is a Research Associate at the University of the West of England.
    • Dr Patrizio De Rossi is a Research Associate at the University of the West of England.
    • Dr Alison Murphy is a Lecturer in the Athrofa: Institute of Education at the University of Wales Trinity Saint David.
    • Dr Jennie Clement is a Senior Lecturer in Teacher Education and Professional Learning at Cardiff Metropolitan University
    • Dr Jane Waters-Davies is an Associate Professor in Early Education and the Applied Research Lead for Education at University of Wales Trinity Saint David.
    • Jane Williams is an Emeritus Professor of Law at Swansea University’s Hillary Rodham Clinton School of Law and a co-founder of the Observatory on Human Rights of Children.

    Other blog posts on similar topics:

    References and Further Reading

    Alderson, P. (2008). Young children’s rights: Exploring beliefs. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

    Baker, S., Le Courtois, S., & Eberhart, J. (2023). “Making Space for Children’s Agency with Playful Learning”, International Journal of Early Years Education 31(2), 372–384. DOI: 10.1080/09669760.2021.1997726

    Cahill, H., & Dadvand, B. (2018). Re‑conceptualising youth participation: A framework to inform action. Children and Youth Services Review, 95, 243–253.

    Chicken, S., & Tyrie, J. (2023). Can you Hear me? Problematising the Enactment of UNCRC Article 12 in Welsh Early Years Classrooms: Exploring the Challenges of “Children’s Voice”. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 31(2), 301-325. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718182-31010001

    Driskell, D. (2002). Creating better cities with children and youth: A manual for participation. UNESCO.

    Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (1998). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach—Advanced reflections. Ablex.

    Ephgrave, A. (2020). Planning in the moment with young children. Routledge.

    Fletcher, A. (2005). Meaningful student involvement: Guide to students as partners in school change (2nd ed.). HumanLinks Foundation.

    Gal, T. (2017). An ecological model of child and youth participation. Children and Youth Services Review, 79, 57–64.

    Hultgren, F., & Johansson, B. (2018). Including babies and toddlers: a new model of participation. Children’s Geographies, 17(4), 375–387. DOI: 10.1080/14733285.2018.1527016

    Jans, M., & De Backer, K. (2002). Children as citizens. Childhood, 9(1), 5–18.

    Lundy, L. (2007). “Voice” is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927–942.

    Lundy, L. (2018). In defence of tokenism? Children’s right to participate in collective decision‑making. Childhood, 25(3), 340.

    Lundy, L., McEvoy, L., & Byrne, B. (2019). Working with young children as co‑researchers. In J. Tobin (Ed.), The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: A Commentary, Oxford University Press.

    McMellon, C., & Tisdall, E. K. M. (2020). Children and young people’s participation rights: Looking backwards and moving forwards. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 28(1), 157–182.

    Olsen, R. K. (2023). Key factors for child participation – an empowerment model for active inclusion in participatory processes. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1247483.

    Ree, M., & Emilson, A. (2020). Participation in communities in ECEC expressed in child–educator interactions. Early Child Development and Care. DOI: 10.1080/03004430.2019.1566230

    United Nations (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved 3rd June 2025 from https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child  

    Venninen, T., & Leinonen, J. (2013). Considering children’s participation. Early Child Development and Care, 183(8), 1083–1095.

    Wall, K., Cassidy, C., Robinson, C., Hall, E., Beaton, M., Kanyal, M., & Mitra, D. (2019). Look who’s talking: Factors for considering the facilitation of very young children’s voices. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 17(4), 263–278.

    Perspectives on intercultural approaches to education and social justice: impressions from an emerging researcher

    Perspectives on intercultural approaches to education and social justice: impressions from an emerging researcher

    by | NW 7 Social Justice and Intercultural Education

    As a Ph.D. student at the beginning of my career, attending the European Conference on Educational Research in Belgrade was a valuable introduction to the global academic community. ECER was an essential opportunity for academics and emerging researchers to discuss topics at the forefront of educational research, alongside the Emerging Researchers’ Conference (ERC) that took place immediately before ECER.

    Overall, the annual event hosted 2,619 scholars, with 1,938 papers presented from 75 different countries, representing a genuinely international community and an amazing array of perspectives. This year’s conference took place amid students’ ongoing mobilisations, which have been continuing for many months already and were focused upon demanding transparency, accountability, and respect for fundamental rights whilst utilising a critical and engaged lens.

    These student demonstrations and occupations hold not only an intrinsic political meaning but also an educational relevance. University public spaces have, indeed, been converted into a platform for dialogue and active and democratic participation. I was particularly caught by the slogan in Serbian language “Nije filozofski ćutati,” which stands for “it is not philosophical to be silent,” a catchphrase also quoted by Prof. Pavel Zgaga during his Keynote Speech on ‘educational research, policy and politics’.

    Intercultural perspectives that emerged during ERC and ECER and how they might be useful for my educational researcher path

    As a listen-only participant, I had the chance to attend several sessions on relevant topics for my research. The latter focuses on on the schooling experiences and integration processes of young people from migrant backgrounds in Italy.

    Pertinent themes that emerged were related to students’ cultural and linguistic diversity, education in marginalized urban contexts, and intercultural early childhood education. Attending presentations on social justice and intercultural education – in which research results from different European contexts were highlighted – has certainly helped me broaden my perspective on various aspects of my research. I also believe it is crucial to attend sessions related to other networks to acquire fundamental notions of educational research, particularly linked to theoretical approaches and methodologies to be used. As such, I have also attended various presentations within networks 04 (Inclusive Education) and 14 (Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research).

