Across Europe, schools are implementing a wide range of school-based interventions and student-centred compensatory interventions aimed at addressing educational inequalities, fostering student engagement with school, and reducing the risk of early school leaving (ESL). These initiatives include mentoring programmes, peer tutoring, wellbeing initiatives, personalised learning pathways, inclusive support measures, and practices inspired by pedagogical differentiation and universal design for learning (UDL).
Within this framework, the Horizon Europe project LINEup is currently carrying out a large-scale qualitative research. Complementing the project’s quantitative analyses, the qualitative research investigates how inequalities are experienced, understood and addressed across different educational settings and national contexts.
The qualitative research focuses on schools located in areas identified through longitudinal data analysis as over- or under-performing in terms of students’ learning outcomes. In these areas, LINEup researchers are conducting case studies in both high- and low-performing schools across the six participating countries. Through interviews and focus groups involving more than 200 school leaders, teachers, students and parents from 54 schools, the project explores how schools promote inclusion, equity, positive school climate and wellbeing at school.
The fieldwork is guided by three overarching research questions:
- RQ1 – What can schools do to foster students’ engagement with school and improve learning outcomes?
- RQ2 – What are the key characteristics and implementation challenges of interventions that keep students engaged and compensate for inequalities?
- RQ3 – Under what conditions are such interventions effective (e.g. improving learning outcomes), equitable (e.g. reducing inequalities), and efficient (e.g. making the best use of available resources)?
Building on these research questions, the qualitative investigation analyses how schools design, implement and adapt interventions to support diverse learners and create more inclusive educational environments. Particular attention is given to the conditions for intervention effectiveness, including organisational capacity, leadership, collaboration among stakeholders, resource allocation, and the influence of educational policies on school practices.
The fieldwork is currently ongoing, and the results of the qualitative research will be discussed in October 2026 during a validation workshop involving around 120 stakeholders, including representatives from the schools participating in the case studies.
A shared glossary for the LINEup research
Because LINEup brings together researchers from different disciplines and countries, developing a shared understanding of key concepts is essential. The project has therefore developed a common glossary to support conceptual clarity, terminological consistency and cross-country comparability throughout the qualitative research.
The glossary harmonises the use of key concepts across the consortium and supports the design, implementation and analysis of the case studies. Each entry builds on academic literature, European policy frameworks and the project’s theoretical framework.
Conceived as a living resource, the glossary will continue to evolve throughout the project.
Would you like to explore what these concepts mean? Discover the LINEup Glossary and navigate through the key terms shaping our research on education, equity and inclusion.
🔎︎ Explore the LINEup Glossary
01. Conditions for Intervention Effectiveness - RQ3
Conceptual Definition
Conditions for intervention effectiveness encompass the systemic, institutional, and pedagogical factors that enable the successful and sustainable implementation of educational initiatives (Fixsen et al., 2005; OECD, 2015). According to Fixsen et al. (2005), effective interventions rely not only on their internal quality (e.g. clearly defined components, fidelity mechanisms) but also on the presence of enabling contextual factors, such as leadership, training, coaching, and organisational readiness. OECD (2015) further emphasises that learning systems require alignment between policy objectives, school-level capacity, and professional practices in order to support innovation. Conceptually, this notion moves beyond isolated programme evaluation and focuses on the ecosystem in which interventions unfold. It highlights the relational and adaptive nature of implementation, where contextual responsiveness, distributed leadership, and collaborative problem-solving are central. Effectiveness is thus not conceived as a fixed attribute of an intervention, but as a negotiated process shaped by institutional culture, capacity, and systemic coherence (SCIREARLY, 2023). These conditions should not be confused with the outcomes of an intervention (e.g. effectiveness, equity, or efficiency). While closely related, they refer to the organisational, pedagogical, and systemic prerequisites that make such outcomes possible, rather than the outcomes themselves.
Operational Definition
Within the LINEup project, the assessment of conditions for intervention effectiveness is grounded in a theory-informed and evidence-based approach. It combines literature synthesis, descriptive analyses and qualitative fieldwork to identify enabling factors and promising practices, while acknowledging contextual constraints.
Descriptive analyses provide an overview of the interventions and their implementation contexts, mapping organisational features (e.g. leadership, collaboration), school characteristics (e.g. size, location, socio-economic profile), and institutional frameworks. This supports cross-case comparisons and enhances understanding of variation in implementation dynamics.
The structured synthesis of existing research ensures conceptual coherence and highlights relevant evidence across countries. Qualitative methods, such as interviews, focus groups, and document analysis, allow for an in-depth examination of how, when, and under what conditions interventions foster student engagement and learning outcomes.
The assessment focuses on three dimensions: organisational (e.g. school leadership, internal capacity), pedagogical (e.g. curricular practices), and policy-related (e.g. school autonomy, governance, resources).
These insights directly inform RQ3: under what organisational, pedagogical and policy conditions are such interventions effective, equitable, and efficient?
Type of Concept: Implementation condition
Thematic classification: School-based Interventions
Level of Operationalisation: Meso
Related Terms and Cross-References: Adaptation, Fidelity, Organisational Capacity, Professional Development, School Leadership
Notes
- In the implementation science literature, these are often referred to as core components, drivers, or contextual enablers.
- In literature, there is the concept of “Teacher Cultures”, and collaborative is one of the different cultures, actually the most related with effectiveness, the others could be a barrier for the implementation (Hargreaves, 1994).
Metadata
- Entry author(s): Framework for School and Participant Selection for LINEup Qualitative Research: Advancing a Multiple-Case Study Design; Marta de Oliveira Rodrigues
- Date of last update: 2025-09-29
- Validation status: Draft
References
- Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature. University of South Florida. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242511155_Implementation_Research_A_Synthesis_of_the_Literature_Dean_L_Fixsen
- Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing Teachers, Changing Times. Teacher’s work and culture in the postmodern age. London: Cassell.
- (2015). Schooling Redesigned: Towards Innovative Learning Systems, Educational Research and Innovation. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264245914-en
- (2023). Scientific-based policies to prevent early school leaving. Retrieved from https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101061288
02. Early School Leaving (ESL) - RQ2 and RQ3
Conceptual Definition
Early School Leaving (ESL) refers to the premature leaving from formal education by individuals, typically aged 18 to 24, who have completed no more than lower secondary education (ISCED 0–2) and are not enrolled in any further education or training. While grounded in EU monitoring frameworks (European Commission, 2024), the concept extends beyond its statistical definition to encompass the cumulative effects of educational and social disadvantage.
ESL is shaped by a complex interaction of individual factors (e.g., academic underperformance, motivation), institutional conditions (e.g., school climate, teacher-student relationships), and broader socio-economic contexts (e.g., poverty, family instability, migration background, labour market). ESL can be understood as the outcome of long-term trajectories of marginalisation and disengagement, signalling systemic shortcomings rather than individual failure (Triventi et al., 2020). At the same time, students exercise agency in shaping their trajectories: Dubet (2004), Charlot (1996), and Lahire (1997) show how young people construct meanings and strategies in relation to school, while more recent studies emphasise that leaving early may also reflect active decisions in response to labour market opportunities (Evans, 2007). Rather than representing an individual failure, ESL reflects systemic shortcomings in addressing the needs of diverse learners. It has thus become a central concept in discussions on educational equity and reform (PIONEERED, 2023).
Various related terms are used across the literature to describe dynamics associated with ESL. These include “dropout”[1] (OECD, 2018), widely used in international contexts; “early leaving from education and training” (European Commission, 2024), the formal EU indicator; “school disengagement” (Fredricks et al., 2004), referring to declining emotional, behavioural, and cognitive engagement; and experiences of marginalisation comparable to “hidden dropout”, as explored in PIONEERED (2023). In addition, longitudinal studies on educational pathways, such as Triventi et al. (2020), highlight the cumulative processes that lead to early school leaving. Within these trajectories, absenteeism emerges as both a manifestation of disengagement and a key predictor of dropout, underscoring the need for educational policies that specifically address this phenomenon.
