Since 2015, the increasing influx of migrant children into European Union countries has raised critical questions regarding their access to equitable education. This fact has highlighted the necessity to examine and systematize the vulnerability determinants that contribute to their socioeducational disadvantages. This systematic literature review explores the vulnerability factors or determinants influencing migrant-background children’s academic underachievement and early school leaving (ESL). Employing the PRISMA approach and utilizing Covidence software for data collection, 74 articles were reviewed. Guided by Bronfenbrenner’s ecological framework, vulnerability determinants were classified into micro-, meso-/exo-, and macrosystemic levels. The review reveals a predominant focus in the literature on microlevel factors, with only limited attention to macrolevel determinants. These research findings underscore the need for further exploration of macrolevel factors and call for a greater focus on intersectionality when addressing migrant-background students’ socioeducational vulnerabilities.

1. Introduction

The crises at the European Union’s borders, starting with the Arab Spring in 2011, followed by the “long summer of migration” in 2015 [1, 2], and further intensified by the 2021 Ukrainian war [3], have significantly increased the presence of nonnational children in EU countries. As defined by Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child [4], a child is any individual under the age of 18. According to the European Commission [5], between 2014 and 2023, the population of nonnational children grew by 52.6%, reaching nearly eight million in January 2023, while the population of national children decreased by 4.4%. These demographic shifts have led to substantial transformations in the composition of European schools and classrooms [6]. As a result, persistent questions have been raised [7–9] regarding the ability of the European educational systems to provide migrant-background students with an education that supports their “fullest possible social integration and individual development,” as articulated by Article 23 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child [4].

Unless otherwise specified, the term migrant background is used throughout this paper as an umbrella concept referring to individuals who have moved, or are moving, across international borders or within a country away from their habitual place of residence—regardless of legal status, voluntariness of the movement, underlying causes, or duration of the stay [10].

Despite the critical role of education in integrating migrant-background children into their new societies, many of these students face vulnerabilities that adversely affect their academic performance and increase the risk of early school leaving (ESL) [11, 12]. Factors such as language barriers, socioeconomic status (SES), family structure, and the psychological impact of migration contribute to their educational disadvantages [12, 13]. To create an environment conducive to the intellectual and social development of these children, a comprehensive understanding of the factors that either promote or hinder academic success is essential. In 2016, a systematic review was published examining the literature from 1996 to 2015, which identified key challenges faced by refugee students, focusing on both individual- and school-level factors [14]. However, given the changing in the scenario since 2015, as well as the evolving needs of children with migrant backgrounds, there is a need for a more up-to-date review to address and complement our understanding of their socioeducational vulnerabilities.

This paper is aimed at filling this information gap by systematically analyzing the vulnerabilities experienced by migrant-background students, from kindergarten through secondary school, regarding their academic underachievement and ESL, as documented in the existing literature from 2015 to 2023. The central research question guiding this review is as follows: What are the factors associated with migrant-background children’s vulnerability to academic underachievement and ESL?

By applying the conceptual lens of vulnerability to the academic trajectories of migrant-background students, this study is aimed at identifying the key socioeducational challenges that hinder their achievement and increase the risk of ESL. This study represents a unique contribution to the literature as previous research has primarily focused on examining vulnerabilities of migrant-background children within clinical contexts (see [15–21]), with limited exploration of their interaction with the education sector (see [22]).

The structure of the paper is as follows: First, we present the multifaceted concept of vulnerability and its application to understanding the socioeducational vulnerabilities faced by migrant-background students. Furthermore, the concepts of underachievement and ESL are outlined, highlighting their significance as metrics of educational disadvantages. Next, we describe the methodological decisions underlying our systematic literature review, including the syntax terms and inclusion criteria used. The results are presented to offer a systemic perspective that organizes vulnerability determinants across different levels and dimensions. In the Discussion section, we contextualize the key insights within the broader literature.

2. The Vulnerability Concept

Defining the concept of vulnerability is a complex undertaking and has been the object of political and sociological debates during the last two decades. Scholars, policymakers, and mass media have increasingly employed the term since the 1990s [23–29]. Although it is treated in many contexts as a self-explanatory condition [30], the accurate definition of vulnerability remains a significant challenge for academic and societal discourse [31, 32]. Some academics resist its use due to its attribution of inherent weaknesses in specific groups, especially when linked to the concept of “limited capacity” [30], which might lead to stigmatization [24, 30]. However, from a political perspective, a well-defined concept of vulnerability has the potential to contribute to developing more effective and responsive policy frameworks [33].

The United Nations Division of Social Policy and Affairs refers to vulnerability as “a state of high exposure to uncertain risks, combined with a reduced ability to protect or defend oneself against those risks and cope with negative consequences” (p. 201) [34]. In broader terms, vulnerability encompasses certain conditions that increase the likelihood or risk of experiencing disadvantages or adverse outcomes [28]. Despite these definitions, the concept of vulnerability remains poorly delineated in specific contexts [35], such as education, which is the focus of this systematic review. Thus, our approach is rooted in established theoretical frameworks that provide a multifaceted and comprehensive view of the concept when referring to the migrant-background populations in educational settings. Figure 1 offers a comprehensive conceptualization of vulnerability.

Details are in the caption following the image — **Figure 1**
Open in figure viewer PowerPoint

Conceptualization of vulnerability in connection with risk and disadvantages. Determinants of vulnerability–own elaboration adapted from Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system theory [36–38]; vulnerability concept by Brown et al. [39] and Bozdag [40]; disadvantages by Hippe and Jakubowski [41] and Bembich [42].

Our core vulnerability concept integrates three of the five dimensions outlined by Brown et al. [39], which have also been adopted by Gilodi et al. [30] specifically for migrant-background populations.

Brown et al.’s [39] categorization of vulnerabilities is particularly relevant as it tackles the central debate in the literature on whether vulnerability emerges from external risks or internal defenselessness [43]. The five vulnerability dimensions identified by Brown et al. [39] are (1) natural or innate vulnerability; (2) situational vulnerability; (3) vulnerability as related to social disadvantage, the environment, and/or geographical spaces; (4) universal vulnerability; and (5) vulnerability as closely related to risk. When applied to migrant-background populations, as argued by Gilodi [30], (1) to (3) are the most relevant.¹

The category of innate vulnerability has traditionally been understood as stemming from incomplete maturity and lack of agency and has been commonly is associated with childhood, elderly, and people with disabilities [28, 30, 39]. This form of vulnerability typically refers to a natural susceptibility to harm [50, 51] and the inability to defend oneself [52] due to “natural” characteristics. Moreover, in the case of adolescents, developmental psychology perspectives have characterized youth vulnerabilities, often marked by an identity crisis [53]. However, this essentialist view has been increasingly challenged by a more critical perspective that questions the assumption of vulnerability as a fixed, biological determined condition. Scholars argue that vulnerability is not solely rooted in the body or age, but is socially and relationally constructed, emerging from contextual, institutional, and structural dynamics [39, 54]. This shift in understanding emphasizes that children, elderly individuals, and persons with disabilities are not inherently vulnerable, but can become vulnerable through their interactions with environments and systems that limit their agency to fail to accommodate their needs.

Situational vulnerability is tied to specific circumstances and pertains to individuals facing challenging experiences or social adversities. Unlike innate vulnerability, this type of vulnerability is subject to change over time and has a relational dimension since it arises from the situational interaction “between circumstances and personal characteristics” [32]. It often applies to groups necessitating special assistance, such as asylum seekers, refugees, impoverished individuals, or ethnic minorities. In this context, “vulnerability” highlights experiences requiring both protective and proactive policy frameworks, as it encompasses structural components, personal choice, and agency [30, 55, 56].

Bozdag [57] further explored the concept of the situational dimension of vulnerability when specifically applied to migrant-background populations and distinguished between (1) spatial vulnerability, (2) sociopolitical vulnerability, and (3) sociocultural vulnerability. Spatial vulnerability, commonly observed among undocumented migrants, emerges from environmental risks and difficult living conditions during migration. Sociopolitical vulnerability is rooted in the absence of legal status, resulting in limited access to rights and services, contributing to economic vulnerability. Sociocultural vulnerability, influenced by legal status and ethnic origin in the country of transit or destination, encompasses obstacles such as language barriers, social exclusion, and limited livelihoods.

Finally, social/environmental vulnerability revolves around varying exposure to poverty, hazards, and the impacts of globalization. It is frequently used in the case of natural disasters, where different populations are more or less affected. An example of vulnerability related to the environment and geographical spaces is provided by Pelling [40], who explores the vulnerability and resilience of the local population across three distinct cities in the Global South. On the other hand, vulnerability related to social disadvantage involves material shortages, inability to meet needs, and uncertain reliance on welfare services, highlighting intergenerational disadvantage patterns [36, 39].

In order to understand how the vulnerability determinants work in an integrated and structured system, we adopt an ecological perspective [37, 38, 58] as applied by Leonard [59], McKown [60], and Shams [61]. This framework allows us to categorize the determinants of vulnerability at the microsystem (personal characteristics and immediate environment with its significant relationships, such as school, home, and peers), meso-/exosystem (relationships and environments indirectly influencing students, such as parental involvement, school districts, and neighborhoods), and macrosystem level (structural influences such as societal, cultural, and economic conditions).

2.1. Determinants of Migrant Children’s Vulnerability Concerning Educational Outcomes

In the context of educational outcomes and disadvantages, this study focuses on two metrics: the academic underachievement of students and ESL. In a conceptual sense, academic achievement refers to accomplishing predefined learning objectives [62]. Conversely, academic underachievement refers to a significant difference between the anticipated level of achievement (as determined by cognitive or intellectual ability assessments and standardized test scores) and the actual performance (as reflected in class grades and teacher evaluations) [63]. On the other hand, ESL involves the complete discontinuation of formal education [64].

Academic underachievement and ESL metrics provide a comprehensive understanding of the educational experience of migrant-background children for various reasons. Firstly, these two metrics combined comprehend behavioral, cognitive, and emotional academic engagement, which is crucial in predicting overall academic performance [42]. Secondly, the supposed objectivity of grades and the tangible consequences of ESL provide concrete insights into the challenges and successes faced by migrant-background students, guiding decisions about further education and future career paths. Finally, utilizing these measures goes beyond mere statistics; it fosters a well-rounded and informed approach to addressing the diverse educational needs of migrant-background students.

The determinants of vulnerability faced by students with migrant backgrounds can be categorized based on their proximity to the individual following the ecological perspective [65].

Microlevel or proximal factors for underachievement include host country language proficiency, which affects both reading skills and emotional well-being (depression and low self-esteem) [66–68] as well as the perception of discrimination especially for second-generation migrants more aware of discriminatory practices, as highlighted by Mezzanotte [6]. SES, frequently lower among migrant-background populations, appears to have a more pronounced effect on academic performance than merely having a migrant background [69]. Another critical factor is the duration of residence in the host country, as shorter durations are associated with poorer performance [41].

Conversely, a factor that can mitigate academic underachievement is the early enrollment of migrant-background children in preschools within the host country [69]. Yet their involvement in nonparental childcare is lower than that of native children [7].

Regarding ESL, the OECD [6] pinpointed membership in migrant-background groups as a risk factor for school dropout. In Europe, the likelihood of leaving compulsory education is twice as high for individuals in migrant-background groups compared to native populations [7]. While there is a lack of data regarding the reasons for ESL among second-generation migrant students, available information for first-generation migrant children indicates that factors contributing to ESL include schools’ failing to meet their needs or interests (31%), opting to start working (19%, especially in Spain), facing study difficulties (13%), and family reasons (11%) [70].