    The sessions I attended were marked by a positive exchange of ideas and opinions, with the purpose of finding strategies that can be implemented in educational and pedagogical practices. A feature that emerged from several presentations is that education also presents a sociopolitical dimension (Akkari & Radhouane, 2022). As part of the so-called ‘second generation of migrants in Italy’, I would even push myself to affirm that there is nothing more antithetical to education than neutrality, especially considering the subaltern position of migrant communities in Europe.

    Insights from the ‘Social Justice and Intercultural Education’ Workshop

    A large building with a statue in the middle of a courtyard

    A key activity that has been very supportive for my first experience at an international conference on educational research is represented by the workshop “How to develop a decentralised way of doing research?” led by Professor Lisa Rosen.

    A range of strategies for decentering dominant narratives and strengthening marginalised voices were mentioned. This activity, open to professionals at different stages of their careers and particularly to emerging researchers, was aimed at promoting decentralisation from exclusively Eurocentric models, creating socially and interculturally sensitive knowledge and to question our positions and prejudices as researchers.

    Discussing the issue seems to me fundamental to avoid reinforcing power relations and tokenism by excluding (even inadvertently) marginalised groups. I believe that the positionality of the researcher in the areas of Social Justice and Intercultural Education could put us, as academic researchers, in a vulnerable position. As suggested during this session, it is appropriate to employ it when an analysis is implemented or an in-depth study is conducted. I would like to mention some key points on the positional statement that caught my attention and may be useful to early-career researchers:

    – Be aware that identity, beliefs, and values may influence research work in different ways

    – Consider biases, emotional responses, and transparency in your research efforts

    – Do not ignore the relevant balances and imbalances of power, as well as the institutions involved and political implications

    – Knowledge and analysis of the research context, through a critical approach, holds crucial importance

    Reflections for the future

    ECER provided me with an extraordinary opportunity to outline the prospects for educational research in the European context, particularly in my specific field of investigation.

    My main challenge now is to build on what I have learned, the advice I have received, and the insights gained during the conference to foster dialogue with other emerging researchers and fuel gradual but steady academic growth. In a closing remark, I believe that fostering critical awareness of educational practices, promoting social purpose in research, and strengthening methodological commitment should be central to interculturalism, innovation, and social responsibility.

    Key Messages

    • International conferences accelerate early-career development – ECER/ERC offer essential exposure to global educational research perspectives and networking opportunities for emerging scholars.
    • Education is inherently political, not neutral – Educational research must critically engage with power dynamics, especially when working with marginalised and migrant communities.
    • Researcher positionality shapes research quality – Awareness of your own identity, biases, and values is essential to avoid reinforcing power imbalances in intercultural research.
    • Decentre Eurocentric narratives – Decentralised research approaches that amplify marginalised voices create more socially sensitive and robust knowledge.
    • Critical awareness drives meaningful research – Combining methodological rigour with social purpose is central to impactful intercultural and social justice education research.
    Charaf El Bouhali

    Charaf El Bouhali

    Università di Padova

    Charaf El Bouhali: PhD student in Pedagogy, Education and Instructional at the University of Padua. His research focuses on the schooling experiences and integration processes of young people from migrant backgrounds in Italy.

    Orcid: https://orcid.org/my-orcid?orcid=0009-0001-1663-3019 Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/charafel

    Other blog posts on similar topics:

    References and Further Reading

    References and Further Reading

    Akkari, A. and Radhouane, M. (2022). Intercultural Approaches to Education: From Theory to Practice, Springer, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70825-2 

    Cabiles, Bonita S. (2025). Internalised deficit perspectives: positionality in culturally responsive pedagogical frameworks.Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 33(4), 1129-1146 https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2024.2326004 

    Conti, L. (2025). Intercultural education: recalibrating meanings, objectives, and practices. Intercultural Education, 36(4), 418–436. 

    https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2025.2484514 

    O’Neil, D. (2025). Complicated shadow: a discussion of positionality within educational research. Oxford Review of Education, 51(4), 579-594. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2024.2351445

    Inclusive education – between policy and practice

    Inclusive education – between policy and practice

    by | NERA, NW 4 Inclusive Education

    Researchers from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, (NTNU) presented their INCLUSCHOOLproject, funded by the Research Council of Norway, at ECER 2025. The project’s main objective is to gain new knowledge about inclusion and inclusive practices in schools.

    Inclusive education is high on the global agenda and is described by UNESCO (2003) as an ongoing process grounded in the conviction that it is the responsibility of the mainstream school system to educate all children. The UN Sustainable Development Goal on Quality Education (goal no. 4) emphasizes that “Access to inclusive, high-quality education is one of the most important conditions for welfare, health and equality in all societies”.

    Although research on inclusive education has intensified in recent decades, the concept continues to be interpreted and implemented in diverse ways (Keles et al., 2024). What inclusive practice actually entails remains unclear(Nilholm, 2021). Accordingly, understanding how inclusion is experienced by those directly affected, particularly students, can offer critical insights into why such gaps persist and how they might be addressed (Chapman and Ainscow, 2021; Messiou, 2024😉

    The scope and aims of the INCLUSCHOOL project

    By exploring inclusive practices from the bottom up in a super diverse primary school, the INCLUSCHOOL project seeks to contribute new student- and context-sensitive knowledge to the field. The project adopts a user-centered, collaborative approach, in which the students themselves, teachers and other professionals play a key role in shaping both the project design and the research process, step by step. By following their initiative, we explore how they experience, perceive, and practice inclusion in everyday school life.