Operational Definition
In the LINEup project, ESL is operationalised in line with the EU benchmark: young people aged 18–24 who have completed at most ISCED level 2 and are not enrolled in any education or training (European Commission, 2022). The project also considers early leaving occurring during or immediately after compulsory schooling (typically around age 16) as key moments in disengagement trajectories.
The concept of early school leaving is applied through in-depth case studies that combine interviews, focus groups, and document analysis. These methods enable the exploration of diverse aspects relevant to student disengagement, such as teacher-student relationships, pedagogical strategies, perceived support, disciplinary practices, school climate, and critical transitions within the education system. Rather than being predefined, these elements are identified and interpreted as they emerge in each school setting.
This operationalisation helps to understand how schools perceive and tackle the risk of early school leaving, as well as the institutional, pedagogical, and organisational conditions that enable interventions to effectively foster student engagement, inclusion, and learning outcomes. The project analyses a range of school-level responses, including preventive measures such as early identification systems and inclusive teaching practices, alongside compensatory and targeted actions like remedial support, mentoring, and tailored adaptations to overcome specific barriers faced by students.
Student engagement is treated as a central mediating factor in the success of these measures, shaping how students experience school and respond to support (Fredricks et al., 2004; Moreira et al., 2020). The design and implementation of these responses are analysed in relation to the wider institutional and policy frameworks that inform them (SCIREARLY, 2023). This operational framing contributes directly to RQ2 (regarding the nature of compensatory interventions) and RQ3 (regarding the conditions under which such interventions are effective, equitable and efficient)
Type of Concept: Empirical Concept
Thematic classification: Student Engagement with school
Level of Operationalisation: Macro (with meso and micro implications)
Related Terms and Cross-References: Dropout, Early leaving, Educational Trajectories, Hidden school dropout, NEET, School Disengagement, School leaving
Notes
- The term is used statistically at EU level (18–24 age group) but has processual and contextual dimensions explored in qualitative research.
- The concept overlaps with NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training) but focuses specifically on formal education trajectories.
- The term ESL is used here according to EU definitions but may differ from national terms such as “school dropout” or “hidden dropout”. Researchers should document how the term is interpreted locally and how it aligns with school and policy discourse.
- School dropout is often used more loosely in national discourses and may refer to a wider range of disengagement or absenteeism dynamics, not always aligned with the EU definition of ESL.
Metadata
- Entry author(s): Framework for School and Participant Selection for LINEup Qualitative Research: Advancing a Multiple-Case Study Design; Marta de Oliveira Rodrigues
- Date of last update: 2025-09-11
- Validation status: Draft
References
- Charlot, B. (1996). Relação com o saber e com a escola entre estudantes de periferia. Cadernos de Pesquisa, 97, 47-63.
- Dubet, F. (2004). O que é uma escola justa? Cadernos de Pesquisa, 123(34), 539-555.
- European Commission. (2022, June 17). Early school leaving. Retrieved July 9, 2025, from https://education.ec.europa.eu/education-levels/school-education/early-school-leaving
- Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
- Lahire, B.(1997) . Sucesso escolar nos meios populares: As razões do improvável. São Paulo: Ática.
- Evans, K. (2007). Concepts of bounded agency in education, work, and the personal lives of young adults. International Journal of Psychology, 42(2), 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590600991237
- Moreira, P., Cunha, D., & Inman, R. A. (2020). An Integration of Multiple Student Engagement Dimensions into a Single Measure and Validity-Based Studies. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 38(5), 564-580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282919870973
- (2018). Equity in Education: Breaking Down Barriers to Social Mobility. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/education/equity-in-education-9789264073234-en.htm
- (2023). Project Overview. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101004392
- (2023). Scientific-based policies to prevent early school leaving.
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101061288/reporting
Triventi, M., Skopek, J., Kulic, N., Buchholz, S., & Blossfeld, H.-P. (2020). Advantage ‘Finds Its Way’: How Privileged Families Exploit Opportunities in Different Systems of Secondary Education. Sociology, 54(2), 237-257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038519874984
[1] Refers to leaving school before completing an educational cycle, regardless of age or level completed. It often describes the act of leaving school, which may be temporary or permanent, and can happen at any stage of education, including primary, secondary, or tertiary levels. This term is frequently used in qualitative research and general educational discourse.
03. Educational Inequalities - RQ1 and RQ2
Notes:
Class, codes and control: Volume 1-Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language
https://www.epi.org/publication/us-student-performance-testing/
Dubet, F. (2004). O que é uma escola justa? Can education be equalized? The Swedish case in comparative perspective(2018). https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/estudis/2021/fc2fd5f0f0bc/380092eng.pdf,
04. Educational Policies - RQ3
Conceptual Definition
Educational policies refer to the strategic frameworks, regulatory mechanisms, and funding decisions formulated by national, regional, and supranational authorities to govern, structure, and reform education systems. These policies encompass a wide range of domains, including curriculum development, teacher recruitment and training, allocation of resources, assessment systems, equity promotion, and accountability structures (OECD, 2015; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010).
Rather than being fixed directives, educational policies constitute a dynamic field shaped through processes of negotiation, interpretation, and enactment at different levels of the education system (Ball, 1993; Ozga, 2000). Ball (1993) conceptualises policy as both text and discourse, subject to recontextualisation by local actors, while Rizvi and Lingard (2010) emphasise its embeddedness in ideological and political formations that often obscure structural inequities. Institutions such as the European Commission and Eurydice play a key role in producing comparative evidence and shaping transnational agendas (European Commission, 2024; Eurydice, 2023). Conceptually, then, educational policy is not merely an instrument of governance but a contested space where power, interests, and values converge, enabling and constraining school-level autonomy, innovation, and inclusion. Policies may thus play a dual role: they can either perpetuate structural inequalities or act as levers for equity-oriented reform.
As such, educational policies represent a structural dimension of the project’s analytical framework, shaping the conditions under which school-level interventions are designed, implemented, and sustained.
Operational Definition
In the context of the LINEup project, educational policies are analysed in terms of how national, regional authorities, school networks and Municipalities frameworks, resource allocation mechanisms, and monitoring and accountability systems shape the capacity of schools to address educational disadvantage, particularly with regard to student disengagement, dropout, and early school leaving. Fieldwork focuses on the perceptions and strategic positioning of school leaders as they interpret, negotiate, and implement policy mandates in diverse local contexts. This includes examining tensions between policy intentions and school realities, as well as the degrees of autonomy and flexibility available to schools serving vulnerable populations.
To capture the full complexity of policy enactment, the analysis acknowledges the interplay between macro-level actors (e.g., national ministries, supranational bodies) and meso-level structures (e.g., regional authorities, local education offices, school networks). These levels often shape, filter, and mediate the translation of central policy into school-level practice, influencing both the constraints and the opportunities available to school leaders. Recognising this multilevel governance dynamic is particularly important in decentralised systems or those with high degrees of school autonomy, where intermediary bodies play a pivotal role in interpreting mandates, allocating resources, and supporting implementation on the ground.
Operationally, the concept is investigated through qualitative data that capture how school leaders respond to systemic constraints, adapt central guidelines to local needs, and engage with policy discourses. As Ball et al. (2012, p. 3) argue, “policy enactment involves creative processes of interpretation and recontextualisation”, often resulting in practices that are “sophisticated, contingent, complex and unstable”. Policy enactment will be examined through how school leaders interpret flexibility, negotiate trade-offs, and make decisions about adapting central mandates to the needs of disadvantaged students, as revealed through interviews and institutional documents. This analysis directly informs RQ3 (Under what conditions are interventions effective, equitable, and efficient?), by exploring how policies influence the design, implementation, and perceived legitimacy of school-level interventions.
Type of Concept: Policy-Related Concept
Thematic Classification: Educational Policies
Level of Operationalisation: Macro /meso
Related Terms and Cross-References: Educational Governance, Inclusive Education, Policy Implementation
Notes
- Often shaped by transnational recommendations (e.g., EU Council Recommendations, OECD frameworks)
- This entry is informed by policy enactment literature (Ball et al., 2012; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010) and treats policies not only as formal texts but as lived and interpreted practices. In fieldwork, researchers are encouraged to explore how school actors navigate tensions between policy mandates and local priorities.
