Conference Agenda

The capacity to navigate everyday academic challenges is fundamental for students’ academic achievement and school well-being (e.g., Kaya & Erdem, 2021; Martin & Marsh, 2008). Academic buoyancy refers to students’ proactive responses to minor, common setbacks in school, such as disappointing grades or demanding assignments (Martin & Marsh, 2008). It is conceptually linked to resilience, which concerns adaptation to more severe adversity (Martin & Marsh, 2009). From a multisystem resilience perspective, adaptation is understood as a dynamic process arising from ongoing interactions between individuals and their surrounding systems (Masten, 2021). Within this perspective, relationships with proximal, caring adults, particularly parents and teachers, which constitute core protective systems that foster students’ positive development and everyday school adjustment (Masten, 2001).

Recent studies point to substantial heterogeneity in academic buoyancy and suggest that it is built through multiple adaptive academic processes embedded in students’ interactions with their parents and teachers (İlter et al., 2025; Martin & Marsh, 2008). Although variable-oriented research has consistently shown that students’ academic buoyancy is positively associated with school well-being, and that social supports from parents and teachers are the key contributors to positive school experiences (e.g., Collie et al., 2024; Salmela-Aro & Upadyaya, 2014; Wang & Eccles, 2012), such approaches typically assume sample homogeneity and may overlook diverse patterns of buoyancy shaping adolescents’ school adaptation.

A person-oriented approach can address this gap by identifying different subgroups of individuals who show distinct patterns of multi-source buoyancy, thereby revealing nuances in students’, parents’, and teachers’ everyday coping that remain hidden in variable-oriented analyses. Previous person-oriented studies have shown considerable heterogeneity in adolescents’ adaptation, identifying resilience profiles that differ across emotional, behavioral, and school related functioning (Herbers et al., 2020; Pecora et al., 2025), while cross-national findings likewise point to resilient, moderately resilient, and nonresilient subgroups (Janousch et al., 2022). Comparable profiles have been found among teachers and parents, such as high-resilience/low-burnout, moderate-resilience/average-burnout, and low-resilience/high-burnout subgroups (Pyhältö et al., 2021; Pöysä et al., 2025; Sorkkila & Aunola, 2022). Nevertheless, previous person-oriented studies have focused primarily on resilience rather than buoyancy, and, to the best of our knowledge, no studies have examined different subgroups or combinations of buoyancy levels across three distinct sources: students, parents, and teachers. Because academic buoyancy reflects adolescents’ capacity to cope with everyday school challenges, differences in buoyancy profiles might show differences in students’ school satisfaction and school stress.

In this context, examining how buoyancy is configured across students, parents, and teachers is relevant to European discussions on student well-being and family–school collaboration. Accordingly, drawing on a person-oriented approach to buoyancy, the aim of this study was to (1) identify what kinds of distinct buoyancy profiles can be identified based on students’, parents’, and teachers’ buoyancy, and (2) examine the extent to which these profiles differ with respect to adolescents’ school satisfaction and school stress.

Adolescence, particularly the middle years (ages 11–15), represents a critical developmental period marked by rapid social, emotional, and cognitive changes. Schools globally are currently navigating an urgent youth mental health crisis, with a significant rise in anxiety, depression, and social isolation exacerbated by pandemic-related disruptions. This presentation reports on a collection of 12 bespoke wellbeing programs implemented in Australia, the United States, and Wales (UK). These programs, individually and collectively, underscore that educational success depends not only on cognitive capabilities but also on holistic well-being and a strong sense of belonging at school.

Australian schools have pioneered several context-specific responses, such as the ScotsX "school-within-a-school" model in Sydney, which reinvented the Year 8 experience through mastery training and community rituals like "High Table" lunches. In Tasmania, the HealthLit4Kids program addresses health inequities by co-designing health literacy packages with school stakeholders to encourage proactive health discussions. Additionally, the Titans Learning Centre in Queensland leverages professional athletes as role models to re-engage disengaged youth through thematic SEL instruction. One of the programs in the United States reported on the concept of shredquity, which was developed through a school-based Skate Club in Colorado to provide equitable access to community-building activities, using "sequenced failure" to build resilience and grit. An example of a systemic program in Wales demonstrates how schools have responded to the undervaluation of affective learning by integrating Adventure Education (AE) within the "Curriculum for Wales". This European approach utilises experiential learning and "managed risk" to improve student independence and intrinsic motivation.

The 12 featured projects draw upon a diverse array of theoretical and conceptual frameworks in understanding how their school based approaches support the health, wellbeing, and academic engagement of middle-grade students. These frameworks include: (1) psychological and emotional theories, such as Deci and Ryan's (2009) Self Determination Theory (SDT), the CASEL framework (2013) for social and emotional learning, and cognitive load theory; (2) pedagogical and instructional models, such as models-based practice (MBP), productive pedagogies (Mills et al. 2009), Mastery learning, and Bernstein's (2000) pedagogic discourse; and, (3) organisational or implementation frameworks such as ."Sense of Belonging at School" (SOBAS) (Goodenow, 1993).

The diversity of theoretical and conceptual frameworks provides a commentary on the epistemic biases and siloed nature of "the field" when it comes to student well-being (Whatman et al., 2019; Whatman & Main, 2023).

This paper sets out to explore how students’ wellbeing changes over time. Across global contexts, student wellbeing have been argue to decline during adolescence (Wu & Becker, 2023). Comparative and national analyses consistently document drops in life satisfaction and school-related wellbeing from early to mid-teen years (Govorova et al., 2020). Age thus appears to be an important component for understanding student wellbeing (Craven et al., 2024). Longitudinal perspectives are thus apt to capture trajectories and inform responsive action in schools; however, such studies remain scarce (González-Carrasco et al., 2017). Much of the student wellbeing literature is cross-sectional, which seems insufficient for understanding the mechanisms of change and the transitions students undergo during these formative years. As Raghavan & Alexandrova (2015) argue, wellbeing is not a static snapshot but a phenomenon in constant development.

In this study, we thus examine how student wellbeing develops over three years of lower secondary school. Our analysis considers three interconnected dimensions: overall levels of wellbeing measured quantitatively, the development of factors that students themselves identify as shaping their wellbeing, and whether and how, students’ understanding of wellbeing evolves during this period. We focus on Danish students in Grades 7–9, aged 13/14 to 15/16, a stage marked by documented age-related declines in wellbeing and preceding key transitions to post-compulsory education (Donaldson et al., 2023). This period is critical for educational trajectories and identity formation, yet longitudinal, school-based evidence on how wellbeing changes and what drives these changes remains scarce. Previous attempts to understand stability and change in student wellbeing have mainly been quantitative (Morinaj & Held, 2023). In this study we however emphasise the importance of a mixed-methods approach and the inclusion of student voices. As Crivello et al. (2009) emphasise, researching wellbeing requires a multi-method approach, given that wellbeing is an umbrella concept encompassing diverse elements. To address this gap, we adopt a three-year iterative mixed-methods design. Accordingly, our design combines three quantitative survey waves with three qualitative ethnographic phases.

Our study addresses three research questions:

RQ1: What are the longitudinal patterns of change in student wellbeing during lower secondary school (Grades 7–9)?

RQ2: Do the factors that students perceive as most important for their wellbeing change from Grade 7 to Grade 9?

RQ3: Do students’ conceptualisations of school wellbeing evolve from Grade 7 to Grade 9?

When it comes to RQ1, we find that student wellbeing levels increases through the research period. Responding to RQ2 we find stability in the core factors influencing student wellbeing identified by the students across time (and across the methods used), however we do find shifting weights of these factors at different points in time. Finally, addressing RQ3 we observe an increased nuance in the student’s language surrounding wellbeing, however, little to no change in the students’ underlying conceptualisations.

Against this backdrop, we examine and illustrate the dynamics and characteristics of stability and instability in student wellbeing within lower secondary education. Methodologically, the study demonstrates the value of iterative integration of surveys with ethnography, using factor‑validated scales alongside interviews and observations to test, refine, and interpret patterns over time. At the same time, the conclusions should be read with care: the school sample was purposefully diverse rather than nationally representative, participation varied across iterations, and the third interview cycle was retrospective, which may shape recall and attribution. Despite these limitations, the study offers important insights into the dynamics of student wellbeing during a critical educational stage. It contributes rare evidence on the stability and instability of wellbeing levels and influencing factors over time.