    Through three sub-studies, the project will gather knowledge about:

    Students' perspectives on inclusion and their participation in the school's inclusion work. Inclusion as an interactional practice in linguistically and culturally complex school environments. Students' participation in interprofessional collaboration, and the process that may potentially lead to a legal entitlement to special education provision and professionals’ perspectives on this.

    A scoping review on students’ perspectives on inclusion

    At this year’s ECER conference, participants learned more about a scoping review carried out as part of the first subproject, which aimed to map existing research on students’ voices on inclusive education.

    The scoping review is intended to provide valuable insights into research on inclusive education through the voices of students, contributing to the field globally. It also aims to inspire further research into which students themselves are placed at the center.

    Likewise, the study offers meaningful contributions to the INCLUSCHOOL project by raising researchers’ awareness of both the opportunities and the potential challenges involved in student-centered research. In particular, the review of 51 research articles focuses on the samples, research methodologies, and themes explored. The majority of the articles involved diverse student populations in their sample. A wide variety of research methodologies have been used in the articles, with qualitative interviews as the most common one.

    The students are able to share their perspectives on many different topics, and the research articles include open-ended questions about students’ school life experiences, their socio-emotional experiences at school, and academic experiences and learning environments. Additionally, some articles included questions about students’ need for resources, access, and adjustments, their self- and other perceptions in diverse learning environments, and their life experiences and prospects of the future.

    Presenting our findings from the review

    Our takeaways include that student voices on inclusive education are multidimensional and complex. For example, students’ experiences of inclusion do not concern solely social-emotional or academic aspects. When schools remain arenas where the majority of students’ time is occupied by learning, their social inclusion depends on whether they are granted equitable access to shared learning activities in the classroom.

    If we interpret the collective ambition of these studies as an effort to understand students inclusion experiences as multidimensional and complex, and to explore what they need to experience inclusion in school, we suggest a holistic approach. This perspective highlights the importance of contextual, processual, and interactional sensitivity in the field of inclusive education. Such an approach may offer new and valuable contributions to the field of inclusive education.

    Key Messages

    • The INCLUSCHOOL project in Norway explores inclusion as an ongoing process focused on students’ presence, participation, and achievement.

    • Despite international commitments, progress towards inclusive education remains slow, with certain student groups at risk of exclusion.

    • The project adopts a user-centred, collaborative approach in a super-diverse primary school setting.

    • Preliminary findings from a scoping review highlight the complexity and multidimensional nature of students’ perceptions of inclusion.
    Professor Marit Uthus

    Professor Marit Uthus

    Department of Education and Lifelong Learning, Norwegian University of Science and Technology

    Marit Uthus, professor, Department of Education and Lifelong Learning, Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Her research interests fall within the field of special education and educational psychology. Marit is currently leading the INCLUSCHOOL project, which is funded by the Research Council of Norway.

    https://www.ntnu.no/ansatte/marit.uthus

    https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1263-1486

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marit-Uthus

    Fenna Verkerk

    Fenna Verkerk

    Department of Teacher Education, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

    Fenna Verkerk is a PhD candidate at the Department of Teacher Education at NTNU. She is affiliated with the INCLUschool project and her research is about pupils’ voices on inclusion at school. 

    https://www.ntnu.edu/employees/fenna.verkerk 

    Associate Professor Hanne Kristin Aas

    Associate Professor Hanne Kristin Aas

    Department of Education and Lifelong Learning, Norwegian University of Science and Technology

    Hanne Kristin Aas, associate professor, Department of Education and Lifelong Learning , Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Hanne does research in Educational Theory, Special Education and Teacher Education.

    https://www.ntnu.no/ansatte/hanne.k.aas

    https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6033-0966

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hanne-Aas

    Other blog posts on similar topics:

    References and Further Reading

    Add your list of references here. Use [1], [2], [3]… to mark where they are used in the text above.
    What’s missing in ITE? Preparing teachers to address poverty in mathematics education

    What’s missing in ITE? Preparing teachers to address poverty in mathematics education

    by | NW 10 Teacher Education Research

    In Scotland, as in many parts of the world, child poverty presents a significant barrier to educational attainment and well-being. The impact of poverty on academic achievement, including lower attainment in mathematics, is well-documented and framed as the poverty-related attainment gap within education policies in Scotland (Scottish Government, 2023).

    This blog post argues that child poverty should be explicitly addressed within ITE programmes, particularly in mathematics education, to help student teachers make clearer connections between issues of social justice and the teaching of mathematics, rather than addressing poverty under the broad terms of inclusion or the poverty-related attainment gap.

    Why poverty matters in mathematics education

    Mathematics has long been seen as a “gatekeeper” subject. Doing well in mathematics often decides who can progress to higher education and to better job opportunities, and who gets left behind (Douglas & Attewell, 2017; Durrani & Tariq, 2012; Martin et al., 2010). Yet mathematics is too often treated as if it were neutral, separated from inequality. In reality, however, children growing up in poverty are more likely to face lower expectations, be placed in low-ability groups, and receive simplified tasks that limit their chances to succeed (Hoadley, 2007; Jorgensen et al., 2014; Oakes, 1990; Schoenfeld, 2002).

    These practices reinforce the idea that only some students are “naturally good” at mathematics, while others are left with fewer opportunities. Because of its central role in shaping opportunities in life, mathematics education is a crucial context to tackle questions of social justice.

    This blog post is based on my PhD research, which revealed that student teachers often compartmentalise the idea of social justice and teaching mathematics, treating them as separate concerns. This disconnection presents a significant challenge to preparing student teachers for equitable practice.