Metadata (For Internal Use):
• Entry author(s): Marta de Oliveira Rodrigues
• Date of last update: 2025-09-11
• Validation status: Draft
References
- Ball, S. J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 13(2), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/0159630930130203
- Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. Routledge.
- European Commission. (2024, November 28). Education and Training Monitor. Retrieved July 9, 2025, from https://education.ec.europa.eu/about-eea/education-and-training-monitor
- (2023). Eurydice Reports. https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/
- (2015). Education policy outlook 2015: Making reforms happen. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264225442-en
- Ozga, J. (2000). Policy research in educational settings: Contested terrain. Open University Press.
- Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. Routledge.
05. Effectiveness - RQ3
Conceptual Definition
Effectiveness refers to the extent to which educational interventions, practices, or policies achieve their intended objectives, whether these relate to academic performance, student engagement, inclusion, or equity. While commonly assessed through measurable outputs such as test scores or graduation rates, effectiveness also includes qualitative aspects, such as stakeholder satisfaction, contextual relevance, and the sustainability of outcomes (Levin, 2001; OECD, 2015; SCIREARLY, 2023).
Levin (2001) argues that effectiveness should be evaluated not only through achievement indicators, but also by considering fairness and the alignment of educational goals with the needs and values of the communities they are designed to serve. The OECD (2015) similarly emphasises that an effective education system consistently delivers strong results across diverse populations and contexts. SCIREARLY (2023) draws attention to the importance of adaptability and reflexive practices within schools and educational systems. Effectiveness therefore relates both to results and to the processes and conditions that make those results meaningful, sustainable, and contextually appropriate. What works in education depends not only on the intervention itself but also on how it is implemented and how well it fits within the institutional and local environment. In the context of this project, effectiveness is also understood in relation to its contribution to reducing educational disparities, particularly among students at risk of disengagement or dropout.
Operational Definition
In the LINEup project, effectiveness is analysed as a multidimensional criterion for assessing school-level responses to inequalities, with particular focus on learning outcomes, student engagement, and school climate. The evaluation relies on qualitative data collected through semi-structured interviews involving school leaders and focus groups with students, teachers, and parents. These instruments are designed to capture both the intended impacts of interventions and how these are perceived and experienced by different stakeholders.
Operationally, effectiveness is explored through the triangulation of stakeholder narratives (school leaders, teachers and students), self-reported improvements, and internal mechanisms for reflection and adaptation as described by participants. It includes informal success criteria articulated by school actors and, when applicable, reference to formal indicators. Effectiveness is therefore analysed not only in terms of outcomes, but also in terms of their perceived legitimacy, sustainability, and contextual relevance (SCIREARLY, 2023). This approach contributes to RQ3, which examines the conditions under which interventions are effective, equitable, and efficient.
Type of Concept: Empirical Concept
Thematic classification: Learning Outcomes
Level of Operationalisation: Macro / Meso
Related Terms and Cross-References: Efficiency, Outcomes, Impact Evaluation
Notes
- Effectiveness is often assessed alongside cost-effectiveness and feasibility within implementation science frameworks.While effectiveness refers to the achievement of intended outcomes, “conditions for intervention effectiveness” refer to the organisational, pedagogical, and systemic factors that enable such outcomes to be achieved.
Metadata (For Internal Use):
- Entry author(s): Marta de Oliveira Rodrigues
- Date of last update: 2025-09-29
- Validation status: Draft
References
- Levin, H. M. (2001). Waiting for Godot: Cost-effectiveness analysis in education. New Directions for Evaluation, 2001(90), 55–68.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ev.12
- (2015). Schooling Redesigned: Towards Innovative Learning Systems. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2015/10/schooling-redesigned_g1g5c5fb.html
- (2023). Scientific-based policies to prevent early school leaving. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101061288/reporting
06. Efficiency - RQ3
Conceptual Definition
Efficiency in education refers to the optimal use of available resources (financial, human, material, and time-related), to achieve intended educational outcomes (Miningou, 2019; OECD, 2015; The World Bank & UNESCO, 2023). According to the OECD (2015), efficiency reflects the capacity of an education system to deliver results in a cost-effective manner, requiring a balance between inputs and outputs. Miningou (2019) and The World Bank and UNESCO (2023) emphasises that efficiency involves, not only maximising performance, but doing so in ways that promote equity and long-term sustainability.
Beyond its economic dimension, efficiency in education encompasses the social value generated by educational investments. It invites analysis of how decisions are made concerning priorities, trade-offs, and opportunity costs, particularly in contexts marked by limited resources. A multidimensional understanding of efficiency therefore includes both technical considerations of resource use and normative concerns about fairness, transparency, and the durability of outcomes (Miningou, 2019; OECD, 2015; The World Bank & UNESCO, 2023).
Efficiency, when narrowly focused on outputs, may risk exacerbating existing inequalities. However, when conceived as a balance between performance, fairness, and long-term impact, it can serve as a guiding principle for equity-oriented resource allocation.
Operational Definition
In the LINEup project, efficiency is examined through informants’ perceptions of how time, staff, and financial resources are mobilised in relation to the results achieved. The focus is on how schools manage resources to sustain effective and equitable responses to inequalities in education. Qualitative data are gathered through semi-structured interviews, focus groups and document analysis, allowing for the exploration of how resources are allocated, how priorities are set, and how implicit trade-offs are managed in everyday school practices. The analysis triangulates stakeholders’ accounts (school leaders and teachers) with school documents, schedules, and intervention plans, to explore how resources are concretely distributed and justified in relation to perceived and observed educational results. This approach integrates cost-benefit reasoning with educational values such as fairness and sustainability, in line with OECD (2015) and The World Bank and UNESCO (2023), linking directly to RQ3, which investigates the conditions under which interventions are not only effective and equitable but also efficient. This perspective is consistent with LINEup’s overarching objective of understanding how schools can respond to inequalities while making effective and sustainable use of available resources.
Type of Concept: Empirical Concept
Thematic classification: School Characteristics
Level of Operationalisation: Macro / Meso
Related Terms and Cross-References: Accountability, Effectiveness, Sustainability
Notes
- The concept of efficiency is often conflated with cost-effectiveness. In this glossary, it includes organisational and pedagogical dimensions, such as time use, workload balance, and proportionality between effort and outcome. It is assessed through both perceptions and observable allocation practices.
Metadata
• Entry author(s): Marta de Oliveira Rodrigues
• Date of last update: 2025-09-11
• Validation status: Draft
References
- Miningou, É. W. (2019). Quality Education and the Efficiency of Public Expenditure: A Cross-Country Comparative Analysis (Policy Research Working Paper No. 9077). World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/751241575986941436/pdf/Quality-Education-and-the-Efficiency-of-Public-Expenditure-A-Cross-Country-Comparative-Analysis.pdf
OECD. (2015). Schooling Redesigned: Towards Innovative Learning Systems. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/education/schooling-redesigned-9789264245914-en.htm
07. Equity - RQ3
Conceptual Definition
Equity in education refers to the principle of ensuring fairness by acknowledging and addressing the different needs, circumstances, and starting points of learners (European Commission, 2020; UNESCO, 2020). Bourdieu and Passeron (1977) argue that education systems tend to reproduce social inequalities by favouring those who already possess dominant forms of cultural, social, and economic capital. Dubet (2010) outlines three models of justice in education: equality of rights, opportunities, and outcomes, offering a multidimensional framework that informs our use of equity in this glossary. The European Commission (2020) frames equity as the process of removing barriers that prevent students from accessing, participating in, and benefiting equally from education.
Equity does not entail treating all students the same but rather providing what each learner needs to thrive. It represents both a normative principle and a practical commitment to adapt schooling processes, environments, and resources to promote inclusion, success, and recognition for all. A comprehensive approach integrates redistributive justice, recognition of diversity, and inclusive participation to address systemic educational inequities (Booth & Ainscow, 2011; European Commission, 2020; UNESCO, 2020). Equity in this sense serves as a counterbalance to educational inequalities, aiming to redress structural disadvantages and promote a more just and inclusive learning environment.
