Teaching and Learning Traditions in Children’s Human Rights

Curriculum Emphases in Theory and Practice

in The International Journal of Children's Rights
No Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.


Have Institutional Access?

Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?


The aim of this paper is to develop educational theoretical concepts for analyses and descriptions of the teaching and learning traditions in children’s human rights and to illustrate its diversity. The paper suggests viewing human rights as a subject field for research and education and using curriculum theory – particularly the concept of curriculum emphases – as a tool for the analyses. Drawing on the results of a previous international study (Brantefors and Quennerstedt, 2016), four teaching and learning traditions of rights are identified: (1) the participation emphasis; (2) the empowerment emphasis; (3) the awareness of rights emphasis; and (4) the right respecting emphasis. With the curriculum emphases concept it is possible to define the main motives for teaching and learning, and also to see what is emphasised in education. In the last section, the traditions are applied and tested on empirical examples. The conclusion is that the emphases concept is a fruitful analytical instrument that makes the different traditions of the teaching and learning of children’s human rights visible.

Teaching and Learning Traditions in Children’s Human Rights

Curriculum Emphases in Theory and Practice

in The International Journal of Children's Rights



  • Brantefors L. & Quennerstedt A. Teaching and learning children’s human rights. A research synthesis”Cogent Education 2016 (3) 1247610: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.12476.

  • Englund T. Curriculum as a political problem: changing educational conceptions with special reference to citizenship education (Uppsala: Uppsala University1986).

  • Englund T. “Undervisning som meningserbjudande” [“Teaching and learning as offering of meaning”] in Uljens M. (ed.) Didaktik – teori reflektion och praktik [Didactics – theory reflection and practice] (Lund: Studentlitteratur 1997).

  • Englund T. Om relevansen av begreppet didaktik” [“On the relevance of the concept of Didaktik”]Acta Didactica Norge 2007 (1(1)) 112.

  • Goodson I.F. School subjects and curriculum change (London: Falmer 1987).

  • Gundem B.B. Europeisk didaktikk: tenkning og viten [European didactics: imagination and knowing] (Oslo: Universitetsforl. 2011).

  • I’Anson J. Educational research as counterpoint: Reflections on the uncrc at 25 (Paper presented in ecerPorto, Portugal2014).

  • Östman L. Socialisation och mening: No-utbildning som politiskt och miljömoraliskt problem [Socialisation and meaning: Science education as political and environmental and moral problem] (Uppsala: Uppsala University 1995).

  • Philips L. Quennerstedt A. Robinson C. The Refraction of Children’s and Young People’s Human Rights in National Curricula in Australia England and Sweden (Paper presented in ecerPorto, Portugal2014).

  • Pinar W. Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists (Berkeley: Mc Cutchan 1975).

  • Quennerstedt A. The construction of children’s rights in education – a research synthesisInternational Journal of Children’s Rights 2011 (19) 661678.

  • Quennerstedt A. and Quennerstedt M. Researching children’s rights in education: Sociology of childhood encountering educational theoryBritish Journal of Sociology of Education 2014 (35 (1)) 115132.

  • Reynaert D. Bouverne-De Bie M. and Vandevelde S. A Review of Children’s Rights Literature Since the Adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child”Childhood 2009 (16(4)) 518534.

  • Roberts D. Developing the concept of ‘curriculum emphases’ in science education”Science Education 1982 (62(2)) 243260.

  • Roberts D. and Östman L. Problems of meaning in science curriculum (New York and London: Teachers Collage Press 1998).

  • Schüllerqvist B. Ämnesdidaktisk lärarforskning – ett angeläget forsknigsfält” [“Teacher research on subject didactics – an important field of research”] in Schüllerqvist B. & Osbeck C. (eds.) Ämnesdidaktiska insikter och strategier [Insights and strategies in subject didactics] (Karlstad: Karlstad University Press 2009).

  • Swedish National Agency for EducationCurriculum for the compulsory school preschool class and the recreation centre (Lgr 11) (Stockholm: Ministry of Education in Sweden 2011).

  • Thelander N. We are all the same but … Kenyan and Swedish school children’s views on children’s rights (Karlstad: Karlstad University 2009).

  • Thelander N. Human Rights Education: teaching children’s human rights–a matter of why, what and how” in Gillett-Swan J. and Coppock V. (eds.) Children’s Rights Educational Research and the uncrcpast present and future (Oxford. Symposium Books 2016).

  • United NationsConvention on the Rights of the ChildGeneral Assembly resolution 44/25 20 Nov. 1989. u.n. Doc. a/res/44/25.

  • United Nations un Committee on the Rights of the ChildGeneral comment no. 1 on the aims of educationcrc/gc/2001/1 (GenevaUnited Nations 2001).

  • un; unesco and Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human RightsPlan of Action. World Programme for Human Rights Education. First Phase (New York/Geneve2006).


Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 99 99 17
Full Text Views 206 206 34
PDF Downloads 11 11 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0