    The key question is: what within ITE can potentially help to make this connection clearer.

    What has been done in an ITE context in Scotland?

    The ways we do work should involve providing options and developing flexibility and valuing diversity applying any context. Having said that, I do think the design that we use with the student teachers is a crucial part of improving outcomes for people who live in poverty. It is just we don’t label it that way. We do not say, this is how we are going to tackle poverty, we will do this. Because actually all children can benefit from it.

    This reflection comes from an ITE tutor in the research context. As this and other reflections illustrate, in ITE settings child poverty is generally addressed under the broader umbrella of inclusion and rarely directly addresses mathematics teacher education. While this approach indeed reflects a degree of awareness amongst student teachers, it may fail to engage with the lived realities of children growing up in poverty.

    What’s missing in ITE?

    Valuing diversity in education may require not only offering flexible teaching but also paying closer attention to what that diversity in a classroom actually entails. Poverty, for instance, can shape children’s mathematical learning through the resources and early experiences (Ellis & Sosu, 2015; Greaves et al., 2014; James-Brabham et al., 2023; Marks et al., 2006) they have access to, as well as the confidence they bring into the classroom. At the same time, children living in poverty often demonstrate resilience, benefit from targeted interventions, and thrive with parental and school support (DePascale et al., 2024; Sheehan & Hadfield, 2024). If these aspects remain unspoken, teachers may find it harder to create socially just practices that respond to culture, recognise strengths, and address limitations.

    Nancy Fraser’s (1999) multidimensional conception of social justice (encompassing redistribution, recognition, and representation) offers a useful framework for understanding and addressing issues related to injustices in education. Fraser argues that neither redistribution, understood as the fair allocation of resources and opportunities, nor recognition, understood as the acknowledging and embracing of diverse identities of the learners, is sufficient on its own to address injustice.

    Representation, understood as ensuring that all learners have a genuine voice and the ability to participate in the classroom, is equally essential. Ultimately, achieving social justice requires the integration of all three dimensions: redistribution, recognition, and representation.

    The idea that all children benefit from inclusive pedagogies aligns with the redistribution principle – according to the tutor cited above, the key mission of ITE programmes is to teach student teachers to provide all children with opportunities to succeed. To do this, they need flexibility in their mathematics teaching practice, and a general idea of valuing diversity. However, this does not always recognise how non-school knowledge (for example, budgeting with limited resources, navigating public transports or household tasks) could be meaningfully connected to classroom mathematics.

    Equally, redistribution was under-addressed in this context, discussions of equitable access rarely touched on the material and structural factors that affect how children learn mathematics, such as availability of mathematical manipulatives, after-school programmes, or adequate funding at schools in high-poverty areas.

    Social justice requires more than providing fair opportunities for the learners; it involves understanding and embracing differences and empowering students to be active participants of the learning environment while considering carefully what they might need to achieve this. However, this was largely absent within the research context, with children’s participation framed as teacher-directed rather than as opportunities for learner agency in shaping mathematical learning. Without stronger attention to these dimensions, student teachers may leave ITE with a limited understanding of how mathematics education itself can either reproduce or challenge social justice issues linked to poverty.

    Final thoughts

    This study is based on interviews with ITE tutors and therefore reflects their perspectives on programme design and pedagogical intentions rather than the full complexity of classroom practice. As a result, the everyday realities of teaching may reveal stronger forms of recognition and representation than those captured in this analysis, as well as additional ways in which student teachers engage with children’s lived experiences of poverty.

    Acknowledging this limitation is important when interpreting the findings. Nevertheless, the interviews with tutors provide valuable insight into how poverty is currently conceptualised and addressed within ITE, offering an important basis for considering how ITE might be strengthened.

    Building on this, to more effectively prepare student teachers, ITE programmes could move beyond broad commitments towards inclusion to instead offer more concrete preparation for working with children in poverty. Central to this shift is the need for ITE to explicitly embed the three pillars of social justice: redistribution of resources, recognition of diverse identities, and representation of student agency. Although ITE programmes already take on a wide responsibility when it comes to diversity – covering areas such as gender, race, immigration, and more – these aspects of diversity often overlap, and by addressing one dimension thoughtfully, we also contribute to the others.

    Key Messages

    • To effectively prepare student teachers to address poverty in their teaching practice, ITE programmes could move beyond broad commitments to inclusion and offer more concrete preparation for working with children in poverty.
    • Valuing diversity in education may require not only offering flexible teaching but also paying closer attention to what that diversity in a classroom actually entails. 
    • Achieving social justice requires the integration of all three dimensions: redistribution of resources, recognition of diverse identities, and representation of student agency
    • Social justice requires more than providing fair opportunities for the learners; it involves understanding and embracing differences and empowering students to be active participants of the learning environment while considering carefully what they might need to achieve this.
    Dr. Nejla Tugcem Sahin Bayik

    Dr. Nejla Tugcem Sahin Bayik

    Directorate of Basic Education at the Ministry of National Education (MoNE) in Türkiye

    Dr. Nejla Tugcem Sahin Bayik is an Education Specialist in the Monitoring and Evaluation Department of the Directorate of Basic Education at the Ministry of National Education (MoNE) in Türkiye. She is also a part-time lecturer at TED University. She earned her PhD in Education from the University of Aberdeen and holds an MA Degree in Mathematics Education from University College London. Having lectured at the University of Aberdeen, she has also contributed to various research projects as a researcher in the UK and in Türkiye. Her main research interests are social justice issues in education, inclusion, diversity, and children’s rights.

    LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nejla-tugcem-sahin-bayik

    Personal Blog: https://tugcemsahinbayik.blogspot.com/

    ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nejla-Sahin-Bayik

    Other blog posts on similar topics:

    References and Further Reading

    DePascale, M., Bustamante, A. S., & Dearing, E. (2024). Strengths-Based Approaches to Investigating Early Math Development in Family and Community Context: A Conceptual Framework. AERA Open, 10. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584241302059

    Douglas, D., & Attewell, P. (2017). School Mathematics as Gatekeeper. 58(4), 648–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2017.1354733

    Durrani, N., & Tariq, V. N. (2012). The role of numeracy skills in graduate employability. Education + Training, 54(5), 419–434. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911211244704

    Ellis, S., & Sosu, E. (2015). Closing poverty-related attainment gaps in Scotland’s schools: What works? From:https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/54123/15/Ellis_Sosu_IPPI2015_closing_poverty_related_attainment_gaps.pdf

    Fraser, N. (1999). Social Justice in the Age of Identity Politics: Redistribution, Recognition, and Participation. In L. Ray & A. Sayer (Eds.), Culture and Economy after the Cultural Turn (pp. 25–52). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446218112.n2

    Fraser, N., & Honneth, A. (2003). Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange. Verso.https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=IJxT6pxjO7YC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Greaves, E., Macmillan, L., & Sibieta, L. (2014). Lessons from London schools for attainment gaps and social mobility. Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission. From: https://socialmobility.independent-commission.uk/app/uploads/2024/07/London_Schools_-_FINAL.pdf

    Hoadley, U. (2007). The reproduction of social class inequalities through mathematics pedagogies in South African primary schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(6), 679–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270701261169

    James-Brabham, E., Loveridge, T., Sella, F., Wakeling, P., Carroll, D. J., & Blakey, E. (2023). How do socioeconomic attainment gaps in early mathematical ability arise? Child Development, 94(6), 1550–1565. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13947

    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(2), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9468-4

    Marks, G. N., Cresswell, J., & Ainley, J. (2006). Explaining socioeconomic inequalities in student achievement: The role of home and school factors. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(2), 105–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610600587040

    Martin, D., Gholson, M., Leonard, J., Martin, D. B., Gholson, M. L., & Leonard, J. (2010). Mathematics as gatekeeper: Power and privilege in the production of knowledge. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 3(2), 12–24. https://doi.org/10.21423/jume-v3i2a95

    Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, social class, and tracking on opportunities to learn mathematics and science. The RAND Corporation. From: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2006/R3928.pdf

    Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002). Making Mathematics Work for All Children: Issues of Standards, Testing, and Equity. Educational Researcher, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031001013

    Scottish Government (2023). Pupil attainment: closing the gap – Schools. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://www.gov.scot/policies/schools/pupil-attainment/

    Sheehan, J., & Hadfield, K. (2024). Overcoming socioeconomic adversity: Academic resilience in mathematics achievement among children and adolescents in Ireland. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 42(4), 524–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12512

    What PhD Dissertations Reveal About Early Childhood Education in Spain

    What PhD Dissertations Reveal About Early Childhood Education in Spain

    by | General, NW 11 Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance, SEP

    In educational research, peer-reviewed journal articles often take centre stage. Yet another rich source of knowledge is frequently overlooked: doctoral theses. These in-depth works capture new, exploratory directions and provide a unique window into how research evolves in specific national contexts.

    This study analysed 84 doctoral dissertations in Early Childhood Education (ECE) defended in Spain between 2020 and 2024, retrieved from the Spanish repositories TESEO and Tesis en Red. Using a descriptive–retrospective methodology supported by bibliometric analysis, it mapped emerging research priorities, identified the universities most active in ECE scholarship, and examined how this output aligns with current educational policies, including the LOE–LOMLOE reforms on competency-based learning, inclusivity, and cross-curricular values.

    Why look at doctoral theses?

    A desk with papers, some written, some printed documents with graphs and tables, crumpled up paper, a coffee cup, a pencil, and a notebook with pages marked.

    PhD dissertations represent the culmination of years of academic inquiry and often capture new, exploratory directions that may not yet appear in mainstream literature. As Fuentes and Arguimbau (2010) note, a dissertation contributes original and specialized knowledge, offering valuable context to assess what matters most in a given field. This is especially true in Early Childhood Education, a stage recognized for its importance in long-term child development.

    A research gap and a unique methodology

    Despite their potential, doctoral theses have historically been classified as “grey literature,” meaning they are not always easily accessible. However, thanks to open repositories such as TESEO and Tesis en Red in Spain, it is now possible to conduct large-scale bibliometric and content analyses.

    This study began by identifying 96 theses defended between 2020 and 2024. After applying inclusion criteria focused on Early Childhood Education—such as relevance of the topic, educational stage addressed, and methodological transparency—84 dissertations were selected for analysis.

    Data extraction followed a structured protocol including:

    • Thesis title and year of defence
    • University and department
    • Author and supervisor gender
    • Main research theme (coded into thematic categories)
    • Methodological approach and sample characteristics

    Thematic classification was conducted using both manual coding and keyword mapping, ensuring reliability through inter-coder agreement checks. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively to identify trends, while qualitative insights from abstracts and introductions provided context to interpret the statistical patterns.

    We focused on variables such as thesis topics, authorship gender, supervising institutions, and frequency of certain methodological approaches.

    The goal was not only to quantify scientific output, but also to understand how it aligns with current educational needs and policies, including the recent reforms in Spain such as LOE-LOMLOE — a legal framework updated in 2020 that emphasizes competency-based learning, inclusivity, and the integration of cross-curricular values like sustainability, gender equality, and digital literacy.