Operational Definition
In the LINEup project, equity is operationalized through interviews with school leaders and focus groups with students, teachers, and parents. The qualitative investigation focuses on school practices of resource allocation, curricular adaptations, and perceptions of fairness and recognition, to explore how equity is experienced and enacted in everyday school life.
Data triangulation across these stakeholders reveals how schools understand and respond to differentiated needs and unequal starting points. Operationally, equity is examined through personalised support measures, differentiated instruction, and culturally responsive pedagogies, among others, reported during fieldwork. This analysis contributes to RQ3, which explores the conditions that make interventions equitable and effective. Equity is thus understood as a process of adapting education to promote fairness, inclusion, and recognition (European Commission, 2020).
Type of Concept: Theoretical Concept
Thematic classification: Educational Policies
Level of Operationalisation: Macro / Meso/ Micro
Related Terms and Cross-References: Educational Inequalities, Inclusion, Social Justice
Notes
- Central to EU and UNESCO educational frameworks and goals.
- The term “equity” is frequently translated differently across national contexts and may overlap with “equality” or “fairness”. Here, it refers specifically to the redistribution of opportunities, differentiated support, and institutional recognition of diversity. Researchers should remain attentive to how local understandings of equity shape practices and narratives.
Metadata
- Entry author(s): Marta de Oliveira Rodrigues
- Date of last update: 2025-09-29
- Validation status: Draft
References
- Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). The Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.
https://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/Index%20English.pdf
- Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. Sage.
- Dubet, D. (2010). L’école des chances. Pour une sociologie pragmatique de l’injustice scolaire. Paris: Seuil.
- European Commission. (2020). Achieving the European Education Area by 2025. Retrieved from:
- (2020). Global Education Monitoring Report 2020: Inclusion and Education – All Means All. UNESCO Publishing. Retrieved from:
08. Inclusion - RQ1 and RQ2
Conceptual Definition
Inclusion in education refers to the right of all learners, regardless of their skills, socio-economic status, ethnicity, language, gender, or other characteristics, to fully participate in and benefit from educational processes (European Commission, 2024; UNESCO, 2021). According to UNESCO (2021), inclusive education involves a systemic transformation that values diversity as a strength and aims to remove all forms of exclusion within and from education. Booth and Ainscow (2011) describe inclusion as a continuous process of identifying and addressing barriers to learning and participation. Conceptually, inclusion extends beyond physical access to emphasise relational belonging, active participation, and the recognition of diverse learner identities, voices, and needs. It is not limited to specific populations but concerns the development of cultures, policies, and practices that support learning for all (Booth & Ainscow, 2011; European Commission, 2024; UNESCO, 2021). The term “inclusive pedagogy” and “Universal Design for Learning (UDL)” are used throughout the glossary to refer to a range of strategies including curricular adaptation, differentiated instruction, and classroom practices that promote participation and belonging. As such, inclusion is closely linked to equity: it requires not only equal access but also differentiated support that recognises and addresses structural inequalities in education.
Operational Definition
Within the LINEup project, inclusion is explored through interviews with school leaders and focus groups with students, teachers, and parents, focusing on how schools create participatory environments, foster a sense of belonging, and tackle institutional barriers. Operationally, inclusion is examined via school policies, pedagogical approaches, and social dynamics that demonstrate openness to diversity, evaluating whether students feel accepted, supported, and empowered to participate and learn. The analysis incorporates both formal mechanisms, such as inclusive curricula and multidisciplinary teams, and informal relational aspects, including empathy, respect, and care, that facilitate or hinder inclusion in practice. This qualitative investigation informs RQ1 and RQ2, which address student engagement and interventions aimed at reducing exclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2011; European Commission, 2024).
Type of Concept: Theoretical Concept
Thematic classification: Family and Community Engagement
Level of Operationalisation: Macro / Meso/ Micro
Related Terms and Cross-References: Inclusive Education, Equity, Belonging
Notes
- Central to EU, UNESCO and UN agendas on education and social development.
- Applies across policy, pedagogy, and institutional culture.
Metadata
- Entry author(s): Marta de Oliveira Rodrigues
- Date of last update: 2025-09-11
- Validation status: Draft
References
- Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). The Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.
https://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/Index%20English.pdf
- European Commission. (2024). Education and Training Monitor 2024 – Comparative Report. Retrieved
from: https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eac/education-and-training-monitor/en/
- (2021). Reimagining Our Futures Together: A New Social Contract for Education. UNESCO Publishing.
09. Inclusive Education - RQ1 and RQ2
Conceptual Definition
Inclusive education is a rights-based and systemic approach that ensures all learners, regardless of background, identity, or skills, can participate, learn, and thrive in mainstream educational settings. Grounded in the principle that diversity is a strength, inclusive education requires education systems to adapt by removing structural, cultural, attitudinal, and physical barriers, while fostering inclusive school cultures, participatory learning environments, and flexible curricula (Booth & Ainscow, 2011; UNESCO, 2020; UNICEF, 2021). This involves rethinking policies, teaching strategies, and assessment practices to promote equity, belonging, and democratic participation for every student. Rather than focusing on individual deficits, inclusive education addresses the systemic barriers embedded within school cultures, policies, and practices to increase participation and reduce exclusion, especially for historically marginalised or excluded learners (Booth & Ainscow, 2011; UNESCO, 2020). It moves beyond a narrow focus on disability or special needs and embraces a broader vision of justice, recognising learner diversity as a resource and calling for collective responsibility to ensure that all students are respected, valued, and supported (UNESCO, 2020; UNICEF, 2021). As such, inclusive education represents a key strategy for achieving equity in education, as it ensures that all learners receive the support they need to thrive within common learning environments.
Operational Definition
Within the LINEup project, inclusive education is examined through in-depth qualitative interviews with school leaders and focus groups involving students, teachers, and parents. The investigation centres on how educational actors perceive and implement differentiated pedagogical practices designed to accommodate diverse learner needs, including those facing multiple disadvantages (UNESCO, 2020; UNICEF, 2021). Attention is given to the ways schools foster student engagement and promote inclusive social environments that validate and empower all students (Booth & Ainscow, 2011).
Moreover, the study explores how schools organise and deliver learning support mechanisms such as co-teaching, flexible grouping, peer mentoring, and other collaborative approaches aimed at reducing exclusion and promoting equitable participation (UNESCO, 2020). Through this approach, the project evaluates the extent to which schools are able to identify and overcome structural, cultural, attitudinal, and physical barriers that hinder inclusive education, both within formal policies and everyday practices. This operational approach aligns directly with RQ1, which investigates factors influencing student engagement, and RQ2, which examines the effectiveness of interventions in reducing exclusion and fostering inclusive environments. The qualitative data thus capture not only the formal strategies deployed but also the lived experiences and perceptions of inclusion among students, teachers, and families, providing a comprehensive understanding of how inclusive education is realised in practice (Booth & Ainscow, 2011; UNICEF, 2021).
Type of Concept: Theoretical Concept
Thematic classification: School-based Interventions
Level of Operationalisation: Macro/ Meso / Micro
Related Terms and Cross-References: Equity, Pedagogical Differentiation, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), Accessibility.
Notes
- Focuses on transforming systems, not individuals. UDL is increasingly recognised as a cornerstone of inclusive education, offering a structured approach to reducing barriers and ensuring access to learning opportunities for all students.
Metadata
- Entry author(s): Marta de Oliveira Rodrigues
- Date of last update: 2025-09-29
- Validation status: Draft
References
- Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). The Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.
https://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/Index%20English.pdf
- (2020). Global Education Monitoring Report 2020: Inclusion and Education. UNESCO Publishing.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373718
- (2021). Inclusive Education: Every child has the right to quality education.
10. Learning Outcomes - RQ1
Conceptual Definition
Learning outcomes refer to the specific knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values that learners are expected to acquire and demonstrate after participating in educational processes (European Commission, 2018). They articulate what learners are able to understand, apply, and transfer across academic, personal, and social contexts, serving as key indicators of both individual progression and educational system effectiveness.
