Competency C6
Wellbeing Science
Wellbeing Science gives students a working scientific vocabulary for understanding stress, emotion, attention, and habit mechanisms, and the evidence-literacy skills to evaluate health information critically. It treats scientific knowledge of wellbeing as learnable curriculum content, not background assumption, progressing from naming body signals and basic physiological needs at Band A to integrating multiple systems in an evidence-grounded explanation and evaluating health claims using source and study-design criteria at Band F.
The 2 learning targets
- LT 6.1Brain, Body & Wellbeing Science
Explain stress, emotion, attention, and habit mechanisms using accurate vocabulary, and evaluate claims about brain and wellbeing interventions.
BandsA–FT1Sequential knowledge
Propositional facts about wellbeing that build in order — what students need to know. Assessed by what they can recall and explain.Open → - LT 6.2Health Information Literacy
Evaluate health information for trustworthiness, evidence quality, and bias using progressively more sophisticated analytical criteria across bands.
BandsA–FT2Horizontal understanding
Conceptual understanding that integrates across contexts — how students reason and apply ideas. Assessed by the quality of the reasoning, not just recall.Open →
Evidence base
Where the evidence stands
Thin evidenceThis competency is grounded not in intervention evidence but in curriculum mandate and subject-knowledge rationale — both of which are sound. 'Wellbeing literacy' as a formal construct is recent: Oades et al. (2021) and Hou et al. (2021) only formally articulated the capability model in 2020–2021, with measurement work still preliminary. The honest position is to treat this as academic content taught with disciplinary rigour — not to claim it directly produces measurable wellbeing outcomes.
The curricular grounding comes from two directions. The first is external: statutory guidance — including the English RSHE framework, which REAL School's crosswalk confirms alignment with — explicitly requires teaching about mental and physical wellbeing and how to access support. This is a curriculum mandate. The second is internal to the subject itself: students who understand how stress responses, reward systems, and habit formation work are better placed to make sense of their own experience — the same argument that justifies health education and science in any serious curriculum.
There are no high-quality randomised trials showing that teaching adolescents about stress, habit formation, and how reward and addiction work — as academic content — directly improves their wellbeing outcomes. Neuromyths about the brain are prevalent among teachers — Howard-Jones (2014) documents this systematically — meaning this content requires teacher preparation before classroom delivery. REAL School's approach treats wellbeing science as a subject to be taught honestly and tentatively, with epistemic humility built in — the same standards applied to any empirically grounded discipline.
What the evidence supports
Teach brain science tentatively — present mechanisms as current best understanding, not settled fact. Use Berridge's wanting/liking distinction when teaching about reward and addiction: the brain separates wanting from enjoying, and students find this genuinely useful. Explicitly name and correct neuromyths — left-brain/right-brain, learning styles, 'dopamine detox' — rather than avoiding them. Centre behavioural rehearsal alongside conceptual content; knowledge of mechanisms does not automatically change behaviour. Build help-seeking literacy explicitly.
Caveats
There are no RCTs showing that teaching adolescents neuroscience directly improves their wellbeing — this competency is academic content, not a wellbeing intervention, and programme aims should reflect that. Oversimplified dopamine narratives ('phones flood your brain like cocaine', 'dopamine detox') are factually wrong and actively misleading — they conflate Berridge's dissociated wanting and liking systems. Neuromyths are prevalent among teachers; this content requires teacher preparation, not just student delivery.
References
- Oades, L. G., et al. (2021). Wellbeing literacy: A capability model.
- Hou, H., Chin, T.-C., Slemp, G. R., & Oades, L. G. (2021). Wellbeing literacy: Conceptualization, measurement, and preliminary empirical findings.
- Robinson, T. E., & Berridge, K. C. (2024). The incentive-sensitization theory of addiction 30 years on.
- Howard-Jones, P. A. (2014). Neuroscience and education: Myths and messages.
- Dekker, S., Lee, N. C., Howard-Jones, P., & Jolles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers.
- Coulombe, S., Hardy, K., & Goldfarb, R. (2020). Promoting wellbeing through positive education: A critical review.
- DfE (2019). Relationships Education, RSE and Health Education statutory guidance.