    Key findings: What the data shows

    The analysis revealed clear thematic patterns. Teacher training was the most prevalent focus, appearing in nearly 29% of the theses, followed closely by research on active methodologies at 22.6%. Inclusion and diversity were central in 21.4% of dissertations, highlighting the field’s attention to equity in early learning environments. Other areas such as socio-emotional development, digital competence, and neuropsychology were represented to a lesser extent but still contributed to a diverse research landscape.

    Gender patterns were also striking. Women authored over 70% of the dissertations and supervised 68% of them, reflecting a strong female presence in ECE research. The data further suggested gendered differences in research focus: female authors more frequently explored inclusion, diversity, and emotional development, whereas male authors were somewhat more represented in technology-related studies.

    Institutional analysis showed that doctoral production was concentrated in a few universities, which acted as hubs for innovation and scholarly collaboration. Departments specializing in Didactics and Scholar Organisation, and Developmental and Educational Psychology stood out for their volume of research, indicating the presence of focused academic communities with shared research priorities.

    The findings point to a vibrant yet uneven research ecosystem in Spain’s Early Childhood Education doctoral output. While dominant themes like teacher training and inclusion align with both national and international priorities, there are emerging areas—such as digital competence in early years and socio-emotional skill development—that remain underrepresented despite their growing relevance in 21st-century classrooms.

    The gender patterns observed are not only statistically significant but also sociologically meaningful. The strong female representation among both authors and supervisors may influence the thematic focus of the research, possibly reinforcing inclusive and affective dimensions in ECE scholarship.

    The concentration of doctoral production in a handful of universities—particularly in Murcia, Valencia, Castilla-La Mancha, and Salamanca—indicates that these institutions have become influential research hubs, often developing ‘scientific schools’ focused on specific ECE themes. Interestingly, these are not Spain’s largest universities, yet they play a central role in shaping national ECE research agendas. While this concentration creates opportunities for strong collaborative networks, it also raises questions about whether the diversity of perspectives and equitable access to doctoral research opportunities are being fully ensured across the country.

    Why this matters for policy and practice

    Understanding the trends in doctoral research offers policymakers a unique, evidence-based perspective on where Early Childhood Education (ECE) is heading and what areas may require strategic support.

    For example, the prominence of teacher training in nearly 30% of theses signals a continued need for professional development programs that equip educators with the skills to implement active and inclusive methodologies effectively. Similarly, the strong focus on diversity and inclusion suggests that policy measures should prioritize resources for supporting children with diverse learning needs, as well as monitoring the impact of these policies in the classroom.

    Beyond guiding policy priorities, the findings also highlight gaps where intervention may be required. Certain research areas, such as digital literacy in early years or socio-emotional development, remain underexplored relative to their growing importance in 21st-century education.

    Identifying these gaps allows education authorities to design targeted funding programs, encourage collaborative research initiatives, and foster innovative pedagogical practices. Additionally, recognizing which universities act as research hubs can inform decisions about where to concentrate partnerships, training initiatives, and dissemination of best practices, ultimately strengthening the national ECE system.

    A call to recognize hidden knowledge

    Doctoral theses contain rich insights that are often invisible to mainstream education stakeholders, yet they can significantly influence practice and policy. By treating these works as valuable sources of evidence, institutions and policymakers can expand their understanding of emerging trends and innovative methodologies in ECE. For instance, the clear gender patterns observed among authors and supervisors highlight not only the strengths of female representation in the field but also the need to examine how these dynamics may influence research focus and professional development.

    Moreover, integrating knowledge from doctoral theses can enhance collaboration between research and practice. Educators can draw inspiration from experimental or pilot approaches documented in dissertations, while universities and research centres can use these findings to foster cross-institutional networks. Encouraging access to and discussion of grey literature promotes a more inclusive academic ecosystem, where evidence from diverse sources informs educational reform. Ultimately, acknowledging and leveraging the insights hidden in doctoral work is a step toward a more reflective, innovative, and effective Early Childhood Education system in Spain.

    Overall, doctoral theses should be recognised as more than academic milestones; they are strategic sources of evidence for shaping educational policy, informing teacher training curricula, and identifying innovation opportunities in early years pedagogy.

    Key Messages

    — Doctoral theses offer deep insights into emerging research trends in Early Childhood Education (ECE) in Spain.

    — Between 2020 and 2024, key themes included teacher training, active methodologies, and diversity/inclusion.

    — Women represented the majority of thesis authors and supervisors, showing significant gender patterns.

    — Academic production is concentrated in specific universities, pointing to strong institutional research hubs.

    — The findings help identify current educational challenges and guide future improvements in ECE policy and practice.

    Paula Martínez-Enríquez

    Paula Martínez-Enríquez

    International Doctoral School of UNED (Spain)

    Paula Martínez-Enríquez is a PhD candidate in Education at the International Doctoral School of UNED (Spain). Her research focuses on quality assurance in education and emerging trends in Early Childhood Education, as well as Project-based methodology in Early Childhood Education and democratic pedagogies. She is currently funded by the Regional Government of Madrid through the 2023 predoctoral research training program.