These learning outcomes play a fundamental role in curriculum design, teaching strategies, and assessment, ensuring alignment between learning objectives, classroom activities, and evaluation criteria. Importantly, learning outcomes encompass not only foundational academic skills such as literacy, numeracy, scientific reasoning, multilingual literacy and digital competence but also broader, transversal skills critical for lifelong learning and active citizenship.
Basic and broader (transversal) skills are complementary dimensions of competence essential for meaningful lifelong learning and active citizenship. Frameworks like the European Reference Framework on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning emphasize the integration of basic skills (foundational academic skills) such as literacy, numeracy, scientific reasoning, and digital literacy, which enable individuals to access, process, and communicate information effectively. In contrast, broader or transversal skills encompass higher-order cognitive, social, and emotional capacities that are applicable across subjects and contexts. These include critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, civic responsibility, cultural awareness, empathy, and the ability to learn autonomously. Additionally, the LifeComp Framework (Sala et al., 2020) elaborates transversal skills related to personal development, social relationships, and autonomous learning, all essential to navigating complex, dynamic environments.
Conceptually, learning outcomes reflect an educational system’s capacity to respond to student diversity, promote inclusive and meaningful learning experiences, and ensure coherence between what is taught, assessed, and valued in schools. They connect the micro-level of individual student achievement to the macro-level goals of quality education and equity across populations (European Commission, 2018; Sala et al., 2020). When monitored and interpreted with attention to context, learning outcomes also provide insights into persistent disparities and the effectiveness of efforts to promote educational equity.
Operational Definition
Within the LINEup project, learning outcomes are examined as critical markers of student progress, encompassing both core academic skills, such as literacy and numeracy, and broader transversal skills including collaboration, critical thinking, autonomy, and civic identity (European Commission, 2018; Sala et al., 2020). These outcomes are explored qualitatively through multiple data sources: interviews with schools’ leaders, focus groups with students and teachers, and analysis of school documents such as progress reports and curricula.
This triangulated approach allows for a comprehensive understanding of how learning outcomes manifest in real educational contexts, emphasising not only cognitive achievements but also affective and social dimensions of learning. The investigation specifically focuses on how inclusive pedagogical strategies and school interventions support student engagement and success across diverse learner profiles, capturing perceptions of progress as well as encountered challenges.
While learning outcomes are often operationalised in policy contexts through standardised assessments and large-scale quantitative indicators, the LINEup project adopts a complementary qualitative approach that foregrounds the personal, social, and contextual dimensions of learning. This broader perspective allows researchers to explore how students experience learning beyond test performance, including motivation, self-efficacy, belonging, and identity, using formative tools and narratives co-constructed with participants.
The qualitative evidence collected highlights the interplay between instructional practices, socio-cultural factors, and policy frameworks, offering insight into the conditions under which learning outcomes contribute to equity and quality in education.
Learning outcomes in LINEup are understood not just as end results but as dynamic expressions of how education systems respond to student diversity and the effectiveness of pedagogical innovations in fostering meaningful, inclusive learning experiences (European Commission, 2018; Sala et al., 2020). Particular attention will be given to how learning outcomes are monitored over time, and how formative feedback processes contribute to the evolution of students’ achievements and self-perception as learners. The operationalisation links directly to RQ1, which studies how schools can enhance student engagement and improve learning outcomes.
Type of Concept: Empirical Concept
Thematic classification: Learning Outcomes
Level of Operationalisation: Micro
Related Terms and Cross-References: Competences, Formative Assessment, Qualifications Frameworks
Notes
- Fundamental to EU instruments like the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) and the European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET).
- In this glossary, “learning outcomes” include both basic skills and broader skills such as collaboration, autonomy, and critical thinking. The concept is explored through qualitative perceptions and documents, rather than standardised metrics. Outcome quality is interpreted in relation to inclusiveness and student engagement.
Metadata
- Entry author(s): Marta de Oliveira Rodrigues
- Date of last update: 2025-07-11
- Validation status: Draft
References
- European Commission. (2018). Council Recommendation on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. Official Journal of the European Union. https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-topics/improving-quality/key-competences
- Sala, A., Punie, Y., Garkov, V., & Cabrera Giraldez, M. (2020). LifeComp: The European Framework for Personal, Social and Learning to Learn Key Competence. Publications Office of the European Union. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC120911
11. Pedagogical Differentiation - RQ1 and RQ3
Conceptual Definition
Pedagogical differentiation is defined as a set of instructional strategies that proactively adjust teaching content, process, and assessment to match the diverse needs, skills, and interests of students (Tomlinson, 2014). It is based on the premise that students diverge in terms of readiness, prior knowledge, motivation, language, and learning styles (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010). Effective differentiation ensures that all learners access curriculum goals through multiple pathways (UNESCO, 2020). It is deeply connected to inclusive education and UDL, both of which promote flexibility and personalisation to achieve educational equity (Booth & Ainscow, 2011). Differentiated pedagogy also aligns with the principle of fairness through unequal but equitable treatment (Perrenoud, 1995). More recent empirical studies confirm that effective differentiation yields small to moderate gains in achievement, provided it is grounded in diagnostic assessment and scaffolded teaching (Deunk et al., 2018; Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019). Finally, research on school tracking shows that structural grouping of students by ability reinforces inequalities, positioning differentiation as a more equitable alternative (Terrin & Triventi, 2023).
Operational Definition
In the LINEup project, pedagogical differentiation is examined qualitatively through interviews and focus groups with teachers and students. The analysis focuses on participants’ perceptions and experiences of adaptive practices, such as scaffolding, flexible grouping, and tiered tasks (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010), as they describe them in their own contexts. Emphasis is placed on how differentiation supports student engagement and learning outcomes, particularly among students at risk of exclusion (UNESCO, 2020). Operationalisation is aligned with RQ1 and RQ3, as it explores pedagogical conditions for inclusive and effective interventions.
Type of Concept: Theoretical Concept
Thematic Classification: School-based Interventions
Level of Operationalisation: Micro
Related Terms and Cross-References: Inclusive Education, Learning Support, Universal Design for Learning, Equity, Learning Support
Notes
- Differentiation is not equivalent to ability grouping/student grouping or streaming (Antunes, 2017). It requires responsive planning and formative feedback cycles. Pedagogical differentiation shares conceptual ground with Universal Design for Learning, but while differentiation often adapts to learners’ differences reactively, UDL provides a proactive framework for anticipating diversity from the outset of instructional design.
Metadata
- Entry author(s): Marta de Oliveira Rodrigues
- Date of last update: 2025-09-04
- Validation status: Draft
References
- Antunes, F. (2017). Locais educadores: Práticas, vozes e percursos de educação inclusiva (EDUPLACES). Jornal de Sociologia da Educação,1, 1–9.
- Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). The Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools. https://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/Index%20English.pdf
- Deunk, M. I., Smale-Jacobse, A. E., de Boer, H., Doolaard, S., & Bosker, R. J. (2018). Effective differentiation practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 24, 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.02.002
- Perrenoud, P. (1995). Diez nuevas competencias para enseñar. Graó.
- Smale-Jacobse, A. E., Meijer, P. C., Helms-Lorenz, M., & Maulana, R. (2019). Differentiated instruction in secondary education: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2366. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02366
- Terrin, É., & Triventi, M. (2023). The effect of school tracking on student achievement and inequality: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 93(2), 236–274. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221100850
- Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The Differentiated Classroom (2nd ed.). https://www.ascd.org/books/the-differentiated-classroom-2nd-edition
- Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and Managing a Differentiated Classroom.
