Conference Agenda

Schools are recognized as critical settings for promoting health literacy (HL) (Sormunen, 2012) and as essential environments for supporting physical activity (Resaland et al., 2023). Health education is substantive for developing children’s health skills as well as for promoting health literacy and health competence (WHO 2021). Further, home-school collaboration has been shown to have possibilities to promote the physical activity and overall well-being of children (Egan & Miller, 2019; Maadlech et al. 2025). Both teachers and guardians have lately seen the responsibility for promoting children’s physical activity of the student as a shared responsibility of schools and homes (Rita et al. 2025).

It has been defined that health literacy encompasses individuals’ knowledge, motivation, and competencies to locate, understand, critically assess, and apply health information in everyday decision-making. It therefore supports informed choices related to healthcare, disease prevention, and health promotion across the life course, thereby contributing to better health and quality of life. (Sørensen et al. 2012) Paakkari and Paakkari (2012) have presented five core components of HL (theoretical knowledge, practical knowledge, critical thinking, self‐awareness, and citizenship) and completed the components with students' ability to define their own beliefs, identity and social relations and ethical reflection skills.

Adherence to recommended levels of physical activity among children is associated with both psychological and physical well-being (Álvarez-Pitti et al., 2020). According to Buja et al. (2020), studies have consistently shown that better health literacy is associated with higher physical activity (PA), regardless of the measures used. Good HL provides individuals with the skills and motivation to manage their health and make health-promoting choices, such as regular exercise (Buja, 2020). Interactive and critical HL supports lifestyle changes and the adoption of healthy habits (Buja, 2020; see also Nutbeam 2008).

Educational environments, like schools, in collaboration with their close surroundings, like neighborhoods and homes, are already shown to be important environments for promoting students’ health and especially HL (Nutbeam et al. 2008). WHO’s (1997) Health Promoting Schools framework aims to promote health-related education in schools and their surroundings and underlines building the capabilities of health-related skills of children and their families. According to previous research, collaboration among members of the school community influences the promotion of children's health literacy (Michael et al. 2007; Orrel & Pihlaja 2021). Health literacy is essential in learning about health-related topics.

Collaboration between home and school may play a significant role also in enhancing children’s physical activity (Egan & Miller, 2019), although further empirical evidence is required (Michael et al., 2023). Through diverse collaboration between home and school, guardians can be more effectively engaged in supporting health literacy. Jourdan et al. (2017) found that guardians tend to view health education as the school’s responsibility but consider it secondary compared to other subjects. In addition, some guardians question the competence of school staff to promote health literacy (Jourdan et al. 2017).

The aim of this study is to analyze teachers’ perceptions on responsibilities of home and school in promoting student’ health literacy generally and furthermore to concentrate on responsibilities in supporting students’ physical activity. The research questions are: ⁠

1. How teachers perceive the division of responsibility between home and school concerning health literacy.

1. How, according to teachers' experiences, collaboration between home and school can support students’ physical activity.

In China, Mental Health Education Teachers (MHETs) in primary and secondary schools serve as the primary implementers of school-based mental health education, and their professional practices directly influence the effectiveness of promoting student mental well-being (Deng, 2018). In recent years, with the issuance of relevant policies, mental health education within the school system has become increasingly prominent. The instruction responsibilities of MHETs were first proposed in 2012 (Ministry of Education.of the People’s Republic of China, 2012). This role refers to educators responsible for teaching mental health courses in schools, whose primary task is to impart mental health knowledge to students through curriculum design and delivery. The 2023 Special Action Plan further clarified and reinforced this requirement as a mandatory task, formally establishing them as a significant part of the national mental health education system (MOE, 2023).

Instructional duty is not mandatory for school counselors in the Western context. Compared to Western school-based mental health service systems, the role and responsibilities of Chinese MHETs are distinctly unique. For example, in the United States, school counselors typically focus on individual and group counseling, preventive programs, and systemic interventions, with course instruction not being a mandatory core duty (American School Counselor Association, 2012) . In contrast, Chinese MHETs are not only responsible for psychological counseling and crisis intervention but are also contineously required by policy to serve as instructors of mental health courses, acting as both designers and implementers of the curriculum (MOE, 2012; 2021; 2023) Although MHETs differ significantly from school counselors in Western contexts, existed research, theories and training models on mental health educators in China primarily centers on school counselors within the Western context.

Based on the aforementioned context, we are thus intrigued and propose the following research questions:

(a) With the evolution of policies and the heightened emphasis on the mental health curriculum, what are the instructional experiences of MHETs?

(b) What specific instructional challenges do they encounter? Furthermore, what factors contribute to the formation of these instructional challenges?

We believe that the conclusions of this study provide empirical evidence for schools and educational management departments to optimize the support system for MHETs and improve mental health education policies. Furthermore, we hope the study can also enrich the research about mental health educators’ professional development and training, which was traditionally disciplined in the Western-centered perspective.

Food education is a pedagogical activity aimed at developing knowledge and skills related to food and eating. Its themes and objectives may concern healthy lifestyles, cooking skills, sustainable development, or understanding food cultures. Traditionally, the emphasis has been on teaching health‑promoting lifestyles, in which case the concept of nutrition education has been used. Nutrition education has been based on sharing nutritional knowledge and on the assumption that, as knowledge increases, individuals can make rational choices and eat healthily. Nutrition education has even carried a moral tone, as those who successfully commit to a healthy diet have been viewed as achievers, while those unable to do so have been seen as failures.

Nutrition education that emphasizes individual responsibility and the primacy of information has been criticized, leading to the emergence of new approaches to food education, referred to here as sensitive food education. Sensitive food education acknowledges the multidimensional nature of eating behaviour and food choices. Food and nutrition are approached primarily in a positive manner rather than through discourses of concern and risk. Children are no longer forced to eat; instead, they are encouraged to taste. Tasting can be approached step by step, for example through sensory‑based food education. Respecting the body’s natural hunger and satiety signals – intuitive eating – is seen as preferable to rule‑oriented eating. With adolescents in particular, an eating‑disorder‑sensitive approach is emphasized, as eating disorders are unfortunately common among young people.

The pedagogical framework of food relationship is one approach within sensitive food education. At its core is the individual’s food relationship – that is, the experiences and meanings associated with food and eating. The ideology of this framework includes examining the educator’s own food relationship and their style of food education. The educator is not a blank slate; their own values, attitudes, and beliefs about food and eating influence how they carry out food education and how they perceive desirable eating behaviours. Reflecting on one’s ideal and actual practices can reveal tensions related to food education that have previously remained unrecognized.

The research question of this study is: What ideal types can be formed based on teachers’ ways of approaching sensitive food education, and what kinds of tensions do these types express?