The process of student engagement in Health-Promoting Schools: a co-design approach with Youth Engagement Coordinators in Nova Scotia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Evidence supports meaningful student engagement in Health-Promoting Schools (HPS) approaches as an essential condition for enhancing student well-being, yet little is known about this process. This study sought to interpret the process of student engagement in HPS through the perspectives of Youth Engagement Coordinators (YECs). Design/methodology/approach This qualitative exploratory study took place in Nova Scotia, Canada where HPS has been implemented since 2005. YECs (n = 6), recruited into positions to support student engagement in HPS, participated in the study. A transformative paradigm and generative co-design process guided the work. In a one-day co-design workshop, YECs collaborated with the research team to collect, analyze and interpret their data. YECs were engaged in a focus group, participatory mapping process and a theming exercise. Following the workshop, reflexive thematic analysis was conducted by the lead researcher through a reflection meeting with participating YECs. Findings Five themes were developed: Embodying a youth-engaged position – the necessary values and beliefs guiding YEC practice, discovering the layers of the school environment – understanding the history, ethos and culture of the setting; building trust within the school community – gaining acceptance through relations, role and reliability; creating a space for exploration on health – expanding the social and physical boundaries to learn and define health; and enacting principles of equity – acknowledging youth voice and disrupting power dynamics. Originality/value This research contributes to the continued development, implementation and evaluation of meaningful student engagement in HPS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".