At the meso-/exolevel, the composition of classes and schools plays a pivotal role, as the academic performance of migrant-background students is lower when they are in a school or classroom where most of the students also have migrant backgrounds [71–73]. The well-being of migrant-background students is adversely affected by the school’s low SES and an unwelcoming environment. This impact, measured by the proportion of students facing bullying or feeling alienated, influences their integration into the education system and, consequently, their academic achievement [70]. Indeed, Hillmert’s [74] explanatory model highlights the role of both favorable and nonfavorable developmental environments, including institutional support and language training [75]. Early tracking systems pose a barrier that hinders academic achievement [69].

At the macrosystem level, policies and practices that promote social integration, cultural diversity acceptance, and equity efforts are promising strategies to mitigate the commonly found migrant-background student academic disadvantages [72]. Findings by Dronkers et al. [76] and Schlicht-Schmälzle and Möller [77] indicate that the effectiveness of integration policies, such as access to the labor market and antidiscrimination laws, as well as the degree of democracy within the political–institutional context, plays a significant role. Additionally, the structure of the educational system, including factors like early tracking and selection, the duration of compulsory education, and the availability of educational resources, critically influences the academic success of migrant-background students.

For refugee children, the situation is more intricate. Even though they gain access to the educational system, their outcomes and needs remain obscure, as they are not captured in their home country’s educational management information systems and are yet to be included in their host countries [78]. These children encounter additional challenges relating to integration barriers at different systemic levels, including distrust of government programs at the microsystem level and bureaucratic complexities at the macrosystem level [7].

3. Current Study

This systematic review is aimed at exploring how the vulnerability factors associated with children’s migrant backgrounds influence their academic underachievement and ESL.

Two key conceptual decisions have been made to analyze and expose our results systematically. The first conceptual choice pertains to the categorization of the migrant-background populations. Despite the acknowledged risk of overgeneralization in grouping migrants [79–81], we deemed it useful for the coherence of the analysis narrative. Given that differences in nativity, both for oneself and one’s parents, significantly impact acculturation processes within migrant-background families [82–86], we classify the migrant-background populations into three main categories based on the birthplace. First-generation migrants are children born and raised in a country different from their parent’s country of origin. Second-generation migrants are native-born children with foreign-born parents [87]. There is an ongoing debate on whether to categorize refugees as first-generation migrants or as a distinct group of individuals who have moved to seek international protection [88]. In our study, we consider refugees as a separate group to explore potential unique experiences of disadvantages.

The second conceptual decision involves the classification of the vulnerability determinants identified in the literature according to Bronfenbrenner’s three ecological levels [37, 38, 58].

3.1. Materials and Methods

3.1.1. Eligibility Criteria

The search for articles in this systematic review was conducted in June 2023 using the Scopus database.² Our search covered empirical articles published between 2015 and 2023. We chose this start date for two main reasons: on one side, because of 2015’s unparalleled and unregulated influx of people daily crossing EU borders in pursuit of security and improved living conditions [89]. As the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [90] reported, in 2015, more than one million people crossed the EU borders, arriving by boat from North Africa and Turkey. On the other hand, the most recent study that reviewed vulnerability factors associated with academic underachievement and ESL among migrant-background students was published in 2015, covering literature from 2000 to 2015 [12]. All articles are peer-reviewed and searched exclusively in English, which is regarded as the commonly accepted academic language.

3.1.2. Search Strategy

This systematic review followed the PRISMA principles, which offer a guide for systematic literature review studies [91]. The PRISMA approach proposes a set of specific procedures designed to improve the transparency, consistency, and high-standard quality in reporting systematic reviews and meta-analysis results in academic research.³ For the search strategy, we used the PICO framework, a structured approach commonly used in evidence-based healthcare and research to formulate a focused clinical or research question [92]. Given the conceptual nature of this systematic review, the selection of terms focused predominantly on defining the population (migrant-background children) and the outcome of interest (academic results, academic underachievement, and ESL). The search terms for this study were selected during a systematic review conducted as part of the European project (LET’S CARE). Additionally, several scholars and experts from different fields and countries provided supervision during the term selection process. The selected terms were intended to locate articles elucidating the relationship between being a migrant-background child and succeeding or not succeeding in school.

Table 1 presents the selected search terms. In the first column, we focused on characterizing the population of interest, specifically individuals with a migrant background. The second column refers to the status of the subjects under consideration, where the term “teacher” was included to broaden the scope and encompass relevant articles. The third column represented the targeted outcomes for the study, specifically focusing on academic result, academic underachievement, and ESL in this context. The columns were interconnected through the “AND” operator in the search, ensuring that at least one term from each axis was present concurrently in the search outcomes. The search strategy was executed using keyword research.

Table 1. Terms of research.

Migrant background	Population	Outcome
migr∗ OR immigr∗	Student	Attainment
OR refuge∗	OR child	OR “academic achievement”
OR foreign∗	OR pupil	OR “school achievement”
	OR teacher	OR “academic underachievement”
		OR “school underachievement”
		OR “academic results”
		OR “academic performance”
		OR “academic grades”
		OR “academic failure”
		OR “school outcomes”
		OR “academic outcomes”
		OR “learning outcomes”
		OR “learning process”
		OR drop-out
		OR drop out
		OR “drop-out”
		OR “school development”
		OR “academic development”
		OR “school engagement”
		OR “academic engagement” OR “school wastage” OR “school attendance” OR “school leaving” OR aspiration

3.1.3. Study Screening

Before initiating the screening process, a set of pre-established eligibility criteria was defined to ensure the inclusion of studies relevant to the scope of this systematic review. Studies were excluded if they

•
Did not address vulnerability and/or mitigating factors among migrant-background children;
•
Focused on university-based contexts rather than school settings;
•
Were not written in English (beyond the abstract);
•
Focused primarily on the use of digital tools in education;
•
Examined internal migration (e.g., Chinese left-behind children);
•
Addressed nutrition or medical topics;
•
Focused on the impact of migrant-background students on nonmigrant peers rather than the experience of the migrant-background students themselves.

This systematic review employed a double-blind process, with two reviewers overseeing all article selection phases. For the initial screening, we utilized the Covidence software, a web-based collaboration software platform that streamlines the production of systematic and other literature reviews.⁴ Given that we only accessed the Scopus database, no duplicate records were flagged by the software. However, one duplicate was manually identified by one of the reviewers. Two reviewers independently performed the subsequent eligibility screening, with any discrepancies settled through discussion. An illustrative summary of this process is visually depicted in Figure 2 (PRISMA diagram; Page et al. [93]), ultimately including 74 articles in this review.

As shown in Figure 2, 1153 studies were removed from the systematic review after the abstract screening phase. During the subsequent eligibility assessment phase, 35 additional studies were excluded. Among these 35 exclusions,

•
Nineteen were considered out of scope since they primarily focused on students’ mental health outcomes, school engagement, or adjustment, which are more self-rated evaluations, and did not consider objective indicators of academic underachievement, such as grade point average (GPA) or test results provided by the teacher, and did not investigate the relationship between vulnerability factors and underachievement or ESL.
•
Seven studies had a setting that did not fit with the scope of this systematic review, as they revolved around a refugee camp rather than a school context or investigated upper-educational settings.
•
Five works had a study design that did not fit with the scope of this systematic review, such as literature reviews or theoretical reviews.
•
Four studies featured a population that did not fit with the scope of this systematic review, focusing on teachers’ perspectives on an intervention program or considering a sample of nonmigrant children.

3.1.4. Data Extraction and Mapping

In the final stage, 74 articles were extracted. In cases where conflicts or discrepancies emerged, discussions were held to reach a consensus.

The extraction phase was conducted using Covidence, which involved an extraction template encompassing various aspects of the articles. This template included information such as general article details (authors, publication year, DOI, and title), sample information (country, migrant backgrounds’ country of origin, sample size, age, and school level), vulnerability aspects (type of migrant backgrounds, presence or absence of a vulnerability definition, and utilization of vulnerability proxies if a definition was not provided), study design details (research design and technique type), and results (a matrix outlining the relationship between significant variables and their correlation with [under]achievement). The template structure was determined through consensus with two experts in the field. The structure is designed to systematically gather essential information relevant to the goals of the review, namely, to map the determinants of vulnerability experienced by migrant backgrounds about academic results. Additional information was collected to offer insights into the contexts and methodologies employed in the various studies. Subsequently, the collected information was exported to an Excel file for further analysis and evaluation.

4. Results

4.1. Overview of the Articles

The geographical areas covered by the 74 articles included in the systematic review are concentrated in the United States and Canada (31) and in the European context (30). Additionally, five articles are developed in the Middle East, three in Oceania, and two in Asia. Three studies stand out for their wide international coverage of OECD countries, drawing upon the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) datasets.

The majority of the articles (63 out of 74) employ a quantitative design, comprising 32 cross-sectional and 31 longitudinal studies. Nine articles adopt a qualitative methodology, while two articles use mixed methods. Among the quantitative articles, the majority (49 out of 63) have sample sizes exceeding 1000, with only nine articles featuring sample sizes below 500. Qualitative articles exhibit sample sizes ranging from 8 to 65, and the two mixed method articles have sample sizes of 80 and 189.

Regarding population coverage, 43 articles are grounded in the context of secondary schools, and 11 encompass both primary and secondary schools. Another 11 articles are drawn exclusively from the primary school context. The remaining nine articles focus on preschool and elementary school contexts. Regarding the population of interest, more than half of the studies (46 out of 74) do not distinguish between migrant generations. They analyze the experiences of students with different migrant backgrounds without distinction. Additionally, six articles focus on the challenges faced by refugees, 15 articles on the experiences of first-generation migrants, and the 15 remaining articles delve into the second-generation migrant population and beyond. With a few exceptions, the majority of these migrant-background children are situated in the Global South [94]. All the details are reported in Table 2.

Table 2. Descriptives of the articles.

Variable	N	%
Country
United States and Canada	31	42%
Europe	30	40%
Middle East	5	7%
Oceania	3	4%
PISA’s countries	3	4%
Asia	2	3%
Methodology
Quantitative	63	85%
Cross-sectional	32	51%
Longitudinal	31	49%
Qualitative	9	12%
Mixed method	2	3%
Population
Sample
Quantitative methodology
< 500	9	14%
500 < N < 1000	5	8%
> 1000	49	78%
Qualitative methodology	8 ≥ N ≤ 65	100%
Mixed method	80; 189	100%
School level
Primary school	11	15%
Secondary school	43	58%
Prekindergarten to primary school	2	3%
Kindergarten to primary school	3	4%
Kindergarten to secondary school	3	4%
Primary and secondary school	11	15%
From secondary onward	1	1%
Migrant status
Refugees	6	8%
First generation	11	15%
Second-generation, ethnic minority	11	15%
Unspecified	46	62%

The following sections will systematically address the determinants of vulnerability identified in the selected articles that contribute to academic underachievement and ESL among students with migrant backgrounds. These determinants will be discussed separately within the context of micro- and meso-/exosystems, emphasizing variations among first-generation migrants, second-generation migrants (ethnic minorities), and refugees. Table 3 shows a summary of these determinants. For supporting information, refer to Table S1 (“Characteristics of the studies included in the systematic review, including number and age of participants, country of the study, aim, and migrant cohort”) in the Supporting Information section. The scarcity of literature on macrosystem dimensions will be acknowledged in the Discussion section.

Table 3. Vulnerability determinants and mitigating factors categorized by systemic levels.