UNESCO. (2020). Global Education Monitoring Report 2020: Inclusion and Education – All Means All. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373718
12. School-based Interventions - RQ1 and RQ2
Conceptual Definition
School-based interventions consist of deliberate, structured and contextually grounded actions carried out within the school setting to promote equitable educational opportunities and provide support to all learners, with particular focus on those facing barriers to academic achievement (European Commission, 2022; OECD, 2015). These interventions span a continuum that includes preventive measures designed to anticipate and mitigate potential difficulties, targeted actions offering tailored, evidence-informed assistance to at-risk students or groups, and compensatory measures that provide intensive, individualized aid to learners who require additional resources to attain expected educational outcomes (European Commission, 2022). The implementation of such interventions occurs at multiple interconnected levels of the education system with meso-level coordination involving regional authorities, school districts, and inter-school networks that mediate between central policy guidelines and school-level practices. Macro-level policies and frameworks are set by national and regional authorities, meso-level adaptation takes place through local educational bodies, and micro-level enactment is carried out by schools, educators, families and community stakeholders (Ainscow et al., 2006; OECD, 2015). Central to the success of these interventions is a rigorous and ongoing evaluation process which employs evidence-based methodologies, ensures participatory involvement of stakeholders and incorporates multi-level assessments. This approach guarantees that interventions remain effective, relevant and sustainable within diverse educational contexts (SCIREARLY, 2023).
Operational Definition
In the context of the LINEup project, school-based interventions are analysed through a comprehensive qualitative framework comprising semi-structured interviews with school leaders, focus groups with students, teachers and parents, as well as document analysis. This multi-method design allows for an in-depth understanding of how interventions are conceptualised, implemented and adapted to meet the needs of learners. The analytical approach is structured around three main research questions: RQ1, the identification of strategies to enhance student engagement and learning outcomes; RQ2, the examination of the characteristics, inclusivity and challenges of these interventions; and RQ3, the exploration of organisational, pedagogical and policy conditions that facilitate successful implementation. Particular attention is paid to the contextual specificity of interventions, the active participation of diverse stakeholders throughout the intervention process and the use of empirical evidence in both the design and evaluation stages to promote ongoing refinement and responsiveness to local needs.
Type of Concept: Implementation Condition
Thematic classification: School-based Interventions
Level of Operationalisation: Meso / Micro
Related Terms and Cross-References: Preventive Strategies, School Autonomy, Whole-school Approach
Notes
- Effective school-based interventions must be context-sensitive and co-designed with local stakeholders to ensure responsiveness, legitimacy, and sustainability.
- Intervention may be: universal (for all students), targeted (for at-risk groups), or intensive (individualised support). The interventions can be preventive or remedial.
- Evaluation should be multi-level, evidence-based, participatory, and formative.
Metadata
- Entry author(s): Marta de Oliveira Rodrigues
- Date of last update: 2025-09-04
- Validation status: Draft
References
- Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion. Routledge.
- European Commission. (2022). Council Recommendation on Pathways to School Success. Retrieved from https://education.ec.europa.eu/education-levels/school-education/pathways-to-school-success
- (2015). Schooling Redesigned: Towards Innovative Learning Systems. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/education/schooling-redesigned-9789264245914-en.htm
SCIREARLY. (2023). Scientific-based policies to prevent early school leaving. Retrieved from https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101061288
13. School Climate - RQ1 and RQ2
Conceptual Definition
School climate refers to the collective perceptions, experiences, and norms that shape the social, emotional, and academic environment of a school (OECD, 2015; Thapa et al., 2013). It encompasses dimensions such as relationships among students and staff, perceptions of safety and fairness, academic expectations, and emotional support (Cohen et al., 2009). A positive school climate is associated with increased student sense of belonging (Cemalcilar, 2010), engagement (Fredricks et al., 2004), lower rates of dropout (Thapa et al., 2013), better learning outcomes (OECD, 2015), and improved teacher satisfaction and retention (Cohen et al., 2009). Conceptually, it reflects the relational and affective dimension of school life, shaped by institutional practices, leadership, pedagogical culture, and shared values (Thapa et al., 2013). It is both a product of organisational systems and a dynamic influence on student motivation and wellbeing (OECD, 2017). School climate serves as a mediating condition for the implementation and effectiveness of educational interventions, particularly in contexts of disadvantage or exclusion (Scirearly, 2023), and it is a strong predictor of students sense of belonging (Cemalcilar, 2010), a key feature of student engagement with school.
| Cemalcilar, Z. (2010). Schools as socialisation contexts: Understanding the impact of school climate factors on students’ sense of school belonging. Applied psychology, 59(2), 243-272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00389.x |
Operational Definition
In the LINEup project, school climate is assessed qualitatively through narratives from students, teachers, and school leaders. ScoData collection includes focus groups and interviews, which explore perceptions of inclusion, fairness, discipline, teacher-student relationships, and emotional safety (Cohen et al., 2009; Thapa et al., 2013). Particular attention is paid to how students interpret institutional rules, the support they receive from peers and teachers, and the overall sense of belonging they experience at school (Fredricks et al., 2004). Two higher-order dimensions have been identified as particularly relevant: satisfaction with social relationships in school and satisfaction with structural aspects of the school (Cemalcilar, 2010). Operational dimensions include satisfaction with student-administration relations, students-teachers relations and students-students relations, satisfaction with physical features, satisfaction with supporting resources and perceived violence (Cemalcilar, 2010), or emotional climate, perceived support, social relationships, and cultural responsiveness (OECD, 2015). School climate is considered a contextual enabler or barrier to engagement, wellbeing, and learning outcomes (Scirearly, 2023), directly informing RQ1 and RQ2.
Type of Concept: Empirical Concept
Thematic Classification: School Characteristics
Level of Operationalisation: Meso / Micro
Related Terms and Cross-References: Student Engagement, Wellbeing at School, Inclusion, School Belonging
Notes
- In LINEup, school climate is analysed through participants lived experiences rather than through survey scales. Often overlaps with concepts of relational trust and wellbeing.
Metadata
- Entry author(s): Marta de Oliveira Rodrigues
- Date of last update: 2025-09-29
- Validation status: Draft
References
- Cohen, J., McCabe, E. M., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 180–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911100108
- Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
- (2015). Schooling Redesigned: Towards Innovative Learning Systems. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264245914-en
- (2017). The OECD Handbook for Innovative Learning Environments. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264277274-en
- (2023). Scientific-based policies to prevent early school leaving. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101061288
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A Review of School Climate Research. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 357–385. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483907
14. Student Engagement with School - RQ1, RQ2 and RQ3
Conceptual Definition
After decades of deterministic understanding of student academic trajectories, including grades, a growing body of evidence demonstrate that family how well student do at school depends also on other dimensions, beyond the classic socio-Economic Status and Intelligence. In fact, a student and is a dynamic complex system emerging from the integration of the biological and contextual influences. The integration of information coming from the different systems involved in human existence results in the organization and differentiation of the individual’s subjective experiences towards each and every stimulus relevant to adaptation. This subjective experience informs the organism about the characteristics of the situations and the challenges that he or she must deal with and overcome in order to be well-succeed in meeting the conditions that he or she need for adaptation and survival. In the context of school-student interactions, the student subjective experience towards school is being conceptualized as student engagement with school (Moreira et al., 2019; Moreira et al., 2020; Moreira & Garcia, 2019). Student engagement with school is a multidimensional construct that is influenced by the degree to which the school context provides conditions for the students to meet three basic psychological needs: 1) competence (sense of self-efficacy and capacity to achieve), 2) autonomy (sense of agency and control), 3) relatedness (sense of support from others and connectedness). Thus, student engagement with school is maximized when schools provide conditions that allow students to feel competent, autonomous, and supported by others (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Ryan & Deci, 2000). It reflects both observable behaviours, such as performance, class participation, attendance, and effort, and internal dispositions, including motivation, interest, value attribution, and a sense of belonging (Moreira et al., 2020). Conceptually, Fredricks et al. (2004) laid the foundation by identifying three core dimensions: behavioural, emotional, and cognitive engagement. Moreira et al. (2020) expanded this framework by empirically validating a higher-order model that includes students’ perceptions of support from teachers, peers, and family, thereby emphasising the contextual and relational nature of student engagement with school. As a relatively stable state, student engagement with school is a malleable and developmental process shaped by the interaction between individual (emotions, cognitions, behaviours) and contextual dynamics. These include social messages about the value of school (especially from family), and the emotional, instrumental, and relational support received from key figures. Students’ subjective experience towards school evolves along a continuum, from highly engaged to extremely disengaged, and emerges through three interconnected systems of learning and memory: 1) associative and procedural (habits, routines), 2) propositional and semantic (beliefs, goals), and 3) autobiographical and episodic (identity coherence) (Moreira et al., 2019). This process of student engagement reflects how students organise their school experiences into a developing sense of self that integrates relationships, aspirations, and meaning. At the policy level, student engagement with school is recognised by the European Commission (2025 as a key indicator of educational quality and equity and it is considered as one of the strongest predictors of academic performance and related trajectories (Moreira et al., 2019). It is linked to academic results (Chase et al., 2014; Wang & Eccles, 2012), well-being (Paloș et al., 2019), and ESL reduction (Wang & Fredricks, 2014), making it a strategic focus for both pedagogical and systemic interventions.
