Conference Agenda

Across global education systems, wellbeing has become a central policy priority. In Ireland, this shift is reflected in the Wellbeing Policy Statement and Framework for Practice and the embedding of wellbeing within curriculum reform. Yet despite strong policy aspirations, a persistent gap remains between the ideals of wellbeing and the realities of enactment. This paper argues that contemporary wellbeing efforts cannot be understood, or meaningfully realised, without acknowledging the enduring influence of Ireland’s historical traumas; including colonial domination, Church - State governance, and institutional abuse. These legacies have left deep psychological, relational, and cultural imprints that continue to shape the emotional life of schools. The purpose of this conceptual paper is to examine how historical, intergenerational, and institutional trauma continue to shape Irish educational culture, and to argue for a deep, reparative approach to wellbeing that moves beyond surface-level interventions. The paper interrogates whether current wellbeing initiatives can be effective without a sustained reckoning with the painful histories that are embodied in the everyday emotional lives of teachers and students; shaping how wellbeing is enacted and felt in schools.

Scientific literature shows that new scientific and social priorities regarding social impacts and co-creation are leading to profound transformations in scientific and social contexts [1]. In mental health, one of these transformations is the growing visibility of dialogic models that support improvements in mental health.

While talk has long been a component of treatments across schools of thought, the role of dialogue quality in promoting mental health improvements has received limited attention [2]. A scientific framework based on the theory of dialogic society allows analysis of dialogues that have positive impacts [3]. In 1979, a new research perspective with co-creation and social impact was created in collaboration with citizens from diverse backgrounds, health doctors from different specialties and professionals of social sciences. These analyses led to the development of the ‘Successful Dialogues in Mental Health’ (SDMH) model, which refers to the identification and creation of dialogues that have successfully contributed to improving mental health. Although the positive role of some dialogues in improving mental health has been known for decades, the SDMH model focuses on identifying the types of dialogue that make the most successful contributions. From the outset, SDMH were conceived as complementary interventions supporting medical treatments and never as a substitute. Nowadays, this perspective is implemented in diverse parts of the world with a great social impact [4].

Following priorities of social impact and co-creation, more researchers and professionals have developed dialogic models to enhance the visibility of mental health. Nevertheless, without knowledge of their historical development, there is a risk of misrepresentation and deformations that can lead to errors detrimental to society and individuals with mental health conditions. Thus, clarifying and mitigating these errors is essential. Literature reviewed to date highlights a lack of research on errors related to the SDMH model. Then, a study was conducted aimed at clarifying a particular error, namely when excellent results obtained through this model are incorrectly attributed to a supposed dialogic approach of psychiatric rehabilitation by researchers without medical degrees [5].

The primary objective of this study is to clarify errors when excellent SDMH outcomes are misattributed to a psychiatric approach by non-medical researchers. The second objective includes unveiling the historical steps in the SDMH model’s original development and examining how the model has been presented since its inception. Accordingly, the research question guiding this study is: What are the origins and historical development of the Successful Dialogues in Mental Health (SDMH) model?

Results indicated that the SDMH model originated through co-creation among professionals, citizens, and patients, and was developed from the observation of the impacts of dialogue in an specific Adult School. The model focused on identifying dialogues that improve mental health, among them, those including interactions based on egalitarian dialogue, which promoted a deep creation of meaning, feelings of support, and genuine relationships in which individuals feel deeply valued [5]. Dialogic Gatherings (DG) were identified as a successful educational action within SDMH model [6], as they promote dialogues that have demonstrated improvements in mental health [7,8].

It was furthermore clarified that the SDMH model has always been presented as a social and dialogic collaboration and never as a substitute for other treatments or as psychiatric rehabilitation. This clarification highlights the SDMH model’s purpose in benefiting citizens, particularly those with mental health conditions.

Student wellbeing is an international policy priority in school education, not only as a caring response to students experiencing effects of stressful life conditions, but also as wellbeing has strong links to academic achievement (Banks and Smyth, 2015). However, following COVID-19, adolescents have experienced lower wellbeing levels, especially lower mental health (World Health Organisation [WHO], 2020). In adolescents, low engagement in school is linked with low achievement (Noble et al., 2008), especially where there is low wellbeing and high anxiety (Cunsolo, 2017). Whereas, students with positive school experiences typically have positive outcomes, plus higher wellbeing and lower stress (Rodriguez et al., 2020). With issuesinfluencing young peoples’ health and wellbeing being linked to education, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) identifies school systems that perform highest are considerate of equity and quality, including social wellbeing (OECD, 2012). Also, OECD (2019a) links wellbeing to living longer and better. From 2008, OECD countries have implemented school improvement policies to positively influence student achievement by implementing relevant curriculum and pedagogy in quality learning environments (OECD, 2015).