    Orchid: 0009-0001-7339-9425 

    paula.martinez@edu.uned.es

    Scholar Google Paula Martínez-Enríquez

    LinkedIn Paula Martínez-Enríquez

    Other blog posts on similar topics:

    References and Further Reading

    Eliasson, S., Peterson, L. & Lantz-Andersson, A. A systematic literature review of empirical research on technology education in early childhood education. Int J Technol Des Educ 33, 793–818 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09764-z

    Yu, S., & Cho, E. (2022). Preservice teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50(4).https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10643-021-01187-0

    Fuentes, M., & Arguimbau, M. (2010). Tesis doctorales y conocimiento pedagógico. Editorial UOC.

    Repiso, R., Torres-Salinas, D., & Delgado, E. (2011). Scientific grey literature and doctoral dissertations. ICONO 14, 11(2).

    López-Gómez, E. (2016). Analysis of doctoral theses in educational tutoring. Revista General de Información y Documentación, 26(1).http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/rev_RGID.2016.v26.n1.53047

    Conferences as catalysts for researcher development: Lessons from Post-Soviet contexts and reflections from ECER

    Conferences as catalysts for researcher development: Lessons from Post-Soviet contexts and reflections from ECER

    by | Emerging Researchers' Group

    What does it truly mean to attend a conference? Is it merely about collecting certificates and adding lines to a CV, or does it represent a deeper professional journey? My experience at European Conference for Educational Research (ECER) and several other conferences I have attended since beginning my PhD in the United Kingdom have helped me answer these questions and reflect on the challenges faced by researchers in post-Soviet contexts.

    Two journeys, two systems

    When I first arrived in the UK to begin my PhD, I carried with me a clear formula for academic success: academic achievement = conferences + publications. That belief originated from my first PhD experience in Azerbaijan, where the rules were explicit, three conferences (one international) and five articles, or no degree. While there was comfort in that structure, it also brought pressure. Conferences were obligations, not opportunities.

    Interestingly, my supervisors in the UK encouraged a different approach: “One meaningful conference is better than five rushed ones.” Initially, this lack of rigid targets and checklists left me uncertain about how to measure progress. However, over time, I came to understand the depth of their advice.

    Predatory publishing and Soviet legacies

    Recent scholarship on post-Soviet academic systems highlights the persistence of Soviet-era evaluation practices that prioritise quantitative output over research quality (Chankseliani, Lovakov & Pislyakov, 2021). This study examines how such legacies shape publishing behaviours and contribute to the growth of predatory publishing in post-Soviet educational research. How many conferences? How many articles? How many citations? This system rewards quantity rather than quality, perpetuating a cycle of superficial productivity.

    Predatory publishers – organisations that charge fees for publishing work without proper peer review – and “fast-track” conferences thrive under such conditions. In Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and beyond, early-career researchers are often lured into prestigious-sounding “Global Innovations in Science” events hosted in Paris or Dubai, high fees, impressive certificates, but minimal academic substance (Hajiyeva, 2023). The pursuit of legitimacy can make researchers vulnerable to academic exploitation.

    Scholars such as Kulczycki (2017) and Chankseliani et al. (2021) have demonstrated that bibliometric inflation is widespread across the region. Academic worth is frequently reduced to numbers, a lingering legacy of Soviet-era evaluation frameworks, where scientific labour was planned, counted, and reported for administrative purposes rather than genuine inquiry. Although policy language has evolved, institutional cultures often remain unchanged. Weak research infrastructure, limited funding, insufficient training in empirical methods, and minimal collaboration all contribute to a cycle of formality without substantive innovation (Kuzhabekova & Mukhamejanova, 2017; Ruziev & Mamasolieva, 2022).

    Insights from ECER

    Unlike the so-called “international” conferences I had previously encountered, often held in tourist capitals with grand titles but little academic value, ECER offered a genuine academic community. My presentation was peer-reviewed, the audience posed thoughtful questions, and the true value lay in the scholarly exchange rather than the certificate.

    One notable aspect I observed, rarely discussed openly before, was the element of care. ECER made deliberate efforts to support researchers with children. Although childcare remained costly compared to my experience at the ESA 2024 conference in Porto, the recognition of this issue was an important step. Inclusion, I realised, is not merely a research topic; it must also be a lived academic practice.

    Through these experiences, I learned that conference participation should not be treated as a numerical pursuit. It is a long-term dialogue, a slow process of building academic identity. Attending one or two high-quality conferences per year, combined with collaborative projects and research visits, can be far more valuable than accumulating numerous certificates.

    My advice to early-career researchers, particularly those from post-Soviet contexts, is this: do not chase appearances, seek scholarly communities.

    Conclusion

    To truly support researcher development, academic systems should:

    • Shift evaluation criteria from quantity to depth.
    • Reward collaboration and intellectual contribution, not mere output.
    • Strengthen research literacy to resist predatory academic practices.

    Until academic value is redefined in this way, research systems will continue to produce numbers instead of knowledge.

    Conferences, when grounded in genuine scholarly exchange rather than numeric performance indicators, can serve as spaces of both personal and systemic transformation. For post-Soviet researchers, embracing this perspective may be crucial in redefining academic success and fostering authentic research cultures.

    Key Messages

    • Conference participation is not just about certificates or CV lines—it is a meaningful journey of professional and personal growth.
    • Academic systems in post-Soviet countries often prioritise quantity over quality, which can lead to superficial productivity and vulnerability to predatory publishing and conferences.
    • Genuine scholarly communities, such as those fostered at ECER, offer opportunities for peer review, intellectual exchange, and inclusion—far beyond what “fast-track” conferences provide.
    • Researcher development benefits most from attending a few high-quality conferences, engaging in collaborative projects, and building authentic academic networks, rather than chasing appearances or numbers.
    Turan Abdullayeva

    Turan Abdullayeva

    University of Sheffield

    Turana Abdullayeva is a PhD researcher in Education at the University of Sheffield and an Associate Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (AFHEA). Her research focuses on inclusive education, decolonial disability studies, and teacher education in post-Soviet contexts, with a particular emphasis on Azerbaijan.