Level	Sublevel	Vulnerability determinants	Mitigating factors
Microlevel	Student’s personal attribute	- Low language proficiency - Mental health challenges - Disruptive behavior - Gender - Age - Poor health - Foster care placement	- High language proficiency - Balanced linguistic and cultural integration - Self-efficacy beliefs - Integrated self-concept - Positive attitudes - Cognitive abilities - Behavioral engagement - Resilience - High aspiration - Religious faith - Attending preschool - Legal permanency status
	Family-derived factors	- Family structure - Parental conflict - Low SES - Legal and economic uncertainty - Limited knowledge of the host country’s educational system - Parental control - Acting as a broker in high-stakes contexts	- Positive relationship with parents - Family subjective well-being - High SES - High family background - Parental educational expectations - Parental integration - Positive social model
	Relationships with peers and teachers	- Perceived discrimination - Stereotype threat - Peer deviancy - Conflict with teachers	- Awareness of societal discrimination - Positive relationship with peers and teachers - Social support

Meso-/exolevel		- School poverty - School size - Urban location - Class size - School ethnic composition - Segregation of low-performing students - School resources - Unsafe classroom environment - Early tracking systems - Teacher bias and prejudice - Teachers’ work overload - School mobility - Residing in nonmetropolitan	- Private and catholic schools - Safe school climate - Teacher availability - Teacher qualification - Positive community factors

4.2. Determinants of Vulnerability in Relation to Academic Underachievement and ESL

4.2.1. A Microsystem Analysis

The analysis of the articles revealed a predominant presence of vulnerability factors at the microsystem level compared to the other systemic levels. For their presentation, we have categorized them into three main categories: personal student attributes, family-derived factors, and other proximity factors, such as relationships with peers and teachers.

4.2.1.1. Student’s Personal Attributes

Among the personal student attributes, language proficiency in the destination country emerges as a shared challenge among all categories of migrant-background students. Fourteen studies highlight the negative impact of having the destination country’s language as a second language on academic achievement for first- and second-generation migrant students [95–107]. For refugees, Karkouti et al. [108] and Tonsing [109] emphasize the lack of language proficiency as a barrier to academic achievement. Conversely, proficiency in the destination country’s language emerges as a catalyst for improved academic performance for all migrant-background students, as shown by 10 studies [109–118]. Also, balanced linguistic and cultural integration is crucial for first-generation migrant students’ academic success [100, 105], while second-generation migrant students are found to benefit from balancing mainstream culture with connections to specific communities [114, 119, 120].

Well-being factors, such as mental health challenges, particularly depressive symptoms and posttraumatic disorders (PTSDs) due to the circumstances of migration, are other common determinants among first- and second-generation migrant students and refugees, contributing to dropout rates [108, 121–124]. Behavioral problems such as disruptive behavior are also linked to dropout for first- and second-generation migrant students [125]. Conversely, factors such as self-efficacy beliefs contribute to academic success for first-generation migrant students [100, 126]. Other studies examine how integrated self-concepts—such as emotional intelligence, ego-identity, and resilience—along with positive attitudes, motivation, cognitive abilities, and behavioral engagement contribute to the academic success of first- and second-generation migrant students [112, 126–136]. Similarly, the concept of “encapsulated resilience of normative longing” underscores refugee students’ inner strength and adaptability, ultimately enhancing their academic performance [113]. High aspiration can protect against vulnerabilities and improve the academic achievement of first- and second-migrant generations [112, 131], while religious faith can protect against academic underachievement for first-migrant generations [126].

Individual factors such as gender and age also impact academic achievement and ESL. Being male is consistently linked to lower academic achievement and higher ESL rates [101, 115, 118, 121, 123, 127, 132, 137, 138]. This holds for first- and second-generation migrants and refugees. Furthermore, Fierro et al. [139] found that the intersecting male gender with a low SES further exacerbates those academic difficulties. Female students are generally favored in academic achievement, although pregnancy is a vulnerability factor [140]. In terms of intersectionality, female students benefit from attending preschool but are hindered by low parental involvement [141, 142]. In general terms, attending preschool is foundational for subsequent academic success among migrant-background students, correlating positively with math, reading, and science achievement [101, 102, 143, 144]. Higher age at arrival and age at admission are also vulnerability factors for migrant-background students’ and refugees’ academic achievement [95, 110, 123]; however, older age generally improves literacy competence and academic progress [102, 132, 139, 145].

Other factors impacting academic outcomes include poor health for second-generation migrants, foster care placement for refugee students, and feelings of fear of deportation and uncertainty for both migrant generations and refugees [108, 120, 121, 123, 140, 146]. Legal permanency status plays a significant positive role in the academic outcomes of refugee students [123].

4.2.1.2. Family-Derived Factors

Concerning family-derived factors, several findings indicate that family structure and parental conflict with parents significantly affect academic achievement across all migrant-background categories [105, 112, 140, 147–149]. Nonintact families, family separation, and adverse life events, such as parents’ divorce, death, and illness, are correlated with lower school GPAs [105, 148, 149]. Additionally, the number of siblings has a direct proportional effect on academic achievement [135, 138]. Conversely, positive relationships with parents due to positive parenting and family cohesion contribute to positive academic trajectories [135, 139, 150–152]. Ambrosetti et al. [153] discuss the concept of family subjective well-being, which includes the emotional and psychological state of family members, quality of relationships, and level of support, enhancing academic outcomes for both generations of migrant-background students.

Low SES hinders the academic achievement of first- and second-generation migrant children [95, 99, 118, 137, 154, 155], with legal and economic uncertainty positively affecting dropout rates of first-generation migrant students [147]. Elevated SES, on the other hand, correlates positively with academic achievement [101, 106, 107, 110–112, 114, 115, 117, 121, 127, 128, 132, 135, 140, 146, 153, 156, 157]. High family background, including parental education, effort, expectation, and intellectual discussions, has a direct positive relation with academic achievement [101, 106, 107, 110–112, 114, 115, 117, 121, 127, 128, 132, 135, 140, 146, 153, 156, 157].

Parental academic involvement and support are crucial for academic achievement in both migrant generations, with higher levels linked to better academic outcomes and lower levels to poorer performance [126, 127, 131, 135, 138, 140, 154, 158–160]. A crucial element for the involvement and support of the family is the knowledge of the educational system since a limited family knowledge of the host country’s educational system correlates negatively with academic success [105]. Excessive parental control, however, negatively affects the academic achievement of those students [131]. Martinez-Taboada et al. [134] highlight how home–school cultural dissonance contributes to poorer academic performance among first-generation migrant students. Acting as brokers in high-stakes contexts, such as language mediators in official settings, negatively impacts academic achievement for both migrant-background generations [150]. Parental educational expectations, integration, and positive social model are positively related to academic achievements among first- and second-generation migrant students [104, 130, 131, 153, 154, 161, 162].

4.2.1.3. Relationships With Peers and Teachers

Perceived discrimination, including stereotype threat and awareness of negative stereotypes about one’s ethnic group, significantly impacts the well-being and academic performance of both first- and second-generation migrant students [103, 104, 120, 126, 133, 134, 139, 153, 158]. Conversely, awareness of societal discrimination is sometimes linked to higher educational attainment [152].

Negative interactions, such as conflict with teachers and peer deviancy, are associated with lower academic achievement and higher dropout rates among migrant-background students [100, 121]. In contrast, positive relationships with peers and teachers improve literacy progress and overall academic success across migrant-background student categories [95, 100, 102, 108, 114, 125, 127, 139, 145, 153, 157, 161, 163–165]. Furthermore, social support from teachers and peers is crucial in increasing the academic achievement of first- and second-generation migrant students [127].

4.2.2. A Meso-/Exosystem Analysis

Regarding meso-/exosystem factor analysis, Borgonovi and Ferrara [95], Pivovarova and Powers [107], and Peguero et al. [125] identify that school poverty, larger school sizes, and urban locations are linked to higher ESL rates among both migrant-background generations. Additionally, class size influences academic achievement, with larger classes negatively affecting migrant-background students’ performance, while smaller classes benefit them [107].

Schools’ ethnic composition and a high proportion of nonnative speakers in classrooms are also negatively associated with academic achievement for both migrant-background generations [96, 111, 158]. Similarly, Kunz [114] found that segregation and clustering of low-performing students correlate with lower academic achievement for second-generation migrant students.

Results regarding school type are mixed. Private and Catholic schools positively impact math and science competencies [101, 143], whereas ultra-Orthodox schools are associated with lower academic achievement for both first- and second-generation migrants in Israel [138]. However, pertaining to religious affiliations positively influence the social and cultural capital of refugee children, thereby enhancing their academic achievement [166]. School resources, such as second language acquisition support, curriculum flexibility, and inclusive practices, are directly proportional to academic achievement for both migrant-background generations [97, 114, 156, 159].

A supportive and safe school climate is linked to better academic achievement among first- and second-generation migrant students [107, 126], while an unsafe and conflictive environment negatively impacts academic performance [104, 146, 159]. Lastly, early tracking systems are associated with lower academic achievement for both migrant-background generations [95, 106].

Concerning teachers’ characteristics, studies have found that teacher bias, stereotyping, and prejudice toward migrant-background students have a detrimental effect on their academic achievement [104, 146, 159]. Teachers’ work overload also negatively impacts refugee students’ academic outcomes [108]. Conversely, teacher availability and qualifications positively affect academic achievement [107].

Other important factors include school mobility, which negatively affects academic achievement due to frequent school changes for all migrant-background generations [140]. Finally, residing in nonmetropolitan areas negatively influences academic achievement for all migrant-background categories [101], while positive community factors significantly shape academic success. First-generation migrant students benefit from community belonging and a supportive school climate [105], while community safety is linked to literacy and numeracy achievements, with working memory identified as a mediating factor, according to Kim et al. [119].

5. Discussion

This systematic review is aimed at identifying the determinants associated with migrant-background children and youth’s vulnerability to academic underachievement and ESL as highlighted in the literature. Using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological approach, we have categorized these factors into micro-, meso-/exo-, and macrosystemic levels. The review reveals a focus on microlevel factors and a near absence of macrolevel determinants in the literature analyzed. The only macrolevel determinants identified are inconsistent protective policies and increased immigration enforcement, which negatively affect the academic achievement of second-generation migrant students [104, 147], as well as residing in new immigration countries, which poses significant challenges for both first- and second-generation migrant students [97]. This gap hinders a comprehensive ecological understanding of the vulnerability factors influencing academic achievement among migrant students, as individuals and groups are embedded within broader systems of sociopolitical hierarchies and dynamics, subsequently reproduced at the local level and within interpersonal relationships [30]. Therefore, the complex dynamics at play remain overlooked without a structural perspective on educational disadvantages.

A notable finding across the results is that 58% of the studies focus on secondary school levels, indicating that the vulnerability determinants identified affect especially adolescent students from migrant backgrounds. According to the World Health Organization [167], adolescence is defined as a period between 10 and 19 years old, a stage marked by critical developmental transitions. This aligns with Alsaker and Kroger [168], who regard adolescence as a particularly vulnerable period characterized by psychological changes, shifts in self-concept, and evolving relationships with peers and parents, factors that are especially pronounced among migrant-background youth [169]. Therefore, the vulnerability determinants should be interpreted within the context of these developmental dynamics.

The micro- and meso-/exolevel vulnerability determinants can be categorized following Brown et al. [39] and Bozdag [57] vulnerability subdimensions.

Situational vulnerability factors include spatial, sociocultural, and sociopolitical elements. Language proficiency deficits and discrimination hinder communication and integration, while sociopolitical aspects, like foster care conditions for unaccompanied minors or fear of deportation for migrant students without distinctions, affect educational trajectories. Conversely, strong language skills and legal stability can improve academic outcomes for migrant youth. These findings partially align with Rangvid [170], who identified language barriers as a key factor explaining the academic achievement gap between native and migrant-background students in a study based on PISA 2006 data. Notably, this study was conducted prior to 2015 and did not account for vulnerability factors directly associated with the migration process.

Social/environmental vulnerability encompasses broader, intersectional aspects, such as SES, family dynamics, and school relationships. Negative family interactions, low parental education, and lack of academic support adversely impact academic performance, while cohesive family structure, high SES, and supportive school environments mitigate these effects. Positive role models and high parental expectations benefit first-generation migrants, and preschool attendance improves outcomes for both first- and second-generation students. These findings reaffirm the importance of social and institutional contexts in shaping educational experiences. Gender also influences ESL rates, with male students showing consistently higher dropout rates than female students [101, 138], while early pregnancy poses specific educational risks for female students [140]. Notably, this review reconceptualizes such patterns as manifestation of social/environmental vulnerability, rather than outcomes of biologically rooted or “innate” traits. Contrary to essentialist perspectives that treat gender as a biologically rooted vulnerability (particularly in childhood and adolescence) [171, 172], this review aligns with Luna’s [173] interpretation of vulnerability as context-dependent. From this view, it is not gender per se, but socially constructed roles, expectations, and inequalities associated with gender that contribute to educational disadvantage. These findings are consistent with previous reviews, including those by Graham et al. [14], Maehler et al. [11], Radhouane [12], which emphasize the importance of proximal factors, such as gender, age, family composition, SES, and students’ attitudes, as well as intermediate factors, including neighborhood and school characteristics and peer and teacher support. However, unlike the current systematic review, these studies did not address macrolevel factors and focused on specific migrant categories, thus narrowing their scope. Graham et al. [14] align with the present review in highlighting meso-/exosystemic factors such as the importance of teachers’ ability to understand and appreciate students’ cultural heritage without resorting to stereotypes. Moreover, our review aligns with Graham et al.’s one by identifying a predominance of microlevel factors and a scarcity of macrolevel factors.

The results also underscore the need to consider the intersection of gender with other vulnerability determinants, such as low SES. This aligns with Keller et al. [174], who highlight that the intersection of low SES, gender, and migrant background significantly hinders academic achievement. Further, gender-related vulnerability is context-dependent: Male students often face academic difficulties due to social acceptance issues, prejudice, and stigmatization [175, 176], but female students can be penalized by other types of vulnerability factors, such as premature pregnancy among adolescents and low parental support.

This systematic review makes several key contributions to the literature. First, it provides an update to Graham et al.’s [14] findings on the academic challenges faced by migrant-background students by incorporating data from studies published between 2015 and 2023. Second, it applies Bronfenbrenner’s ecological framework, utilizing all three systemic levels, which offers a holistic perspective on the vulnerability factors linked to educational disadvantages for migrant-background students. Third, it broadens the focus to include all migrant populations, allowing for a comprehensive examination of the phenomenon. Furthermore, the inclusion of the vulnerability dimension frames these factors into a coherent conceptual framework. Lastly, the review underscores the specific vulnerabilities of migrant-background students during critical developmental stages, such as adolescence, highlighting the urgent need to address contextual and structural barriers in the educational environment, with particular attention to marginalized youth.

6. Limitations and Future Directions

The findings presented in this systematic review should be interpreted while considering its specific limitations. Firstly, the inclusion criteria were restricted to articles published in English, which may have excluded valuable research published in other languages. Secondly, while we selected Scopus for its extensive coverage of scientific journals and high-quality bibliometric data, making it the largest and most relevant database for peer-reviewed research in the social sciences [177, 178], relying solely on this database may have led to the exclusion of relevant studies indexed in other databases. Thirdly, as a literature review, its conclusions are inherently limited by the scope and quality of existing literature. Lastly, although the terms used for the syntaxis have been the result of extensive debates, they have influenced the scope and comprehensiveness of this systematic review. The terms chosen intrinsically constrain the study due to potential variations in terminology. Future research could address these limitations by incorporating studies in multiple languages, utilizing additional databases for article retrieval and conducting empirical investigations and meta-analysis to validate this review’s findings, particularly if addressing or considering the literature biases identified in this systematic review.

7. Conclusion

This systematic review has identified and systematized the determinants of vulnerability among students with migrant backgrounds according to the literature that explores their impact on educational achievement and ESL.

The study reveals a predominant focus of this literature on quantitative methodologies, with a scarcity of qualitative and mixed method studies. Moreover, our review identified a gap in addressing macrolevel vulnerability factors, underscoring the need for a deeper exploration of how structural factors influence the educational outcomes of migrant students. Building upon established frameworks, we categorized the identified determinants of vulnerability into three dimensions: innate, situational, and social/environmental. Integrating these various determinants is important to offer a nuanced and comprehensive understanding of migrant students’ experiences. The review has also revealed a moderate consideration of intersectionality in understanding these vulnerabilities. The literature emphasizes the critical role of protective factors, such as emotional resilience and legal permanency status, in mitigating these vulnerabilities and promoting academic success among migrant-background students.

This review showcases how, by employing the concept of vulnerability analytically rather than stigmatically—considering its multidimensional and multilevel nuances, including macrolevel influences—scholars as well as policymakers and educators can better identify, understand, and address the educational needs of migrant students and mitigate the intergenerational transmission of social exclusion.

Disclosure

This review was not registered in any public database, and a formal protocol was not prepared for this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding

This article has been elaborated within the research project LET′S CARE: Building Safe and Caring Schools to Foster Educational Inclusion and School Achievement, funded by the European Commission under the Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Programme, Contract No: 101059425.

Acknowledgments

We express our heartfelt gratitude to all the researchers at Comillas Pontifical University who are involved in the project “Let us Care” and Bergen University for valuable insights.

Endnotes

¹Universal vulnerability explores the interconnected nature of human existence, challenging the notions of autonomy and independence [45]. Vulnerability related to risk delves into “the potential to suffer harm or loss” and is closely related to an individual’s capacity to anticipate a hazard, cope with it, resist it, and recover from its impact [46] and presents connections to institutional power and regulations [47–50].

²At first, we contemplated using the WoS database as well, but ultimately, we opted to exclusively proceed with the Scopus database due to its comprehensive coverage and expansion of WoS’ content.

³PRISMA stands for “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses.” Official website: http://www.prisma-statement.org/.

⁴Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia. Available at http://www.covidence.org

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

The data that supports the findings of this study are available in the supporting information of this article.

Supporting Information

References

1 Mezzadra S., In the Wake of the Greek Spring and the Summer of Migration, South Atlantic Quarterly. (2018) 117, no. 4, 925–933, https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-7166092, 2-s2.0-85053825584.
10.1215/00382876-7166092
Web of Science® Google Scholar
2 Rozakou K., Waiting and Hasting During “the Long Summer of Migration” in Greece, 2020, Routledge.
Google Scholar
3 Rigo E., La Straniera-Migrazioni, Asilo, Sfruttamento in una Prospettiva di Genere, 2022, 2nd edition, Carocci editore.
Google Scholar
4 MacPherson S., The Convention on the Rights of the Child, Social Policy & Administration. (1989) 23, no. 1, 99–101, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.1989.tb00500.x, 2-s2.0-84994998499.
10.1111/j.1467-9515.1989.tb00500.x
Web of Science® Google Scholar
5 European Commission, Children in Migration - Demography and Migration, 2024, Accessed: Sep. 13, 2024. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Children_in_migration_-_demography_and_migration#Total_number_of_non-national_children_in_the_EU:_main_indicators_in_2023.
Google Scholar
6 Mezzanotte C., The Social and Economic Rationale of Inclusive Education: An Overview of the Outcomes in Education for Diverse Groups of Students, OECD Educ. Work. Pap., no. 263, 2022, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1–93, https://doi.org/10.1787/bff7a85d-en.
Google Scholar
7 Crul M., Keskiner E., Schneider J., Lelie F., and Ghaeminia S., R. Bauböck and M. Tripkovic, No Lost Generation? Education for Refugee Children: A Comparison Between Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands and Turkey, The Integration of Migrants and Refugees: An EUI Forum on Migration, Citizenship and Demography, 2017, EUI, 62–80.
Google Scholar
8 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Current Migration Situation in the EU: Education, 2017, 1–25, Available: https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-may-2017-monthly-migration-report-focus-education_en.pdf.
Google Scholar
9 Koehler C. and Schneider J., Young Refugees in Education: The Particular Challenges of School Systems in Europe, Comparative Migration Studies. (2019) 7, no. 1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-019-0129-3, 2-s2.0-85069479678.
10.1186/s40878-019-0129-3
Web of Science® Google Scholar
10 International Organization for Migration, International Migration Law: Glossary on Migration, 2019, Available: https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/iml_34_glossary.pdf.
Google Scholar
11 Maehler D. B., Pötzschke S., Ramos H., Pritchard P., and Fleckenstein J., Studies on the Acculturation of Young Refugees in the Educational Domain: A Scoping Review of Research and Methods, Adolescent Research Review. (2021) 6, no. 1, 15–31, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-019-00129-7.
10.1007/s40894-019-00129-7
Web of Science® Google Scholar
12 Radhouane M., Pedagogical Challenges in Integrating Refugee Students in the Global North: A Literature Review, Prospects. (2023) 53, no. 1–2, 151–168, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-022-09632-7.
10.1007/s11125-022-09632-7
Google Scholar
13 Sirin S. R. and Rogers-sirin L., The Educational and Mental Health Needs of Syrian Refugee Children, 2015, Migration Policy Institute.
Google Scholar
14 Graham H. R., Minhas R. S., and Paxton G., Learning Problems in Children of Refugee Background: A Systematic Review, Pediatrics. (2016) 137, no. 6, https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-3994, 2-s2.0-84971530394, 27194628.
10.1542/peds.2015-3994
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15 Ankomah A., Byaruhanga J., Woolley E., Boamah S., and Akombi-Inyang B., Double Burden of Malnutrition Among Migrants and Refugees in Developed Countries: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review, PLoS One. (2022) 17, no. 8, e0273382, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273382, 35981085.
10.1371/journal.pone.0273382
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16 Armitage A. J., Heys M., Lut I., and Hardelid P., Health Outcomes in International Migrant Children: Protocol for a Systematic Review, BMJ Open. (2021) 11, no. 5, e041173, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041173.
10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041173
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17 Brandt L., Henssler J., Müller M., Wall S., Gabel D., and Heinz A., Risk of Psychosis Among Refugees: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, JAMA Psychiatry. (2019) 76, no. 11, 1133–1140, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.1937, 2-s2.0-85071051067, 31411649.
10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.1937
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18 Das-Munshi J., Leavey G., Stansfeld S. A., and Prince M. J., Migration, Social Mobility and Common Mental Disorders: Critical Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis, Ethnicity & Health. (2012) 17, no. 1–2, 17–53, https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2011.632816, 2-s2.0-84859530204, 22074468.
10.1080/13557858.2011.632816
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19 Farahani H., Joubert N., Anand J. C., Toikko T., and Tavakol M., A Systematic Review of the Protective and Risk Factors Influencing the Mental Health of Forced Migrants: Implications for Sustainable Intercultural Mental Health Practice, Social Sciences. (2021) 10, no. 9, https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10090334.
10.3390/socsci10090334
Google Scholar
20 Kusuma Y. S. and Babu B. V., Migration and Health: A Systematic Review on Health and Health Care of Internal Migrants in India, International Journal of Health Planning and Management. (2018) 33, no. 4, 775–793, https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.2570, 2-s2.0-85052846326, 30074640.
10.1002/hpm.2570
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21 Rana K., Page A., Kent J. L., and Arora A., Pathways Linking Housing Inequalities and Health Outcomes Among Migrant and Refugee Populations in High-Income Countries: A Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Systematic Review, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. (2022) 19, no. 24, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416627, 36554503.
10.3390/ijerph192416627
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22 Foo S. Q., Tam W. W., Ho C. S., Tran B. X., Nguyen L. H., McIntyre R., and Ho R. C., Prevalence of Depression Among Migrants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. (2018) 15, no. 9, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15091986, 2-s2.0-85053625471, 30213071.
10.3390/ijerph15091986
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23 Bartkowiak-Théron I. and Asquith N. L., The Extraordinary Intricacies of Policing Vulnerability, Australasian Policing. (2012) 4, no. 2, 43–49.
Google Scholar
24 Chakraborti N. and Garland J., Reconceptualizing Hate Crime Victimization Through The Lens of Vulnerability and ‘Difference’, Theoretical Criminology. (2012) 16, no. 4, 499–514, https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480612439432, 2-s2.0-84869998280.
10.1177/1362480612439432
Web of Science® Google Scholar
25 Flegar V., Who is Deemed Vulnerable in the Governance of Migration? - Unpacking UNHCR’s and IOM’s Policy Label for Being Deserving of Protection and Assistance, Asiel- & Migrantenrecht. (2018) 8, 374–383, University of Groningen Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 50/2019, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3375321.
Google Scholar
26 Heidbrink L., Containing Futures: The Governance of Youths’ Migratory Aspirations in Comparative Context, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. (2024) 50, no. 4, 811–829, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2022.2162022.
10.1080/1369183X.2022.2162022
Web of Science® Google Scholar
27 Hruschka C. and Leboeuf L., Vulnerability–A Buzzword or a Standard for Migration Governance, Population & Policy Compact, no. Policy Brief 20, 2019, Population Europe, The Network of Europe’s Leading Demographic Research Centres, Available: http://www.population-europe.eu.
Google Scholar
28 Misztal B. A. and Misztal B. A., Introduction: The Challenges of Vulnerability, The Challenges of Vulnerability, 2011, Palgrave Macmillan UK, London, 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230316690_1.
10.1057/9780230316690_1
Google Scholar
29 Monno V. and Serreli S., Cities and Migration: Generative Urban Policies Through Contextual Vulnerability, City, Territory and Architecture. (2020) 7, no. 1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-020-00114-x.
10.1186/s40410-020-00114-x
Google Scholar
30 Gilodi A., Albert I., and Nienaber B., Vulnerability in the Context of Migration: A Critical Overview and a New Conceptual Model, Human Arenas. (2024) 7, no. 3, 620–640, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-022-00288-5.
10.1007/s42087-022-00288-5
Web of Science® Google Scholar
31 Sözer H., Humanitarianism With a Neo-Liberal Face: Vulnerability Intervention as Vulnerability Redistribution, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. (2020) 46, no. 11, 2163–2180, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2019.1573661, 2-s2.0-85060868990.
10.1080/1369183X.2019.1573661
Web of Science® Google Scholar
32 Turner L., The Politics of Labeling Refugee Men as ‘Vulnerable’, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society. (2021) 28, no. 1, 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxz033.
10.1093/sp/jxz033
Google Scholar
33 Keay S. and Kirby S., Defining Vulnerability: From the Conceptual to the Operational, Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice. (2018) 12, no. 4, 428–438, https://doi.org/10.1093/police/pax046.
10.1093/police/pax046
Web of Science® Google Scholar
34 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Report on the World Social Situation 2003: Social Vulnerability, Sources and Challenges, 2003, https://www.un-ilibrary.org/content/books/9789210598705.
Google Scholar
35 Brown K., ‘Vulnerability’: Handle With Care, Ethics and Social Welfare. (2011) 5, no. 3, 313–321, https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2011.597165.
10.1080/17496535.2011.597165
Google Scholar
36 Emmel N. and Hughes K., M. Palgrave, J. Holland, and R. Edwards, Vulnerability, Intergenerational Exchange and the Conscience of Generations, Understanding Families Over Time, 2014, Palgrave Macmillan UK, London, 161–175, https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137285089_9.
10.1057/9781137285089_9
Google Scholar
37 Bronfenbrenner U., The Ecology of Human Development, 1979, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674028845.
10.4159/9780674028845
Google Scholar
38 Bronfenbrenner U., Ecology of the Family as a Context for Human Development: Research Perspectives, Developmental Psychology. (1986) 22, no. 6, 723–742, https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723, 2-s2.0-16044363364.
10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723
Web of Science® Google Scholar
39 Brown K., Ecclestone K., and Emmel N., The Many Faces of Vulnerability, Social Policy and Society. (2017) 16, no. 3, 497–510, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746416000610, 2-s2.0-85011263992.
10.1017/S1474746416000610
Web of Science® Google Scholar
40 Pelling M., The Vulnerability of Cities: Natural Disasters and Social Resilience, 2003, Routledge.
Google Scholar
41 Liu T. and Laura R. S., Assimilation Patterns of Migrant Students in China: An Exploration of Their Implications for Mathematics Outcomes, International Journal of Asian Social Science. (2017) 7, no. 7, 595–607, https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.1.2017.77.595.607.
10.18488/journal.1.2017.77.595.607
CAS Google Scholar
42 Lei H., Cui Y., and Zhou W., Relationships Between Student Engagement and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis, Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal. (2018) 46, no. 3, 517–528, https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7054, 2-s2.0-85045523839.
10.2224/sbp.7054
Web of Science® Google Scholar
43 Chambers R., Editorial Introduction: Vulnerability, Coping and Policy, IDS Bulletin. (1989) 20, no. 2, 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.1989.mp20002001.x, 2-s2.0-84977367672.
10.1111/j.1759-5436.1989.mp20002001.x
Web of Science® Google Scholar
44 Danani C., ‘Living on the World’: Rethinking Justice by Reconsidering Vulnerability and Autonomy, Medicina e Morale. (2020) 69, no. 2, 193–211, https://doi.org/10.4081/mem.2020.615.
10.4081/mem.2020.615
Google Scholar
45 Aven T., On some Recent Definitions and Analysis Frameworks for Risk, Vulnerability, and Resilience, Risk Analysis: An International Journal. (2011) 31, no. 4, 515–522, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01528.x, 2-s2.0-79953037043, 21077926.
10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01528.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
46 Bauman Z., Liquid Modernity, 2000, Polity Press, https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845251813-11.
Google Scholar
47 Beck U. and Ritter M., Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, 1992, Sage Publications, London, LK - https://worldcat.org/title/27088754.
Google Scholar
48 Giddens A., Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, 1991, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Google Scholar
49 Goodin R. E., Vulnerabilities and Responsibilities: An Ethical Defense of the Welfare State, American Political Science Review. (1985) 79, no. 3, 775–787, https://doi.org/10.2307/1956843, 2-s2.0-84973989720.
10.2307/1956843
Web of Science® Google Scholar
50 James A. and Prout A., Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood, 2015, Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315745008, 2-s2.0-84941959271.
10.4324/9781315745008
Google Scholar
51 James A. and James A., Key Concepts in Childhood Studies, 2012, 2nd edition, SAGE Publications, Inc., London, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526435613.
10.4135/9781526435613
Google Scholar
52 Malin N., Wilmot S., and Manthorpe J., Key Concepts and Debates in Health and Social Policy, 2002, Open University Press.
Google Scholar
53 Erikson E. H., Identity: Youth and Crisis, 1968, Norton & Co., Oxford, England.
Google Scholar
54 Varpanen J., What Is Children’s Agency? A Review of Conceptualizations Used in Early Childhood Education Research, Educational Research Review. (2019) 28, 100288, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100288, 2-s2.0-85072158362.
10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100288
Google Scholar
55 Ludwig B., ‘Wiping the Refugee Dust From My Feet’: Advantages and Burdens of Refugee Status and the Refugee Label, International Migration. (2016) 54, no. 1, 5–18, https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12111, 2-s2.0-84954376186.
10.1111/imig.12111
Web of Science® Google Scholar
56 Mendola D. and Pera A., Vulnerability of Refugees: Some Reflections on Definitions and Measurement Practices, International Migration. (2022) 60, no. 5, 108–121, https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12942.
10.1111/imig.12942
Web of Science® Google Scholar
57 Bozdag I., Analyser les Niveaux de Vulnérabilité des Réfugié. e.s en Turquie à Partir de L’Indice de Pauvreté Multidimensionnelle des Ménages Dirigés par des Femmes, Populations Vulnérables. (2022) 8, no. 8, 1–24, https://doi.org/10.4000/popvuln.4076.
10.4000/popvuln.4076
Google Scholar
58 Bronfenbrenner U., Developmental Ecology Through Space and Time: A Future Perspective, Examining Lives in Context: Perspectives on the Ecology of Human Development, 1995, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, US, 619–647, https://doi.org/10.1037/10176-018.
10.1037/10176-018
Google Scholar
59 Leonard J., Using Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory to Understand Community Partnerships, Urban Education. (2011) 46, no. 5, 987–1010, https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085911400337, 2-s2.0-80051681905.
10.1177/0042085911400337
Web of Science® Google Scholar
60 McKown C., Social Equity Theory and Racial-Ethnic Achievement Gaps, Child Development. (2013) 84, no. 4, 1120–1136, https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12033, 2-s2.0-84880387668, 23240908.
10.1111/cdev.12033
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
61 Shams H., Garmaroudi G., Nedjat S., and Yekaninejad M. S., Effect of Education Based on Socio-Ecological Theory on Bullying in Students: An Educational Study, Electronic Physician. (2018) 10, no. 7, 7046–7053, https://doi.org/10.19082/7046, 30128095.
10.19082/7046
PubMed Google Scholar
62 Hattie J. and Anderman E. M., International Guide to Student Achievement, 2013, 1st edition, Routledge, New York, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203850398.
10.4324/9780203850398
Google Scholar
63 Reis S. M. and McCoach D. B., The Underachievement of Gifted Students: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go?, Gifted Child Quarterly. (2000) 44, no. 3, 152–170, https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620004400302, 2-s2.0-0001111777.
10.1177/001698620004400302
Web of Science® Google Scholar
64 Bembich C., The Bioecological Model as a Perspective to Interpret Foreign-Born Students’ Early School Leaving: A Multifactorial Approach, Encyclopaideia. (2019) 23, no. 55, 53–65, https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1825-8670/10081.
10.6092/issn.1825-8670/10081
Google Scholar
65 International Organization for Migration, IOM Handbook on Protection and Assistance for Migrants Vulnerable to Violence, Exploitation and Abuse, PUB2019/00, 2019, IOM UN Migration Publication Platform.
Google Scholar
66 Gil A. G., Vega W. A., and Dimas J. M., Acculturative Stress and Personal Adjustment Among Hispanic Adolescent Boys, Journal of Community Psychology. (1994) 22, no. 1, 43–54, https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(199401)22:1%3C43::AID-JCOP2290220106%3E3.0.CO;2-T.
10.1002/1520-6629(199401)22:1<43::AID-JCOP2290220106>3.0.CO;2-T
Web of Science® Google Scholar
67 Padilla A. M. and Perez W., Acculturation, Social Identity, and Social Cognition: A New Perspective, Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. (2003) 25, no. 1, 35–55, https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986303251694, 2-s2.0-0037269318.
10.1177/0739986303251694
Web of Science® Google Scholar
68 Romero A. J. and Roberts R. E., Stress Within a Bicultural Context for Adolescents of Mexican Descent, Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology. (2003) 9, no. 2, 171–184, https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.9.2.171, 2-s2.0-0037408427, 12760328.
10.1037/1099-9809.9.2.171
PubMed Google Scholar
69 Hippe R. and Jakubowski M., Immigrant Background and Expected Early School Leaving in Europe: Evidence From PISA, 2018, EUR 28866 EN; Publications Office of the European Union, Luxemburg, https://doi.org/10.2760/111445.
Google Scholar
70 OECD and European Commission, Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2023, 2023, OECD, Paris.
Google Scholar
71 Schneeweis N., Immigrant Concentration in Schools: Consequences for Native and Migrant Students, Labour Economics. (2015) 35, 63–76, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2015.03.004, 2-s2.0-84928684055.
10.1016/j.labeco.2015.03.004
Web of Science® Google Scholar
72 Contini D., Immigrant Background Peer Effects in Italian Schools, Social Science Research. (2013) 42, no. 4, 1122–1142, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.02.003, 2-s2.0-84878350315, 23721678.
10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.02.003
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
73 Ohinata A. and van Ours J. C., How Immigrant Children Affect the Academic Achievement of Native Dutch Children, Economic Journal. (2013) 123, no. 570, F308–F331, https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12052, 2-s2.0-84883331024.
10.1111/ecoj.12052
Web of Science® Google Scholar
74 Hillmert S., Links Between Immigration and Social Inequality in Education: A Comparison Among Five European Countries, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility. (2013) 32, no. 1, 7–23, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2013.02.002, 2-s2.0-84892526451.
10.1016/j.rssm.2013.02.002
Web of Science® Google Scholar
75 Volante L., Klinger D., and Bilgili O., Immigrant Student Achievement and Education Policy, 2018, Springer International Publishing, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74063-8.
10.1007/978-3-319-74063-8
Google Scholar
76 Dronkers J., Levels M., and de Heus M., Migrant Pupils’ Scientific Performance: The Influence of Educational System Features of Origin and Destination Countries, Large-scale Assessments in Education. (2014) 2, no. 1, https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-0739-2-3, 2-s2.0-85014674094.
10.1186/2196-0739-2-3
Google Scholar
77 Schlicht-Schmälzle R. and Möller S., Macro-Political Determinants of Educational Inequality Between Migrants and Natives in Western Europe, West European Politics. (2012) 35, no. 5, 1044–1074, https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2012.706410, 2-s2.0-84865398761.
10.1080/01402382.2012.706410
Web of Science® Google Scholar
78 Carvalho S. and Haybano A. K., ‘Refugee Education Is Our Responsibility’: How Governance Shapes the Politics of Bridging the Humanitarian—Development Divide, Journal of Refugee Studies. (2023) 36, no. 4, 604–628, https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fead001.
10.1093/jrs/fead001
Web of Science® Google Scholar
79 Gupte J. and Mehta L., R. Eyben and J. Moncrieffe, Disjunctures in Labelling Refugees and Outstees, The Power of Labelling, 2007, 1st edition, Routledge, London.
Google Scholar
80 Talleraas C., P. Scholten, Migration Forms: What Forms of Migration Can Be Distinguished?, Introduction to Migration Studies, 2022, IMISCOE Research Series. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 111–116, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92377-8_6.
10.1007/978-3-030-92377-8_6
Google Scholar
81 Talleraas C., Who Are the Transnationals? Institutional Categories Beyond ‘Migrants’, Ethnic and Racial Studies. (2020) 43, no. 4, 652–671, https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2019.1599133, 2-s2.0-85063991989.
10.1080/01419870.2019.1599133
Google Scholar
82 Cropley A. J., The Education of Immigrant Children: A Social-Psychological Introduction, 1983, Croom Helm.
Google Scholar
83 Rumbaut R. G., H. Adelman, Migration, Adaptation, and Mental Health: The Experience of Southeast Asian Refugees in the United States, Refugee Policy: Canada and the United States, 1991, York Lanes Press, 383–427.
Google Scholar
84 Rumbaut R. G., Ages, Life Stages, and Generational Cohorts: Decomposing the Immigrant First and Second Generations in the United States, International Migration Review. (2004) 38, no. 3, 1160–1205, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2004.tb00232.x.
10.1111/j.1747-7379.2004.tb00232.x
Web of Science® Google Scholar
85 Rumbaut R. G., P. Kivisto, The Melting and the Pot: Assimilation and Variety in American Life, Incorporating Diversity: Rethinking Assimilation in a Multicultural Era, 2011, Paradigm Publishers, 154–173.
Google Scholar
86 Rumbaut R. G., R. D. Taylor, Children of Immigrants and Their Achievement: The Roles of Family, Acculturation, Social Class, Gender, Ethnicity, and School Context, Addressing the Achievement Gap: Theory Informing Practice, 2020, Information Age Publishing Inc., 23–59.
Google Scholar
87 Rumbaut R. G., T. S. Weiner, Sites of Belonging: Acculturation, Discrimination, and Ethnic Identity Among Children of Immigrants, Discovering Successful Pathways in Children’s Development: Mixed Methods in the Study of Childhood and Family Life, 2005, University of Chicago Press, 111–164.
Web of Science® Google Scholar
88 Carling J., Refugee Advocacy and the Meaning of ‘Migrants,’, PRIO Policy Brief. (2017) 2, Available: https://www.prio.org/publications/10471.
Google Scholar
89 Morsut C. and Kruke B. I., Crisis Governance of the Refugee and Migrant Influx Into Europe in 2015: A Tale of Disintegration, Journal of European Integration. (2018) 40, no. 2, 145–159, https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2017.1404055, 2-s2.0-85036578364.
10.1080/07036337.2017.1404055
Web of Science® Google Scholar
90 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2015, 2016, UNHCR, Geneva, Switzerland, Available: https://www.unhcr.org/statistics/unhcrstats/576408cd7/unhcr-global-trends-2015.html.
Google Scholar
91 Albhirat M. M., Rashid A., Rasheed R., Rasool S., Zulkiffli S. N. A., Zia-ul-Haq H. M., and Mohammad A. M., The PRISMA Statement in Enviropreneurship Study: A Systematic Literature and a Research Agenda, Cleaner Engineering and Technology. (2024) 18, 100721, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2024.100721.
10.1016/j.clet.2024.100721
Web of Science® Google Scholar
92 Sackett D. L., Evidence-Based Medicine, Seminars in Perinatology. (1997) 21, no. 1, 3–5, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0146-0005(97)80013-4, 2-s2.0-0030975861.
10.1016/S0146-0005(97)80013-4
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
93 Page M. J., McKenzie J., Bossuyt P. M., Boutron I., Hoffmann T. C., Mulrow C. D., Shamseer L., Tetzlaff J. M., Akl E. A., Brennan S. E., Chou R., Glanville J., Grimshaw J. M., Hróbjartsson A., Lalu M. M., Li T., Loder E. W., Mayo-Wilson E., McDonald S., McGuinness L., Stewart L. A., Thomas J., Tricco A. C., Welch V. A., Whiting P., and Moher D., The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews, BMJ. (2021) 372, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71, 33782057.
10.1136/bmj.n71
PubMed Google Scholar
94 Dados N. and Connell R., The Global South, Contexts. (2012) 11, no. 1, 12–13, https://doi.org/10.1177/1536504212436479.
10.1177/1536504212436479
Google Scholar
95 Borgonovi F. and Ferrara A., Academic Achievement and Sense of Belonging Among Non-Native-Speaking Immigrant Students: The Role of Linguistic Distance, Learning and Individual Differences. (2020) 81, 101911, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101911.
10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101911
Web of Science® Google Scholar
96 Bredtmann J., Otten S., and Vonnahme C., Linguistic Diversity in the Classroom, Student Achievement, and Social Integration, Education Economics. (2021) 29, no. 2, 121–142, https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2020.1866499.
10.1080/09645292.2020.1866499
Web of Science® Google Scholar
97 Spees L. P., Potochnick S., and Perreira K. M., The Academic Achievement of Limited English Proficient (LEP) Youth in New and Established Immigrant States: Lessons From the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Education Policy Analysis Archives. (2016) 24, https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2130, 2-s2.0-84996503562, 29527112.
10.14507/epaa.24.2130
PubMed Google Scholar
98 Triventi M., Are Children of Immigrants Graded Less Generously by Their Teachers Than Natives, and Why? Evidence From Student Population Data in Italy, International Migration Review. (2020) 54, no. 3, 765–795, https://doi.org/10.1177/0197918319878104.
10.1177/0197918319878104
Google Scholar
99 Zhang L. and Han W.-J., Poverty Dynamics and Academic Trajectories of Children of Immigrants, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. (2017) 14, no. 9, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14091076, 2-s2.0-85029654000, 28926964.