Since 2000s internationally, school improvement policies have broadened focus from academic achievement to link student wellbeing and achievement (Stoll, 2009). School systems develop school improvement policies informed by research for schools to implement evidence-based and student-centred support across success aspects (Stoll, 2009). School improvement policies often aim to improve student success, sometimes by emphasising student wellbeing and/or academic achievement. For example, OECD’s Education policy outlook (EPO) reports compare school education aspects across OECD countries. In EPO: Making reforms happen (2015), 38 OECD member countries were compared to understand how they implement school education policies to support school improvement. Some education policy aspects emphasised wellbeing (Canada, Hungary, Japan), while others emphasised wellbeing and achievement (Australia, Denmark, Ireland Republic, New Zealand, Poland). Direct emphasis used specified terms (achievement) or derivatives (achieving) and indirect emphasis used related or synonym terms (performance, outcomes). More recently, in EPO: Working together to help students achieve their potential (OECD, 2019b), some countries emphasised wellbeing with school improvement (Denmark, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales) and achievement (Belgium’s French Community). Alongside increasing focus on academic achievement, there is acknowledgement of the importance of student voice to feature in policy.

Internationally, schools facilitating student voice is becoming more common. Predominantly, this is because Article 12 UNCRC (United Nations, 1989) compels governments under international law to uphold children's rights to share opinions and influence decisions affecting them (Lundy, 2007). Also, research and education policies increasingly acknowledge student voice as positively influencing student wellbeing and outcomes (Simmons et al., 2015). Student perceptions of academic experiences associated to teaching, learning, assessment, achievement and wellbeing contribute to schools measuring success of student outcomes and teacher performance in ways that influence several factors. Although, while student voice has potential to enhance teaching quality, learning and school democratic ethos (Flutter and Rudduck, 2004), misappropriation occurs when framed to meet narrow school improvement measures, like teacher accountability (Keddie, 2014). Therefore, in Norway, school improvement and student wellbeing policies require student voice to be heard and influence decisions about school life (Jones and Bubb, 2021). Given the importance of student wellbeing and its interconnections with other aspects of student experience, such as assessment and achievement, this policy review focused on addressing four research questions:

• RQ1 How is student wellbeing and/or wellbeing defined?

• RQ2 What student wellbeing dimensions and skills are identified?

• RQ3 How is student wellbeing, academic achievement and assessment linked?

• RQ4 How is student wellbeing, academic achievement and student voice linked?

The process used for this review is replicable for other school system contexts, to determine similar student wellbeing priorities, elements and themes.

Topic and Research Gap.

Student well-being has become a central focus of educational research and policy due to its strong associations with students’ academic engagement, mental health, and long-term development (OECD, 2017). Existing research typically distinguishes between overall well-being, referring to individuals’ evaluations of life satisfaction, mental and physical health, and coping capacities (Diener et al., 1999), and school well-being, which focuses on students’ emotional, social, and cognitive experiences within the educational context (Huebner et al., 2009; Konu & Rimpelä, 2002). Although these domains are empirically closely related, they are rarely integrated within a coherent theoretical framework. Moreover, although several models incorporate hedonic aspects of well-being, such as happiness, satisfaction, or positive affect (Kern et al., 2016; Hascher, 2004), eudaimonic dimensions – such as purpose, agency, self-realization, and personal growth – are often underrepresented or insufficiently integrated, especially in school-specific frameworks.
Hence, despite extensive empirical work, the field of student well-being is characterized by substantial theoretical heterogeneity and a lack of integrative models and measures that bridge life-wide and school-specific perspectives (Martela & Sheldon, 2019) as well as integrate eudaimonic dimensions of well-being. Against this backdrop, the present contribution pursues two objectives:
(1) to introduce the Comprehensive Model of Student Well-Being (S-WELL-B) as a theory-driven framework comprised of the dimensions having, loving, being, and doing
(2) to present a student well-being scale derived from this model that enables a coherent and multidimensional assessment of student well-being in various languges.

Research question.
How can overall well-being and school well-being be integrated into a single theoretical model that captures both hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions of students’ lived experiences within and outside school, and how can this model be operationalized through a valid and theoretically grounded measurement scale?

Conceptual and theoretical framework.
The S-WELL-B model builds on established theories of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2001; Ryff, 1989) and synthesizes prior frameworks of overall and school well-being (Seligman, 2018; Konu & Rimpelä, 2002; Martela, 2024). As such, student well-being is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct comprising four interrelated dimensions: Having, Loving, Doing, and Being. Having refers to material, physical, and institutional conditions that enable security and functioning across school and life contexts. Loving captures the quality of social relationships and students’ sense of belonging, emphasizing that emotional experiences are inherently embedded in relational contexts (Hascher, 2004). Doing reflects purposeful engagement, agency, competence, and meaningful participation in academic and social activities (Seligman, 2018). Being encompasses self-reflection, authenticity, identity development, and inner balance, highlighting processes of personal growth and meaning-making (Martela, 2024).

By integrating overall and school well-being, the S-WELL-B model situates student well-being within students’ broader life context and emphasizes the reciprocal, dynamic interplay between school experiences and life beyond school (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Suldo et al., 2006).

Contribution.
Building on the S-WELL-B framework, a corresponding student well-being scale is introduced that operationalizes the four dimensions of Having, Loving, Doing, and Being within and outside the educational context. The scale aims to enhance conceptual clarity, comparability across studies, and the design and evaluation of targeted interventions. Overall, this contribution advances student well-being research by providing both an integrative conceptual model and a corresponding measurement instrument.