    Alongside her doctoral work, Turana teaches and supervises postgraduate students, contributes to international research projects on accessibility and anti-ableist research cultures, and works in student support and inclusion. She has published in leading international journals, including Disability & Society and the International Journal of Inclusive Education, and regularly writes reflective blog posts on academia, access, and belonging.

    Linkedn: www.linkedin.com/in/dr-turana-abdullayeva-9456961a1

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/turush.abdullayeva

    Other blog posts on similar topics:

    References and Further Reading

    Chankseliani, M., Lovakov, A., & Pislyakov, V. (2021). A big picture: bibliometric study of academic publications from post-Soviet countries. Scientometrics, 126(10), 8701-8730. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353979277_A_big_picture_bibliometric_study_of_academic_publications_from_post-Soviet_countries  

    Hajiyeva, N. U. (2025, August 31). Facebook post. Retrieved September 15, 2025, from https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AAbrdwv68/?mibextid=wwXIfr

    Kosaretsky, S., Mikayilova, U. And Ivanov, I. (2024). Soviet, Global and Local: Inclusion Policies in School Education in Azerbaijan And Russia. Revista Brasileira de Educação Especial, 30, p.e0103. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384702057_Soviet_Global_and_Local_inclusion_Policies_in_School_education_in_Azerbaijan_and_Russia

    Kulczycki, E. (2017). Assessing publications through a bibliometric indicator: The case of comprehensive evaluation of scientific units in Poland. Research Evaluation, 26(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvw023

    Kuzhabekova, A., & Mukhamejanova, D. (2017). Productive researchers in countries with limited research capacity: Researchers as agents in post-Soviet Kazakhstan. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 8(1), 30-47. https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-08-2016-0018

    Mamerkhanova, Z., Sakayeva, A., Akhmetkarimova, K., Assakayeva, D., & Bobrova, V. (2025). Development of inclusive education in the Republic of Kazakhstan: An inside view (case of the Karaganda region). Frontiers in Education, 10, 1630225. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1630225

    Ruziev, K., & Mamasolieva, M. (2022). Building university research capacity in Uzbekistan. In Building research capacity at universities: Insights from post-soviet countries (pp. 285-303). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-12141-8_15 

    ERC TAMPERE 2026 – upcoming submission deadline for emerging researchers’ conference in finland

    ERC TAMPERE 2026 – upcoming submission deadline for emerging researchers’ conference in finland

    by | Emerging Researchers' Group

    After the ECER conference in Belgrade, we – the organising committee of ECER 2026 in Tampere – found ourselves reflecting on what makes conferences so special. Although important, we guess that for most, it is not just the panels or the presentations. For us, it is also the atmosphere of intellectual generosity, meeting the friends we have made in the academic community, and making new ones.

    In addition, what made the experience in Belgrade so special was that the place itself reminded us of the power of collective action. Walking through the city, hearing about the student protests driven by a deep concern for justice, transparency, and democracy, we couldn’t help but think about the questions of what it means to act on knowledge ethically, collectively, and with purpose. What does it mean for a research community to know in ways that matter? And how do we transform the knowing into action? These questions they stay with us as we look toward Tampere and our upcoming theme: “Knowing and Acting”.

    ECER 2026

    Collective knowing and acting requires a community. For EERA community it means creating spaces where emerging voices are heard and valued. That’s why the Emerging Researchers Conference feels so important for us as the organisers of ECER Tampere 2026. ERC is not only an event for junior members of an academic community, it’s EERA’s collective effort to build up a community that is welcoming, supportive, intellectually stimulating and rigorous, and ethical. We would like the ERC to be a place where early career scholars can connect, share ideas, and build friendships that sustain them in the often-challenging academic world. This is a prerequisite of collective knowing and acting. Thus, we warmly encourage the members of EERA community to support early career researchers’ participation in ERC in Tampere.

    Emerging Researchers’ Conference 2026

    The Emerging Researchers’ Conference programme consists of two days of conference activities. In various sessions, the ERC participants can engage with paper and poster presentations, ignite talks, posters, and workshops. The participants can also enjoy a keynote lecture by Richard Budd (Lancaster University) and an interactive session themed “For slow reading and criticality in accelerating academia” by Zsuzsa Millei (Tampere University) and Antti Saari (Tampere University). To network and discuss with colleagues further, ERC in Tampere has interactive lunch breaks and a City Reception Event.

    Conference information

    Read more about the programme of the Emerging Researcher Conference in Tampere and how to submit your proposal by 31 Jan 2026: Emerging Researchers’ Conference | EERA

    We wish that ECER Tampere 2026 will bring us opportunities to imagine together what education research can be and do, and to act on that imagination.

    Associate Professor Maiju Paananen

    Associate Professor Maiju Paananen

    Chair, Organising Committee, ECER Tampere 2026

    Associate Professor Maiju Paananen is the chair of the Local organising committee of Emerging Researchers’ Conference in Tampere 2026. Paananen leads Child politics and Early Childhood research group at Tampere University, Faculty of Education and Culture.

    Dr Iida Kiesi

    Dr Iida Kiesi

    Conference coordinator of ECER Tampere

    Dr Iida Kiesi is the coordinator for the ECER 2026 in Tampere. Kiesi defended her doctoral thesis in 2024, in which she researched privatization of Education in Finland.

    Other blog posts on similar topics: