Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:29:41 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
08 SES 05 B: Co-creation and Collaboration for Health and Wellbeing
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
08. Health and Wellbeing Education
Paper Co-creation as a Pathway to Wellbeing: A Multiple Case Study of Health-Promoting Schools University of Minho, Portugal Presenting Author:Co-creation in educational settings is understood as a collaborative process in which students, educators and other stakeholders jointly design and implement learning experiences (Vilaça, et al., 2025). Rather than treating learners as passive recipients, co-creation positions them as partners, redistributing power and responsibility in learning and teaching processes (Bovill et al., 2011; Bovill, 2014). Reviews of student–staff co-creation in education show that such approaches can foster agency, motivation, sense of belonging and positive relationships, with clear implications for wellbeing (Bovill, 2020; Lubicz-Nawrocka, 2018). Within the Health-Promoting Schools (HPS) framework, co-creation aligns closely with whole-school approaches that emphasise participation, equity and relational wellbeing. The Schools for Health in Europe Network Foundation advocates action-oriented, participatory projects in which students, teachers, families and community actors jointly identify priorities and design health-related actions as part of everyday school life (Vilaça et al., 2019). In parallel, the UNESCO strategy on education for health and wellbeing calls for school environments that promote physical and mental health, sexuality education, life skills and rights, and safe, inclusive learning spaces free from violence, bullying and discrimination (UNESCO, 2022). Co-creation offers a concrete pedagogical pathway to enact these ambitions. Evidence from whole-school resilience and mental-health programmes also points to the value of co-creation. The UPRIGHT project, for example, used regional co-creation to adapt a universal resilience intervention to local school realities, reporting positive effects on students’ wellbeing and coping skills (Morote et al., 2022). At the same time, research underlines that professionals need specific competencies to facilitate co-creation processes, negotiate power relations and sustain collaborative work with young people and communities (Darlington et al.2022). Teacher professional development that combines conceptual work on wellbeing and health promotion with practice-based, collaborative learning is therefore central. While co-creation is increasingly promoted in policy and research, there is still limited longitudinal evidence on how a co-creation-based curriculum within teacher professional development translates into concrete practices in health-promoting schools and how these practices affect students’ wellbeing. In particular, few studies have examined whole-class approaches to co-creation in early childhood and compulsory education, or how teachers and school communities sustain such approaches over time. Against this background, this research aims to analyse how a co-creation curriculum embedded in in-service teacher training shapes teaching practices, school-level processes and student wellbeing in health-promoting schools. Therefore, the research objectives are:
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study adopts a qualitative multiple case study design, situated within the Portuguese strand of the ERASMUS+ Co-Creating Well-being (CCW2) project. The regional multiple case study focuses on eight educational institutions—kindergartens, primary and lower-secondary schools — linked to two iterations of the Portuguese CCW2 pilot training. Across these sites, 32 professionals participated in an initial 25-hour blended in-service training course, followed by approximately 25 hours of implementation in their own contexts. The training combined synchronous online sessions, face-to-face workshops and action-learning tasks between sessions. Participants were introduced to core concepts of wellbeing, health promotion and co-creation; explored practical tools; and received guidance on designing and facilitating co-creation projects with children and young people. A specific module on peer-to-peer pedagogical coaching and communities of practice supported participants in planning collaborative reflection and mutual support within their institutions. Data collection drew on multiple sources. First, focus groups were conducted in each institution at three points: before the training (to explore expectations, understandings of wellbeing and co-creation, and contextual conditions), immediately after training (to capture learning, perceived changes and initial project ideas), and approximately two years later (to examine sustainability and longer-term effects). Second, document analysis was carried out on materials produced by participants, including project plans, co-created artefacts and institutional reports. Third, collaborative logbooks were maintained by each school team after training sessions and during project implementation, documenting decisions, reflections, challenges and emerging outcomes. Complementary quantitative and qualitative data were gathered through needs-analysis questionnaires administered before the training and evaluation questionnaires after training sessions. These instruments captured participants’ initial competencies and expectations regarding co-creation, as well as their perceptions of training quality, relevance and applicability. Quantitative items were analysed descriptively, while open-ended responses contributed to the qualitative data set. Data analysis followed a thematic and cross-case approach. Transcripts, documents and logbooks were coded inductively and deductively, guided by the research objectives and the three co’s framework. Within-case analyses reconstructed each institution’s trajectory, while cross-case comparison identified recurring patterns and contrasting dynamics in how co-creation was enacted in different health-promoting school contexts. Ethical procedures included informed consent, confidentiality measures and, where required, institutional ethics approval. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Findings indicate that the co-creation curriculum had a significant impact on professional practices and school-level processes. Across cases, participants reported a shift in their understanding of wellbeing, increasingly conceptualised as a relational and participatory process rather than an individual attribute. The integration of theoretical input, practical tools and action-learning was perceived as particularly effective in building teachers’ confidence to experiment with co-creation in classrooms and across school communities. Teachers and early childhood educators initiated a range of whole-class wellbeing projects, including the co-creation of pedagogical gardens, the redesign of outdoor and multisensory spaces, and “happiness” initiatives addressing post-COVID emotional and behavioural challenges. Nature-based and arts-informed activities were also used to strengthen peer relationships. These projects positioned students as co-researchers and co-designers, while actively involving families, local authorities and community organisations, and were explicitly linked to health-promoting goals such as emotional regulation, conflict reduction, healthy lifestyles and environmental sustainability. Reported student outcomes included increased engagement, improved relationships between students and staff, stronger peer interactions, and a heightened sense of belonging and action competence. In several cases, children themselves identified positive behavioural changes, greater empathy and more constructive approaches to conflict resolution. At the organisational level, the formation of institutional communities of practice supported shared reflection, distributed leadership and continuity beyond the training period, although challenges related to time constraints and competing curricular demands persisted. Overall, the study contributes empirically grounded insights into how co-creation-based teacher professional development can foster wellbeing-oriented change in health-promoting schools, highlighting the importance of flexible curricula, peer coaching and supportive leadership for sustainability. References Bovill, C. (2014). An investigation of co-created curricula within higher education in the UK, Ireland and the USA. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.770264 Bovill, C. (2020). Co-creation in learning and teaching: the case for a whole-class approach in higher education. High Educ, 79, 1023–1037. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00453-w Bovill, C., Cook‐Sather, A., & Felten, P. (2011). Students as co‐creators of teaching approaches, course design, and curricula: implications for academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 16(2), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2011.568690 Darlington, E.J., Pearce, G., Vilaça, T., Masson, J., Bernard, S., Anastácio, Z., Magee, P., Christensen, F., Hansen, H. & Carvalho, G.S. (2022). How can we promote co-creation in communities? The perspective of health promoting professionals in four European countries. Health Education, 122 (4), 402-423. de Boer, J., Delfmann, L.R., An, Q. et al. (2025). School staff experiences on involvement in a co-creation process: a Health CASCADE scoping review and thematic synthesis. BMC Public Health 25, 916. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-22063-1 Lubicz-Nawrocka, T. M. (2018). Students as partners in learning and teaching: The benefits of co-creation of the curriculum. International Journal for Students as Partners, 2(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v2i1.3207 Morote, R. et al. (2022). Co-Creation and Regional Adaptation of a Resilience-Based Universal Whole-School Program in Five European Regions. European Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 138-164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904120947890 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (2022). Strategy on education for health and well-being. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Vilaça, T., Botteri, D., Pearce, G., Christensen, F., Bernard, S., Carvalho, G., Camilli, L., Holliday, N., Magee, P., Anastácio, Z., Olivo, M., & Darlington, E. (2025). Co-creating wellbeing curricula training implementation and evaluation: lessons learned, challenges and training sustainability. CIEC - Research Centre on Child Studies, Institute of Education, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal. https://cocreatingwellbeing.eu/curriculum/examples-of-curriculum-delivery/ Vilaça, T., Darlington, E., Velasco, M.J.M, Martinis, O., & Masson, J (2019). SHE School Manual 2.0. A Methodological Guidebook to become a health promoting school. Schools for Health in Europe Network Foundation (SHE) Ed.. https://www.schoolsforhealth.org/resources/materials-and-tools/how-be-health-promoting-school 08. Health and Wellbeing Education
Paper Perspectives from Finnish Professionals on Interprofessional Collaboration in Student Welfare Teams 1: Åbo Akademi University, Finland; 2: Karlstad University, Sweden Presenting Author:The study focus on interprofessional collaboration (IPC) among professionals within student welfare teams in Finnish compulsory schools, specifically exploring the factors that shape this collaboration in the context of promoting student well-being. The study is guided by the question: "What factors do members of student welfare teams experience as shaping interprofessional collaboration aimed at promoting student well-being, and how can these be understood through the lens of Reeves et al.'s (2010) framework of interprofessional teamwork?" The primary objective is to deepen the understanding of how professionals in student welfare teams experience factors that influence IPC for promoting student well-being. A secondary objective is to provide valuable insights into the implementation of IPC for health prevention within the broader context. The results can be utlised outisde of the finnish context as mental health challenges among children and intergrated services are similar in other western countries. The study utilizes the conceptual framework of interprofessional teamwork developed by Reeves et al. (2010). This framework provides a lens for interpreting findings by highlighting four domains that shape interprofessional teamwork and collaboration: relational, processual, organizational, and contextual factors. The analysis employed a theory-guided qualitative content analysis approach, integrating existing theoretical perspectives from this framework while remaining open to emergent patterns. The research is situated within the Finnish educational and welfare system, offering a distinct European perspective. In Finland, student welfare services are mandated by the Student Welfare Act (2014) to be organized through IPC, with a legal aim towards preventive work. The study highlights the complexities and challenges specific to this context, such as the division of responsibilities between schools and Well-being Services Counties (WSCs) for providing professionals like psychologists and school counsellors. Economic struggles within WSCs and their impact on statutory resource provision are noted as significant contextual factors. The findings reveal that while regular meeting routines and staff continuity support collaboration in preventive work, a common vision for student welfare is often absent among Finnish professionals. Challenges include unclear responsibilities, the ambiguous role of school coaches, and the impact of organizational changes and employee turnover within the WSC system on long-term collaborative relationships. The study underscores the ongoing shift from corrective to preventive measures in Finnish student welfare, noting that this transition has not been realized as intended, partly due to resource constraints and a reactive rather than proactive approach to student well-being. The findings suggest a need for improved governance and clarification of roles within the Finnish student welfare landscape. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This qualitative study aimed to understand professionals' experiences of interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in Finnish student welfare teams. Conducted as part of a larger research project, data were gathered through semi-structured group interviews with 32 professionals from five interprofessional teams across five schools in 2024-2025. Group interviews were selected to elicit diverse perspectives and rich interaction among participants. The participant group included school counsellors, psychologists, nurses, special education teachers, class teachers, school coaches, and study counsellors. To encourage open discussion, team leaders, principals, and vice-principals were intentionally excluded. Each interview, lasting approximately 90 minutes, was guided by a structured guide covering current IPC implementation, influencing factors, and developmental needs. Ethical principles, including informed consent, confidentiality, and anonymity, were strictly followed. Data analysis employed a theory-guided qualitative content analysis approach, utilizing Reeves et al.'s (2010) framework for interprofessional teamwork. Transcribed interviews (62,323 words) were imported into NVivo 1.7. The first author identified meaning units, which were then deductively coded based on the Reeves et al. framework. This coding informed the development of categories and subcategories. To ensure quality and mitigate bias, researcher triangulation was applied, with co-authors coding transcripts and engaging in discussions to reach a common understanding of the analytical process. The analysis balanced inductive and deductive reasoning, revealing consistent patterns across interviews. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This study investigated Finnish professionals' experiences shaping interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in student welfare teams, revealing three key influencing categories: professional roles and boundaries, collaborative processes and communication, and structural and organisational sustainability. Findings highlighted that IPC is primarily driven by relational and processual factors. Professionals identified challenges in professional roles and boundaries, noting shifting responsibilities, blurred boundaries in individual cases, and a prevailing focus on reactive individual casework due to heavy workloads, often at the expense of preventive group-level activities. While long-term professional continuity enhanced collaboration, the ambiguous role of school coaches and teachers' perceived resistance to welfare tasks further complicated role clarity. Regarding collaborative processes and communication, despite valuing regular meetings for proactive planning, information flow was often "limping," particularly between WSC-employed professionals and municipal staff, and with external health services. Student and parent involvement in joint welfare planning was notably limited, mainly confined to obtaining consent for individual cases. Structural and organisational sustainability presented significant barriers. Employee turnover, uncertain employment conditions for WSC staff, and multi-organizational structures often left WSC professionals feeling like "outsiders." A critical issue was the lack of resources and accessibility to next-level services, forcing welfare teams to manage complex issues beyond their remit and further diverting them from preventive work. Crucially, a shared, comprehensive vision for joint student welfare and preventive actions was largely absent across teams and the broader school community. In conclusion, while collaborative intent exists, IPC in Finnish student welfare teams is predominantly reactive due to systemic challenges in role clarity, communication, resource allocation, and a deficit in shared preventive vision. Strengthening IPC requires clarifying responsibilities, enhancing inter-organizational coordination at leadership levels, and actively fostering a shared preventive culture that includes students and parents. References Bokhour, B. G. (2006). Communication in interdisciplinary team meetings: What are we talking about? Journal of Interprofessional Care, 20(4), 349–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820600727205 Bronstein, L. R. (2003). A Model for Interdisciplinary Collaboration. 48(3). Cameron, A., Lart, R., Bostock, L., & Coomber, C. (2014). Factors that promote and hinder joint and integrated working between health and social care services: A review of research literature. Health & Social Care in the Community, 22(3), 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12057 Ellonen, N., Pasanen, M., Wiss, K., Mielityinen, L., Lähteenmäki, E., & Joronen, K. (2022). Health Promotion Actions and School Violence—A Cluster Analysis from Finnish Comprehensive Schools. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(19), Article 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912698 Fasting, R. B., & Breilid, N. (2024). Cross-professional collaboration to improve inclusive education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 68(4), 661–676. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2023.2175248 Jalonen, H., Salminen, J., & Tuominen, M. (2024). Moniammatillinen yhteistyö opiskeluhuollossa – tasapainoilua jännitteiden välillä. Sosiaalilääketieteellinen Aikakauslehti, 61(2). https://doi.org/10.23990/sa.128756 Juhila, K., Dall, T., Hall, C., & Koprowska, J. (Eds.). (2021). IPC and Service Users: Analysing Meetings in Social Welfare (1st ed.). Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1gbrw72 Ødegård, A., & Strype, J. (2009). Perceptions of IPC within child mental health care in Norway. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 23(3), 286–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820902739981 Rawlinson, C., Carron, T., Cohidon, C., Arditi, C., Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Peytremann-Bridevaux, I., & Gilles, I. (2021). An Overview of Reviews on IPC in Primary Care: Barriers and Facilitators. International Journal of Integrated Care, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.5589 Reeves, S. Espin, S., Lewin, S., & Zwarenstein, M. (2010). Interprofessional Teamwork for Health and Social Care (1st ed). John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Savolainen, O., Sormunen, M., Bykachev, K., Karppi, J., Kumpulainen, K., & Turunen, H. (2021). Finnish professionals’ views of the current mental health services and multiprofessional collaboration in children’s mental health promotion. International Journal of Mental Health, 50(3), 195–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207411.2020.1848235 Schot, E., Tummers, L., & Noordegraaf, M. (2020). Working on working together. A systematic review on how healthcare professionals contribute to interprofessional collaboration. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 34(3), 332–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2019.1636007 Thomson, A. M., & Perry, J. L. (2006). Collaboration Processes: Inside the Black Box. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00663.x Vainikainen, M.-P., Thuneberg, H., Greiff, S., & Hautamäki, J. (2015). Multiprofessional collaboration in Finnish schools. International Journal of Educational Research, 72, 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.06.007 08. Health and Wellbeing Education
Paper School Coaches’ Role in Promoting Pupils’ Well-being and Mental Health 1: Åbo Akademi University, Finland; 2: University of Southern Denmark, Denmark Presenting Author:Over recent decades, school coaching has developed internationally as a dynamic and emerging profession within the education sector (Van Nieuwerburgh, 2012), including in Finland, where it is increasingly becoming an institutionalized practice among educators (Tynjälä et al., 2019; Korhonen et al., 2017). Broader societal and educational changes have shifted attention away from purely academic goals toward a more holistic perspective that emphasizes student development and well-being, supported by international policy frameworks (OECD, 2021) and collaborative teaching practices that promote school well-being (Ukskoski & Lerkkanen, 2024). Within this framework, school coaches have assumed a central role in supporting students in Finnish schools, as their mission to strengthen self-regulation, goal orientation, and personal growth aligns with national initiatives aimed at advancing holistic well-being and positive education practices (Finnish National Agency for Education, n.d.; Positive Education Finland, n.d.). Increasingly, whole-school programs designed to support both staff and students incorporate coaching practices (Ponsford et al., 2022), while peer-led approaches have demonstrated positive effects on help-seeking behaviors and school climate (Pointon-Haas et al., 2023). In Finland, the strong national focus on psychological well-being and social learning has further facilitated the integration of school coaching as a supportive educational practice (Rautanen et al., 2022; Yli-Pietilä et al., 2024). However, as school coaching remains a relatively new and evolving profession, examining the professional role of school coaches is essential (City of Helsinki, 2023b). Moreover, when recognition is limited, mutual support is lacking, or coaches are uncertain about their role and authority, coaching may not effectively enhance students’ self-development or academic outcomes (City of Helsinki, 2023b). Although school coaches represent valuable resources within schools, unclear job descriptions and the absence of standardized guidelines lead to considerable variation in their roles and responsibilities across institutions (Woulfin & Rigby, 2017; Woulfin, 2018).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Data collection was carried out through interviews with nine strategically selected participants, including seven school coaches and two special needs youth workers (six females and three males) working in lower and upper secondary education. Eligibility criteria required participants to be employed as school coaches in Finland or in a comparable role for a minimum of six months. The interviews were arranged via email or phone and conducted either face-to-face or through video conferencing. Interview questions addressed work-related characteristics, experiences of multi-professional collaboration, and perceived challenges. Participants’ professional experience ranged from six months to ten years, with approximately half having less than two years of experience. A diverse range of educational backgrounds was represented, including training and degrees in social work and youth work, such as specialized youth worker, social worker, leader for children and youth, a Master’s degree in political science, and work supervisor training. Guided by a semi-structured interview framework, the interviews allowed flexibility for follow-up questions and participant-driven dialogue. Conducted in 2023 both in person and via video, the interviews lasted between 30 and 60 minutes and were transcribed verbatim. The data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006, 2022). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Results The analysis resulted in the identification of three overarching themes and nine associated subthemes. The overarching themes included: a multifaceted professional role characterized by flexibility in the scope of practice; varied working methods and practice-based tools; and multiprofessional cooperation as a central element of practice. Characterized by flexibility and multiple responsibilities, the role of the school coach functions as an important resource within schools. By establishing trusting and low-threshold relationships, school coaches are able to provide a safe and non-judgmental environment in which students can seek support. However, challenges arise from the absence of formal guidelines, constrained resources, ambiguous role definitions, heavy workloads, and the inherently solitary nature of the school coach position. References Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications. City of Helsinki. (2023b). School coaching in Helsinki: Supporting student mental health and preventing absenteeism. City of Helsinki, Education Division. https://www.hel.fi/helsinki/en/administration/information/statistics/reports/school-coaching-2023 Finnish National Agency for Education. (n.d.). Promoting well-being. https://www.oph.fi/en/education-and-qualifications/promoting-wellbeing Korhonen, H., Heikkinen, H. L. T., Kiviniemi, U., & Tynjälä, P. (2017). Student teachers’ experiences of participating in mixed peer mentoring groups of in-service and pre-service teachers in Finland. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.10.011 OECD. (2021). Building teachers’ well-being from primary to upper secondary education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/722fe5cb-en Pointon-Haas, J., Waqar, L., Upsher, R., Foster, J., Byrom, N., & Oates, J. (2024). A systematic review of peer support interventions for student mental health and well-being in higher education. BJPsych Open, 10(1), e12. https://doi:10.1192/bjo.2023.603 Ponsford, R., Falconer, J., Melendez-Torres, G.J. et al. (2022). What factors influence implementation of whole-school interventions aiming to promote student commitment to school to prevent substance use and violence? Systematic review and synthesis of process evaluations. BMC Public Health, 22, 2148. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14544-4 Positive Education Finland. (n.d.). Training and coaching. Retrieved from https://www.positiveeducationfinland.eu/training-and-coaching (Accessed 19 July 2025) Rautanen, P., Soini, T., Pietarinen, J., & Pyhältö, K. (2022). Dynamics between perceived social support and study engagement among primary school students: A three-year longitudinal survey. Social Psychology of Education, 25(6), 1481–1505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-022-09734-2 Tynjälä, P., Pennanen, M., Markkanen, I., & Heikkinen, H. L. T. (2019). Finnish model of peer group mentoring: Review of research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1483(1), 208–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14296 Ukskoski, T., & Lerkkanen, M.-K. (2024). Developing teachers’ collaborative expertise in school well-being: A participatory action research. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, 13(1), 7–29. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1457474.pdf van Nieuwerburgh, C. (2012). Coaching in education: Getting better results for students, educators, and parents (1st ed.). Karnac Books. https://www.karnacbooks.com/product/coaching-in-education-getting-better-results-for-students-educators-and-parents/32912/ Woulfin, S. L. (2018). Mediating Instructional Reform: An Examination of the Relationship Between District Policy and Instructional Coaching. AERA Open, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418792278 Woulfin, S. L., & Rigby, J. G. (2017). Coaching for Coherence: How Instructional Coaches Lead Change in the Evaluation Era. Educational Researcher, 46(6), 323-328. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17725525 Yli-Pietilä, R., Soini, T., Pietarinen, J., & Pyhältö, K. (2024). How is students’ well-being related to their class teacher’s professional agency in primary school? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 39(5), 2341–2361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-023-00781-7 | ||