10.3390/ijerph14091076
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
100 Chobphon P., Factors Influencing High Academic Achievement of Stateless Migrant Children in Tak Province, Thailand, Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities. (2021) 29, no. 1, 141–156, https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.29.1.08.
10.47836/pjssh.29.1.08
Web of Science® Google Scholar
101 Dockery A. M., Koshy P., and Li I. W., Culture, Migration and Educational Performance: A Focus on Gender Outcomes Using Australian PISA Tests, Australian Educational Researcher. (2020) 47, no. 1, 39–59, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00321-7, 2-s2.0-85064337835.
10.1007/s13384-019-00321-7
Web of Science® Google Scholar
102 Giannelli G. C. and Rapallini C., Immigrant Student Performance in Math: Does It Matter Where You Come From?, Economics of Education Review. (2016) 52, 291–304, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.03.006, 2-s2.0-84964334371.
10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.03.006
Web of Science® Google Scholar
103 Guerra R., Rodrigues R. B., Aguiar C., Carmona M., Alexandre J., and Lopes R. C., School Achievement and Well-Being of Immigrant Children: The Role of Acculturation Orientations and Perceived Discrimination, Journal of School Psychology. (2019) 75, 104–118, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.07.004, 2-s2.0-85069159493, 31474277.
10.1016/j.jsp.2019.07.004
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
104 Ismail A. A., Immigrant Children, Educational Performance and Public Policy: A Capability Approach, Journal of International Migration and Integration. (2019) 20, no. 3, 717–734, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-018-0630-9, 2-s2.0-85055947769.
10.1007/s12134-018-0630-9
Google Scholar
105 Moskal M., Language and Cultural Capital in School Experience of Polish Children in Scotland, Race Ethnicity and Education. (2016) 19, no. 1, 141–160, https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2014.911167, 2-s2.0-84946473747.
10.1080/13613324.2014.911167
Web of Science® Google Scholar
106 Murat M. and Frederic P., Institutions, Culture and Background: The School Performance of Immigrant Students, Education Economics. (2015) 23, no. 5, 612–630, https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2014.894497, 2-s2.0-84938981366.
10.1080/09645292.2014.894497
Google Scholar
107 Pivovarova M. and Powers J. M., Generational Status, Immigrant Concentration and Academic Achievement: Comparing First and Second-Generation Immigrants With Third-Plus Generation Students, Large-Scale Assessments Education. (2019) 7, no. 1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-019-0075-4, 2-s2.0-85068915386.
10.1186/s40536-019-0075-4
Google Scholar
108 Karkouti I. M., Wolsey T. D., and Toprak M., Restoring Hope for Syrian Refugees: Social Support Students Need to Excel at School, International Migration. (2020) 58, no. 4, 21–36, https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12642, 2-s2.0-85073795584.
10.1111/imig.12642
Web of Science® Google Scholar
109 Tonsing J. C., Exploratory Study of the Resettlement Experiences of Burmese Refugees Children in the USA, British Journal of Social Work. (2022) 52, no. 3, 1577–1591, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcab142.
10.1093/bjsw/bcab142
Web of Science® Google Scholar
110 Di Liberto A., Length of Stay in the Host Country and Educational Achievement of Immigrant Students, International Journal of Manpower. (2015) 36, no. 4, 585–618, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-11-2013-0261, 2-s2.0-84933520413.
10.1108/IJM-11-2013-0261
Web of Science® Google Scholar
111 Gijsberts M. and van der Ploeg R., School Achievement of Immigrant Children: The Decreasing Influence of Ethnic Concentration, Journal of International Migration and Integration. (2016) 17, no. 3, 905–927, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-015-0445-x, 2-s2.0-84930268846.
10.1007/s12134-015-0445-x
Google Scholar
112 Gong X., Marchant G., and Cheng Y., Family Factors and Immigrant Students’ Academic Achievement, Asian Education and Development Studies. (2015) 4, no. 4, 448–459, https://doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-01-2015-0002, 2-s2.0-84958983283.
10.1108/AEDS-01-2015-0002
Google Scholar
113 Jahanmahan F. and Trondman M., ‘I Never Want to Lose That Key’: on School as an Opportunity Structure for Unaccompanied Refugee Children in Sweden, Nordic Journal of Migration Research. (2020) 10, no. 1, 69–86, https://doi.org/10.2478/njmr-2019-0027.
10.2478/njmr-2019-0027
Web of Science® Google Scholar
114 Kunz J. S., Analyzing Educational Achievement Differences Between Second-Generation Immigrants: Comparing Germany and German-Speaking Switzerland, German Economic Review. (2016) 17, no. 1, 61–91, https://doi.org/10.1111/geer.12062, 2-s2.0-84954370946.
10.1111/geer.12062
Web of Science® Google Scholar
115 Lee R., How Are the Children of Immigrants Assimilating? The Effects of Individual, Neighborhood, Coethnic Community, and National Origin Group Characteristics on Education in San Diego, International Journal of Sociology of Education. (2018) 7, no. 2, 123–153, https://doi.org/10.17583/rise.2018.2354, 2-s2.0-85061914129.
10.17583/rise.2018.2354
Google Scholar
116 Miyamoto A., Seuring J., and Kristen C., Immigrant Students’ Achievements in Light of Their Educational Aspirations and Academic Motivation, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. (2020) 46, no. 7, 1348–1370, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2018.1538772, 2-s2.0-85055723521.
10.1080/1369183X.2018.1538772
Web of Science® Google Scholar
117 Strobel B., Does Family Language Matter? The Role of Foreign Language Use and Family Social Capital in the Educational Achievement of Immigrant Students in Germany, Ethnic and Racial Studies. (2016) 39, no. 14, 2641–2663, https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2016.1145712, 2-s2.0-84959052361.
10.1080/01419870.2016.1145712
Google Scholar
118 Sullivan A. L., Houri A., and Sadeh S., Demography and Early Academic Skills of Students From Immigrant Families: The Kindergarten Class of 2011, School Psychology Quarterly. (2016) 31, no. 2, 149–162, https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000137, 2-s2.0-84974621983, 27243241.
10.1037/spq0000137
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
119 Kim H. Y., Brown L., Tubbs Dolan C., Sheridan M., and Aber J. L., Post-Migration Risks, Developmental Processes, and Learning Among Syrian Refugee Children in Lebanon, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. (2020) 69, 101142, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2020.101142.
10.1016/j.appdev.2020.101142
Web of Science® Google Scholar
120 Schotte K., Stanat P., and Edele A., Is Integration Always Most Adaptive? The Role of Cultural Identity in Academic Achievement and in Psychological Adaptation of Immigrant Students in Germany, Journal of Youth and Adolescence. (2018) 47, no. 1, 16–37, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0737-x, 2-s2.0-85029534312, 28913774.
10.1007/s10964-017-0737-x
PubMed Google Scholar
121 Archambault I., Janosz M., Dupéré V., Brault M., and Andrew M. M., Individual, Social, and Family Factors Associated With High School Dropout Among low-SES Youth: Differential Effects as a Function of Immigrant Status, British Journal of Educational Psychology. (2017) 87, no. 3, 456–477, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12159, 2-s2.0-85018986075, 28452407.
10.1111/bjep.12159
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
122 Berg L., Charboti S., Montgomery E., and Hjern A., Parental PTSD and School Performance in 16-Year-Olds – A Swedish National Cohort Study, Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. (2019) 73, no. 4–5, 264–272, https://doi.org/10.1080/08039488.2019.1620852, 2-s2.0-85067610894, 31134834.
10.1080/08039488.2019.1620852
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
123 Crea T. M., Hasson R. G., Evans K., Berger Cardoso J., and Underwood D., Moving Forward: Educational Outcomes for Unaccompanied Refugee Minors (URM) Exiting Foster Care in the United States, Journal of Refugee Studies. (2018) 31, no. 2, 240–256, https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fex020, 2-s2.0-85048958047.
10.1093/jrs/fex020
Web of Science® Google Scholar
124 Emery L., Spruyt B., Boone S., and Van Avermaet P., The Educational Trajectory of Newly Arrived Migrant Students: Insights From a Structural Analysis of Cultural Capital, Educational Research. (2020) 62, no. 1, 18–34, https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2020.1713021.
10.1080/00131881.2020.1713021
Web of Science® Google Scholar
125 Peguero A. A., Zavala E., Shekarkhar Z., and Walker-Pickett M., School Victimization, Immigration, Dropping Out, and Gender Disparities, Journal of Interpersonal Violence. (2021) 36, no. 5–6, 2703–2731, https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518760004, 2-s2.0-85043721132, 29528802.
10.1177/0886260518760004
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
126 Kumi-Yeboah A., Educational Resilience and Academic Achievement of Immigrant Students From Ghana in an Urban School Environment, Urban Education. (2020) 55, no. 5, 753–782, https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916660347.
10.1177/0042085916660347
Web of Science® Google Scholar
127 Ulriksen R., Sagatun Å., Zachrisson H. D., Waaktaar T., and Lervåg A. O., Social Support and Socioeconomic Status Predict Secondary Students’ Grades and Educational Plans Indifferently Across Immigrant Group and Gender, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. (2015) 59, no. 3, 357–376, https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2014.965792, 2-s2.0-84926257928.
10.1080/00313831.2014.965792
Web of Science® Google Scholar
128 Wilchek-Aviad Y., Ego-Identity Among Immigrant Dropout Youth, Journal of Psychiatry. (2015) 18, no. 2, https://doi.org/10.4172/Psychiatry.1000226, 2-s2.0-84946762614.
10.4172/Psychiatry.1000226
Google Scholar
129 Areepattamannil S., Melkonian M., and Khine M. S., International Note: Exploring Differences in Native and Immigrant Adolescents’ Mathematics Achievement and Dispositions Towards Mathematics in Qatar, Journal of Adolescence. (2015) 40, no. 1, 11–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.12.010, 2-s2.0-84921290230, 25600511.
10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.12.010
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
130 Hull M. C., The Academic Progress of Hispanic Immigrants, Economics of Education Review. (2017) 57, 91–110, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2017.02.002, 2-s2.0-85016060401.
10.1016/j.econedurev.2017.02.002
Web of Science® Google Scholar
131 Jung E. and Zhang Y., Parental Involvement, Children’s Aspirations, and Achievement in New Immigrant Families, Journal of Educational Research. (2016) 109, no. 4, 333–350, https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.959112, 2-s2.0-84964556494.
10.1080/00220671.2014.959112
Web of Science® Google Scholar
132 Lauderdale M. K. and Heckman S. J., Family Background and Higher Education Attainment Among Children of Immigrants, Journal of Family and Economic Issues. (2017) 38, no. 3, 327–337, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-017-9537-4, 2-s2.0-85025156484.
10.1007/s10834-017-9537-4
Web of Science® Google Scholar
133 Lokhande M. and Müller T., Double Jeopardy – Double Remedy? The Effectiveness of Self-Affirmation for Improving Doubly Disadvantaged Students’ Mathematical Performance, Journal of School Psychology. (2019) 75, 58–73, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.07.006, 2-s2.0-85069698548, 31474281.
10.1016/j.jsp.2019.07.006
PubMed Google Scholar
134 Martinez-Taboada C., Mera M. J., Amutio Careaga A., Castañeda X., Felt E., and Nicolae G., The Impact of Cultural Dissonance and Acculturation Orientations on Immigrant Students’ Academic Performance, Universitas Psychologica. (2018) 16, no. 5, 1–14, https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy16-5.icda, 2-s2.0-85041209748.
10.11144/Javeriana.upsy16-5.icda
Google Scholar
135 Moon U. J. and Hofferth S. L., Parental Involvement, Child Effort, and the Development of Immigrant Boys’ and Girls’ Reading and Mathematics Skills: A Latent Difference Score Growth Model, Learning and Individual Differences. (2016) 47, 136–144, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.01.001, 2-s2.0-84954546928, 26900304.
10.1016/j.lindif.2016.01.001
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
136 Smith N. A., Thelamour B., and Booth M. X., Caribbean Immigrant Youths’ Ethnic Identity and Academic Achievement: The Role of Academic Beliefs, Youth & Society. (2022) 54, no. 3, 462–480, https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X20981382.
10.1177/0044118X20981382
Web of Science® Google Scholar
137 Bakhshaei M. and Henderson R. I., Gender at the Intersection With Race and Class in the Schooling and Wellbeing of Immigrant-Origin Students, BMC Women’s Health. (2016) 16, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-016-0328-0, 2-s2.0-84979633631, 27465110.
10.1186/s12905-016-0328-0
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
138 Chachashvili-Bolotin S. and Lissitsa S., Enrollment in Religious Schools and the Educational Achievements of Children of High-Skill Immigrants, International Migration Review. (2018) 52, no. 1, 183–208, https://doi.org/10.1111/imre.12266, 2-s2.0-84963930725.
10.1111/imre.12266
Web of Science® Google Scholar
139 Fierro J., Parella S., Güell B., and Petroff A., Educational Achievement Among Children of Latin American Immigrants in Spain, Journal of International Migration and Integration. (2022) 23, no. 4, 1921–1940, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-021-00918-x.
10.1007/s12134-021-00918-x
Web of Science® Google Scholar
140 Obinna D. N. and Ohanian M. M. Z., Uncertain Aspirations: Latino Students and Dropout in the United States, Race Ethnicity and Education. (2020) 23, no. 5, 654–672, https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2018.1497967, 2-s2.0-85050409704.
10.1080/13613324.2018.1497967
Web of Science® Google Scholar
141 Dahl G. B., Felfe C., Frijters P., and Rainer H., Caught Between Cultures: Unintended Consequences of Improving Opportunity for Immigrant Girls, Review of Economic Studies. (2022) 89, no. 5, 2491–2528, https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdab089.
10.1093/restud/rdab089
Web of Science® Google Scholar
142 Drange N. and Telle K., Preschool and School Performance of Children From Immigrant Families, Empirical Economics. (2017) 52, no. 2, 825–867.
10.1007/s00181-016-1091-7
Web of Science® Google Scholar
143 Rodríguez S., Valle A., Gironelli L. M., Guerrero E., Regueiro B., and Estévez I., Performance and Well-Being of Native and Immigrant Students. Comparative Analysis Based on PISA 2018, Journal of Adolescence. (2020) 85, no. 1, 96–105, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.10.001, 33120032.
10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.10.001
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
144 Calzada E., Barajas-Gonzalez R. G., Dawson-McClure S., Huang K. Y., Palamar J., Kamboukos D., and Brotman L. M., Early Academic Achievement Among American Low-Income Black Students From Immigrant and Non-Immigrant Families, Prevention Science. (2015) 16, no. 8, 1159–1168, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0570-y, 2-s2.0-84945438977, 26048254.
10.1007/s11121-015-0570-y
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
145 Gagné M., Guhn M., Janus M., Georgiades K., Emerson S. D., Milbrath C., Duku E., Magee C., Schonert-Reichl K. A., and Gadermann A. M., Thriving, Catching Up, Falling Behind: Immigrant and Refugee Children’s Kindergarten Competencies and Later Academic Achievement, Journal of Educational Psychology. (2021) 113, no. 7, 1387–1404, https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000634.
10.1037/edu0000634
Web of Science® Google Scholar
146 De Benedetto M. A. and De Paola M., Immigration and Teacher Bias Towards Students With an Immigrant Background, Economic Policy. (2023) 38, no. 113, 107–154, https://doi.org/10.1093/epolic/eiac068.
10.1093/epolic/eiac068
Web of Science® Google Scholar
147 Corral D., The Relationship Between Immigration Enforcement and Educational Attainment: The Role of Sanctuary Policies, AERA Open. (2021) 7, no. 1, 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211037253.
10.1177/23328584211037253
Web of Science® Google Scholar
148 Guetto R., Zanasi F., and Carella M., Non-Intact Families and Children’s Educational Outcomes: Comparing Native and Migrant Pupils, European Journal of Population. (2022) 38, no. 5, 1065–1094, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-022-09638-z, 36507234.
10.1007/s10680-022-09638-z
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
149 Patel S. G., Clarke A. V., Eltareb F., Macciomei E. E., and Wickham R. E., Newcomer Immigrant Adolescents: A Mixed-Methods Examination of Family Stressors and School Outcomes, School Psychology Quarterly. (2016) 31, no. 2, 163–180, https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000140, 2-s2.0-84974601871, 27243242.
10.1037/spq0000140
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
150 Anguiano R. M., Language Brokering Among Latino Immigrant Families: Moderating Variables and Youth Outcomes, Journal of Youth and Adolescence. (2018) 47, no. 1, 222–242, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0744-y, 2-s2.0-85029602116, 28929398.
10.1007/s10964-017-0744-y
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
151 Toyokawa N. and Toyokawa T., Interaction Effect of Familism and Socioeconomic Status on Academic Outcomes of Adolescent Children of Latino Immigrant Families, Journal of Adolescence. (2019) 71, no. 1, 138–149, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.10.005, 2-s2.0-85060628679, 30708206.
10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.10.005
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
152 Wheeler L. A., Arora P. G., and Delgado M. Y., The Distal Role of Adolescents’ Awareness of and Perceived Discrimination on Young Adults’ Socioeconomic Attainment Among Mexican-Origin Immigrant Families, Journal of Youth and Adolescence. (2020) 49, no. 12, 2441–2458, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01276-0, 32588286.
10.1007/s10964-020-01276-0
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
153 Ambrosetti E., Bettin G., Cela E., and Paparusso A., Subjective Well-Being and School Outcomes Among Children of Immigrants and Natives in Italy, Population, Space and Place. (2023) 29, no. 4, https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2639.
10.1002/psp.2639
Web of Science® Google Scholar
154 Jhang F. H. and Lee Y. T., The Role of Parental Involvement in Academic Achievement Trajectories of Elementary School Children With Southeast Asian and Taiwanese Mothers, International Journal of Educational Research. (2018) 89, 68–79, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.09.003, 2-s2.0-85032722197.
10.1016/j.ijer.2017.09.003
Web of Science® Google Scholar
155 Motti-Stefanidi F. and Asendorpf J. B., Adaptation During a Great Economic Recession: A Cohort Study of Greek and Immigrant Youth, Child Development. (2017) 88, no. 4, 1139–1155, https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12878, 2-s2.0-85020527150, 28626909.
10.1111/cdev.12878
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
156 Mukhopadhyay ., Language Assimilation and Performance in Achievement Tests Among Hispanic Children in the U.S.: Evidence From a Field Experiment, Economics of Education Review. (2020) 75, 101970, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2020.101970.
10.1016/j.econedurev.2020.101970
Google Scholar
157 Triventi M., Vlach E., and Pini E., Understanding Why Immigrant Children Underperform: Evidence From Italian Compulsory Education, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. (2022) 48, no. 10, 2324–2346, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2021.1935656.
10.1080/1369183X.2021.1935656
Web of Science® Google Scholar
158 Chykina V., Trying to Excel in the Golden State: Anti-Immigrant Sentiment and Immigrant Educational Achievement in California, Globalisation, Societies and Education. (2022) 20, no. 5, 608–624, https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2021.1981252.
10.1080/14767724.2021.1981252
Web of Science® Google Scholar
159 García-Fernández C. M., García-Segura S., and Gil-del-Pino M. C., Academic Performance of Immigrant Students and Teachers’ Expectations, Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto). (2021) 31, e3126, https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4327e3126.
10.1590/1982-4327e3126
Google Scholar
160 Santos M. A., Godás A., Ferraces M. J., and Lorenzo M., Academic Performance of Native and Immigrant Students: A Study Focused on the Perception of Family Support and Control, School Satisfaction, and Learning Environment, Frontiers in Psychology. (2016) 7, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01560, 2-s2.0-84996520829, 27790171.
10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01560
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
161 Kang J. and Whitaker I. P., Mexican-Origin Children’s Educational Expectations and Academic Performance: Disparities Across Maternal Legal Status and Children’s Immigrant Generation, Population Research and Policy Review. (2022) 41, no. 3, 1191–1216, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-021-09687-y.
10.1007/s11113-021-09687-y
Web of Science® Google Scholar
162 Wen W., Chen S., Kim S. Y., and Hou Y., Mother-Adolescent Perceived Parenting Profiles and Mexican-Origin Adolescents’ Academic Performance, Journal of Youth and Adolescence. (2023) 52, no. 2, 344–358, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-022-01696-0, 36344877.
10.1007/s10964-022-01696-0
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
163 Bianchi D., Cavicchiolo E., Lucidi F., Manganelli S., Girelli L., Chirico A., and Alivernini F., School Dropout Intention and Self-Esteem in Immigrant and Native Students Living in Poverty: The Protective Role of Peer Acceptance at School, School Mental Health. (2021) 13, no. 2, 266–278, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-021-09410-4.
10.1007/s12310-021-09410-4
Web of Science® Google Scholar
164 de Miguel-Luken V. and Solana-Solana M., Immigrants in the Educational System in Spain: Who Persists?, Social Indicators Research. (2017) 132, no. 2, 733–755, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1323-4, 2-s2.0-84963785614.
10.1007/s11205-016-1323-4
Google Scholar
165 Ursache A., Kiely Gouley K., Dawson-McClure S., Barajas-Gonzalez R. G., Calzada E. J., Goldfeld K. S., and Brotman L. M., Early Emotion Knowledge and Later Academic Achievement Among Children of Color in Historically Disinvested Neighborhoods, Child Development. (2020) 91, no. 6, e1249–e1266, https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13432, 32865229.
10.1111/cdev.13432
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
166 Wilkinson J., Santoro N., and Major J., Sudanese Refugee Youth and Educational Success: The Role of Church and Youth Group in Supporting Cultural and Academic Adjustment and Schooling Achievement, International Journal of Intercultural Relations. (2017) 60, 210–219, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2017.04.003, 2-s2.0-85018341451.
10.1016/j.ijintrel.2017.04.003
Web of Science® Google Scholar
167 World Health Organization, Adolescent Frendly Health Services-An Agenda for Change, 2002, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland, Available: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/67923.
Google Scholar
168 Alsaker F. D. and Kroger J., Self-Concept, Self-Esteem, and Identity, Handbook of Adolescent Development, 2007, 1st edition, Psychology Press.
Google Scholar
169 Fang J. Q., Wang Y. R., du Y. Y., Yan G. L., Ma F. L., Liu Y. Q., Sun W. X., Chen S. Q., Feng L. P., Wei J., Liu H., Hu J., and Zhang Z. X., Migrant Adolescents’ Behavioral Problems Compared to Host Adolescents and Adolescents in their Region of Origin: A Longitudinal Study, BMC Psychiatry. (2020) 20, no. 1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-020-02872-x, 32993575.
10.1186/s12888-020-02872-x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
170 Rangvid B. S., Sources of Immigrants’ Underachievement: Results From PISA—Copenhagen, Education Economics. (2007) 15, no. 3, 293–326, https://doi.org/10.1080/09645290701273558, 2-s2.0-34547681529.
10.1080/09645290701273558
Google Scholar
171 Buss D. M., Evolutionary Psychology: A New Paradigm for Psychological Science, Psychological Inquiry. (1995) 6, no. 1, 1–30, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0601_1, 2-s2.0-11944250858.
10.1207/s15327965pli0601_1
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
172 Baron-Cohen S., The Essential Difference: The Truth About the Male and Female Brain, 2003, Basic Books, New York, NY, US.
Google Scholar
173 Luna F., Elucidating the Concept of Vulnerability: Layers Not Labels, IJFAB: International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics. (2009) 2, no. 1, 121–139, https://doi.org/10.3138/ijfab.2.1.121.
10.3138/ijfab.2.1.121
Google Scholar
174 Keller L., Lüdtke O., Preckel F., and Brunner M., Educational Inequalities at the Intersection of Multiple Social Categories: An Introduction and Systematic Review of the Multilevel Analysis of Individual Heterogeneity and Discriminatory Accuracy (MAIHDA) Approach, Educational Psychology Review. (2023) 35, no. 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09733-5.
10.1007/s10648-023-09733-5
Web of Science® Google Scholar
175 Jackson J. F. L., Moore J. L., and Leon R. A., Male Underachievement in Education Across the Globe: A Shift in Paradigm for Gender Disparities Regarding Academic Achievement, International Encyclopedia of Education, 2010, Elsevier, 838–844, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00162-7, 2-s2.0-84884433827.
10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00162-7
Google Scholar
176 Whitley R. and Whitley R., R. Whitley, The Gender Gap in Education: Understanding Educational Underachievement in Young Males and Its Relationship to Adverse Mental Health, Men’s Issues and Men’s Mental Health, 2021, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 153–175, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86320-3_7.
10.1007/978-3-030-86320-3_7
Google Scholar
177 Baas J., Schotten M., Plume A., Côté G., and Karimi R., Scopus as a Curated, High-Quality Bibliometric Data Source for Academic Research in Quantitative Science Studies, Quantitative Science Studies. (2020) 1, no. 1, 377–386, https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019.
10.1162/qss_a_00019
Web of Science® Google Scholar
178 Schotten M., el Aisati M., Meester W. J. N., Steiginga S., and Ross C. A., F. J. Cantu-Ortiz, A Brief History of Scopus: The World’s Largest Abstract and Citation Database of Scientific Literature, Research Analytics: Boosting University Productivity and Competitiveness through Scientometrics, 2017, 1st edition, Auerbach Publications, New York, NY, US, 31–58, https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315155890-3.
10.1201/9781315155890-3
Google Scholar

All articles

Unveiling Vulnerability Determinants Among Migrant-Background Students: A Systematic Review

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. The Vulnerability Concept

2.1. Determinants of Migrant Children’s Vulnerability Concerning Educational Outcomes