Operational Definition
Within the LINEup project, student engagement with school is explored through qualitative methodologies, including focus groups with students, teachers and parents. The analysis focuses on behavioural (e.g., participation, attendance), cognitive (e.g., attention, effort), emotional (e.g., interest, belonging), and relational dimensions (e.g., quality of interactions with teachers, peers, and families), following the multidimensional framework established by Fredricks et al. (2004) and Moreira et al. (2020).
Moreira, P., Cunha, D., & Inman, R. A. (2020). An integration of multiple student engagement dimensions into a single measure and validity-based studies. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 38(5), 564-580. |
Data reveal how students narrate their (dis)engagement trajectories, emphasising subjective perceptions of support, recognition, and meaningfulness. Teachers and parents also provide insights into how they perceive student engagement and the factors they consider most influential in shaping these trajectories. The operationalisation examines how school environments and institutional practices either promote or hinder student engagement, particularly among vulnerable student populations. This approach directly addresses RQ1 (strategies to enhance student engagement) and RQ2 (effectiveness of interventions in sustaining or reactivating student engagement), recognising the central role of relational and contextual factors in shaping students’ school experiences (European Commission, 2024).
Type of Concept: Empirical Concept
Thematic classification: Student Engagement
Level of Operationalisation: Micro
Related Terms and Cross-References: Motivation, School Belonging, Self-Regulation
Notes
- Student engagement is both an outcome and a condition for learning.
- Moreira et al. (2020) identify seven dimensions of engagement: 1) behavioural–conduct, 2) behavioural–study habits, 3) cognitive engagement, 4) emotional engagement, and 5) perceived support from teachers, 6) perceived support from peers, and 7) perceived support from family.
- The model reflects student engagement with school as a unified psychological experience shaped by the alignment between the learner and their educational environment.
Metadata
- Entry author(s): Marta de Oliveira Rodrigues; Paulo Moreira
- Date of last update: 2025-10-10
- Validation status: Draft
References
- Chase, P. A., Hilliard, L. J., Geldhof, G. J., Warren, D. J., & Lerner, R. M. (2014). Academic achievement in the high school years: The changing role of school engagement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(6), 884–896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-0085-4
- Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Minnesota symposia on child psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 43–77). Lawrence Erlbaum.
- European Commission. (2025). Education and Training Monitor. https://education.ec.europa.eu/about-eea/education-and-training-monitor
- Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
- Moreira, P. A. S. (in press). Lessons Learned: Newsletter. LINEup project.
- Moreira, P.A.S., Cunha, D., Inman, R., Oliveira, J. (2019). Integrating Healthy Personality Development and Educational Practices: The Case of Student Engagement with School. In: Garcia, D., Archer, T., Kostrzewa, R.M. (Eds). Personality and Brain Disorders. Contemporary Clinical Neuroscience. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90065-0_10
- Moreira, P., Cunha, D., & Inman, R. A. (2019). An Integration of Multiple Student Engagement Dimensions into a Single Measure and Validity-Based Studies. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 38(5), 564-580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282919870973
- Moreira, P.A.S., Garcia, D. (2019). Person-Centered Schools. In: Garcia, D., Archer, T., Kostrzewa, R.M. (Eds). Personality and Brain Disorders. Contemporary Clinical Neuroscience. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90065-0_9
- Paloș, R., Maricuţoiu, L. P., & Costea, I. (2019). Relations between academic performance, student engagement and student burnout: A cross-lagged analysis of a two-wave study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 60, 199-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.01.005
- Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
- Wang, M.-T., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Adolescent behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement trajectories in school and their differential relations to educational success. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22(1), 31-39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2011.00753.x
Wang, M.-T., & Fredricks, J. A. (2014). The reciprocal links between school engagement, youth problem behaviors, and school dropout during adolescence. Child Development, 85(2), 722–737. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12138
15. Student-centred Compensatory Interventions - RQ3
Conceptual Definition
Student-centred compensatory interventions constitute a coherent set of strategically articulated and targeted educational actions designed to mitigate social and educational inequalities that adversely affect student performance and participation. These interventions specifically address learners who face barriers such as socio-economic adversity, linguistic or cultural exclusion, disability, or persistent underachievement. Primarily implemented at the micro level, including the school, classroom, and family contexts, they are informed by rigorous contextual diagnosis and empirical evidence (SCIREARLY, 2023).
Rooted in the principle of positive discrimination, these measures offer differentiate support aimed at securing equitable access to meaningful learning opportunities (Perrenoud, 1995). They are embedded within broader inclusion frameworks, aligned with national and European policy directives, such as the Pathways to School Success Recommendation, which advocate for coherent, multilevel strategies combining preventive, compensatory, and supportive actions (European Commission, 2024).
Conceptually, these interventions represent a paradigmatic shift from standardized remedial models toward personalized and participatory approaches. They seek to empower students through adaptive pedagogies, relational support, and flexible pathways that acknowledge structural inequalities and the diverse profiles of learners (Perrenoud, 1995; SCIREARLY, 2023).
The following typology illustrates concrete examples of compensatory practices that adopt a student-centred approach. These interventions combine targeted support with personalised, relational and participatory strategies, ensuring alignment with the core principles of equity and learner agency.
The typology below serves as an analytical framework to interpret field data, rather than a predefined intervention model (EASNIE, 2022; OECD, 2018; UNESCO, 2021; UNICEF, 2020).
Illustrative Examples – Typology of Interventions
- Enrichment and Engagement Activities
Designed to foster school belonging and active participation.
Examples: Arts, sports, STEM clubs; student-led projects; volunteering schemes. - Financial and Material Support
Ensures basic access to education for economically disadvantaged students.
Examples: Free school meals; textbook subsidies; digital access initiatives. - Individual Learning Plans
Personalised pathways co-created with students and families.
Examples: Curriculum adaptation; progress tracking tools; assistive technology. - Language and Integration Support for Migrant and Multilingual Students
Focused on linguistic inclusion and adaptation.
Examples: Intensive language classes; peer mentoring; culturally responsive pedagogy. - Parental and Family Engagement Support
While not targeting students directly, these measures enhance learning conditions.
Examples: Family literacy programmes; multilingual communication strategies; home-school liaison teams - Psychosocial and Mental Health Support
Services addressing emotional, behavioural, or social challenges.
Examples: School counselling; trauma-informed support; anti-bullying programmes. - Targeted Academic Support
Structured support for students at risk of academic failure.
Examples: After-school tutoring; remedial classes in literacy/maths; summer catch-up programmes. - Second chance schools
Alternative provision for young people who have left mainstream education early or face high dropout risk. They offer flexible curricula, small-group learning, intensive guidance, and psychosocial support, with a focus on individual learning plans, life skills, and mentoring to re-engage students and create pathways back into education or training.
Examples: Specialised programmes for early school leavers; vocationally oriented re-entry tracks; community-based “second chance” centres offering blended academic and skills training.
Operational Definition
Within the LINEup study, student-centred compensatory interventions are identified and analysed in schools employing individualised or small-group strategies to support students at risk of academic underachievement or ESL. Data collection involves qualitative interviews with school leaders, focus groups with students, teachers, and parents, as well as document analysis. The focus lies on understanding the specific objectives of each intervention, their implementation in practice, and informants’ perceptions of their relevance and impact.
Operationalisation encompasses typology, access mechanisms, student and family participation, and impact evaluation. The analysis traces decision-making processes, inclusion criteria, engagement of stakeholders, and outcome assessment, with particular emphasis on integrating students’ voices and agency in the design and delivery of support. Attention is also paid to the sustainability, coherence, and alignment of interventions with broader inclusion policies and strategies (European Commission, 2024; SCIREARLY, 2023). These interventions relate closely to RQ2, which explores characteristics of practices that foster student engagement, and RQ3, which examines conditions that enhance their effectiveness and equity.
Type of Concept: Empirical Concept
Thematic classification: School-based Interventions
Level of Operationalisation: Micro / Meso
Related Terms and Cross-References: Equity, Learning Support, Personalisation
Notes
- Rooted in the principle of positive discrimination or affirmative action in education.
- The typology provided is not prescriptive but analytical. It is used to interpret how schools design and adapt interventions based on students’ needs and contexts. In empirical analysis, researchers should examine how school leaders, teachers, parents, and students perceive and interpret the goals and rationale of student-centred compensatory interventions aimed at addressing educational inequalities.
Metadata
- Entry author(s): Marta de Oliveira Rodrigues
- Date of last update: 2025-09-08
- Validation status: Draft
References
- European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education [EASNIE]. (2022). Promoting common values and inclusive education. https://www.european-agency.org/sites/default/files/promoting_common_values_and_inclusive_education.pdf
- European Commission. (2024). Pathways to School Success – Policy Note. Retrieved from https://education.ec.europa.eu/news/pathways-to-school-success-eu-member-states-adopt-measures-to-ensure-better-educational-outcomes-for-all
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2018). Equity in education: Breaking down barriers to social mobility. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264073234-en
- Perrenoud, P. (1995). Diez nuevas competencias para enseñar. Graó.
- (2023). Scientific-based policies to prevent early school leaving. Retrieved from https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101061288
- United Nations Children’s Fund [UNICEF]. (2020). COVID-19: Are children able to continue learning during school closures? https://data.unicef.org/resources/remote-learning-reachability-factsheet
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. https://unevoc.unesco.org/pub/futures_of_education_report_eng.pdf
16. Universal design for learning (UDL) - RQ1 and RQ3
Conceptual Definition
UDL is a pedagogical framework grounded in cognitive neuroscience and educational research, designed to improve teaching and learning for all learners through proactive curriculum planning (Meyer et al., 2014; Rose & Meyer, 2006). It emphasizes three core principles: offering multiple means of engagement (motivational pathways), representation (access to content), and action and expression (varied ways to demonstrate learning) (CAST, 2014). UDL seeks to dismantle barriers and enhance equity in diverse classrooms by building flexible pathways for every learner, moving beyond one-size-fits-all approaches (Al-Azawei et al., 2016). Empirical studies and meta-analyses show that UDL-based designs are associated with increased accessibility, student satisfaction, and inclusive learning outcomes (Almeqdad, 2023).
Operational Definition
In the LINEup project, UDL serves as an interpretative lens, explored via interviews and focus groups, to understand how educators describe inclusive instructional strategies. Data collection focuses on how participants articulate practices aligned with UDL principles, such as flexible resource use, multimodal instruction, varied engagement routes, and differentiated assessments. This informs RQ1 by showing how inclusive pedagogy supports student engagement, and RQ3 by identifying conditions that enable equitable instructional interventions.
Type of Concept: Theoretical Concept
Thematic Classification: Inclusive Pedagogy / School-based Interventions
Level of Operationalisation: Micro / Meso
Related Terms: Pedagogical Differentiation, Inclusive Education, Accessibility, Equity
Notes
- While originally rooted in special education, UDL offers a universal framework for inclusive instruction, advocating for systemic flexibility in curriculum, delivery, and expression of learning.
Metadata
- Entry author(s): Marta de Oliveira Rodrigues
- Date of last update: 2025-09-05
- Validation status: Draft
References
- Al-Azawei, A., Serenelli, F., & Lundqvist, K. (2016). Universal Design for Learning (UDL): A content analysis of peer‑reviewed journal papers from 2012 to 2015. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(3), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v16i3.19295
- Almeqdad, Q. I. (2023). The effectiveness of Universal Design for Learning (UDL): A systematic review and meta‑analysis. Cogent Education, 10(1), 2218191. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2218191
- (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST.
- Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST.
- Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (Eds.). (2006). A practical reader in Universal Design for Learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
17. Wellbeing at School - RQ1 and RQ2
Conceptual Definition
Wellbeing at school refers to the emotional and social dimensions of students’ school experience, shaping how safe, included, and valued they feel in their learning environments. It encompasses belonging, recognition, supportive peer and teacher relationships, emotional regulation, safety, and autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Empirical evidence shows that higher levels of wellbeing are associated with stronger engagement, improved academic outcomes, and reduced risk of early school leaving (Archambault et al., 2009; Korpershoek et al., 2020). Wellbeing is both an individual condition and a relational experience, embedded in school climate and pedagogical culture, and influenced by support from peers, teachers, and families (Wong et al., 2021). A student-centred perspective highlights its protective role against disengagement and its importance for inclusive and equitable education (Tikkanen et al., 2024).
Operational Definition
In the LINEup project, wellbeing at school is examined qualitatively through interviews and focus groups with students, teachers, and families. The analysis investigates participants’ experiences and perceptions of stress, belonging, motivation, safety, and emotional support, as well as the role of institutional practices such as counselling, mentoring, peer mediation, and inclusive pedagogy. Special focus is placed on students in vulnerable circumstances (e.g., socio-economic hardship, migration), recognising that wellbeing mediates the relationship between disadvantage, engagement, and outcomes. This operationalisation informs RQ1, by showing how wellbeing relates to engagement, and RQ2, by examining how school-based practices that promote wellbeing can prevent disengagement and early school leaving.
Type of Concept: Empirical Concept
Thematic Classification: Student Engagement
Level of Operationalisation: Micro / Meso
Related Terms and Cross-References: School Climate, Mental Health Support, Inclusion, Belonging
Notes
Emotional wellbeing is strongly influenced by social connectedness, perceived fairness, and adult support. Institutional cultures are decisive. This concept frequently overlaps and intertwines with the notions of relational trust and school climate.
Metadata
- Entry author(s): Marta de Oliveira Rodrigues
- Date of last update: 2025-09-29
- Validation status: Draft
References
- Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Morizot, J., & Pagani, L. (2009). Adolescent behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement in school: Relationship to dropout. Journal of School Health, 79(9), 408–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2009.00428.x
- Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
- Korpershoek, H., Canrinus, E. T., Fokkens-Bruinsma, M., & de Boer, H. (2020). The relationships between school belonging and students’ motivational, social-emotional, behavioural, and academic outcomes in secondary education: A meta-analytic review. Research Papers in Education, 35(6), 641–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2019.1615116
- Tikkanen, L., Ulmanen, S., Pyhältö, K., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2024). Peer relationships and study wellbeing: Upper-secondary students’ empathy, relatedness, and peer support profiles. Social Psychology of Education, 27, 801–823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-024-09942-y
- Wong, M. D., Domitrovich, C. E., Ialongo, N., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2021). The longitudinal relationship of school climate with adolescent social–emotional health. BMC Public Health, 21, 2076. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10245-6
📈 Qualitative Analysis of Educational Inequalities in six European Countries
The National Case Study Report presents the qualitative strand of the LINEup project’s investigation into educational inequalities across six European countries: France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. Complementing the project’s longitudinal quantitative analyses, the report examines how educational inequalities are experienced, interpreted and addressed within schools, with particular attention to the organisational, relational and contextual mechanisms that shape student engagement and equitable educational opportunities. Drawing on a harmonised multiple-case study methodology, each national team conducted qualitative fieldwork in nine purposively selected schools, involving interviews with school leaders and specialised staff and focus groups with teachers, students and parents. Together, the six national reports provide a comparative evidence base for understanding school-level responses to educational inequalities and constitute the empirical foundation for the subsequent cross-country analysis developed in the Cross-Country Qualitative Report (soon available).
