Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Early adolescents' evaluations of MindUP : a universal mindfulness-based social and emotional learning… Maloney, Jacqueline Elizabeth 2015

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


24-ubc_2015_september_maloney_jacqueline.pdf [ 7.99MB ]
JSON: 24-1.0166337.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0166337-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0166337-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0166337-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0166337-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0166337-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0166337-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

             EARLY&ADOLESCENTS’&EVALUATIONS&OF&MINDUP:&A&UNIVERSAL&MINDFULNESS5BASED&SOCIAL&AND&EMOTIONAL&LEARNING&PROGRAM&&& by&&JACQUELINE&ELIZABETH&MALONEY&&B.A.,&Simon&Fraser&University,&2004&&&&A&THESIS&SUBMITTED&IN&PARTIAL&FULFILLMENT&OF&THE&REQUIREMENTS&FOR&THE&DEGREE&OF&&MASTER&OF&ARTS&&in&&THE&FACULTY&OF&GRADUATE&AND&POSTDOCTORAL&STUDIES&&(Human&Development,&Learning,&and&Culture)&&THE&UNIVERSITY&OF&BRITISH&COLUMBIA&&(Vancouver)&&&June&2015&&&©&Jacqueline&Elizabeth&Maloney,&2015& ii&Abstract  !This exploratory study examined the evaluations of a mindfulness-based social and emotional learning program, MindUP, reported by 189 fourth to seventh grade students from eight classrooms across seven public elementary schools in a large urban school district in Western Canada. Qualitative and quantitative data from a written post-program participant satisfaction survey were examined in order to investigate the following questions: (1) What were students’ evaluations of the program? Specifically, what aspects did they like and/or dislike, and why would they recommend the program to a friend or not? (2) What skills and concepts did students report learning in the MindUP program? and (3) How did students extend what they learned beyond the program? Gender and grade differences among responses were also investigated. The vast majority of students reported that they enjoyed taking part in the MindUP program (88%), that they learned something new (96%), and that the things they learned were valuable for them in school and home life (95%). Most students would recommend the MindUP program to a friend (69%). Mindfulness activities were cited most often as the part of the program students enjoyed most, especially mindful sensing activities, such as mindful eating. Gaining skills for well-being and self-regulation were also frequently mentioned in response to open-ended questions. Although girls tended to provide higher ratings to survey questions in support of MindUP than boys, in most cases the differences were not statistically significant and effect sizes were small. Significant Grade by Gender interactions were observed in two items: Grade 4 and 5 girls reported learning more than grade 4 and 5 boys, and grade 6 and 7 girls were more likely to recommend the program to a friend than grade 6 and 7 boys. No other significant differences in grade were observed. In sum, most students were in favour of including mindfulness-based SEL in schools. The participant satisfactory survey that contain closed-ended and open-ended question was shown to provide reliable and valuable insights from students. Including similar surveys in future studies may be a time- and cost- efficient method of ensuring students’ voices are heard in program evaluations.!  & iii&!Preface &Chapter&3&is&based&on&work&conducted&in&UBC’s&Social&and&Emotional&Learning&Laboratory&by&Dr.&Kimberly&Schonert5Reichl&and&her&research&team.&The&present&study&uses&a&secondary&data&set&from&a&randomized&controlled&trial&investigating&the&effectiveness&of&the&MindUP&program&in&which&Dr.&Schonert5Reichl&was&the&Principal&Investigator.&Data&for&the&present&study&were&taken&from&a&MindUP&program&participant&satisfaction&survey&created&by&Molly&Stewart&Lawlor,&MA.&I&did&not&participate&in&the&collection&of&data&analyzed&in&this&study.&I&was&responsible&for&coding&and&entering&themes&into&SPSS&for&the&thematic&analysis&in&the&present&study,&as&well&as&the&analysis&of&survey&data.&Jenna&Whitehead,&MA,&served&as&second&rater&for&the&thematic&analysis&in&Chapter&3.&&Some&of&the&results&in&Chapter&3&were&presented&on&a&poster&for&the&International&Symposium&of&Contemplative&Science&in&Boston,&MA&(Maloney,&Whitehead,&Lawlor,& &Schonert5Reichl,&October,&2014).&Additionally,&some&of&the&findings&from&Chapter&3&and&discussion&items&in&Chapter&4&will&appear&in&a&chapter&of&the&Handbook(of(Mindfulness(Education&(Maloney,&Lawlor,&Schonert5Reichl,&&&Whitehead,&in&press).&&&! !& iv&Table of Contents !Abstract!...............................................................................................................................................................!ii&Preface!...............................................................................................................................................................!iii&Table!of!Contents!............................................................................................................................................!iv&List!of!Tables!....................................................................................................................................................!vi&List!of!Figures!.................................................................................................................................................!vii&List!of!Abbreviations!..................................................................................................................................!viii&CHAPTER!1:!INTRODUCTION!.......................................................................................................................!1&Early!Adolescent!Development:!A!Time!of!Rapid!Growth!and!Increased!Challenges!.........................!3&Contemplative!Education!.........................................................................................................................................!6&What&is&Mindfulness?&..................................................................................................................................................................&6&Working&Definitions&of&Mindfulness&in&the&Present&Study&..........................................................................................&9&Mindfulness&Education&............................................................................................................................................................&10&Mindfulness!Education!and!Social!and!Emotional!Learning!......................................................................!11&A!Theoretical!Framework!for!Mindfulness!Education!.................................................................................!13&CHAPTER!2:!LITERATURE!REVIEW!OF!MBIS!FOR!EARLY!ADOLESCENTS!..................................!16&Mindfulness!Education!Program!Components!...............................................................................................!28&Neurocognitive!Competencies!..............................................................................................................................!30&Psychological!and!Subjective!WellVbeing!.........................................................................................................!31&Social!and!Emotional!Competencies!..................................................................................................................!31&Academic!Learning,!School!Engagement,!and!Classroom!Climate!...........................................................!34&SelfVRepresentation!.................................................................................................................................................!35&Mindful!Awareness!...................................................................................................................................................!36&Moving!Beyond!Outcome!Studies!–!Including!Student!Voices!...................................................................!37&Research!on!Students’!Perceptions!of!Mindfulness!Education!Programs!.............................................!38&CHAPTER!3:!METHODOLOGY!....................................................................................................................!44&Researcher!Reflexivity!............................................................................................................................................!44&Study!Context!.............................................................................................................................................................!47&Research&Guidelines&for&Vancouver&School&Board&......................................................................................................&48&Method!..........................................................................................................................................................................!49&Data&Set&...........................................................................................................................................................................................&49&Participants&..................................................................................................................................................................................&50&Procedure&......................................................................................................................................................................................&53&The&Intervention:&The&MindUP&Program&.........................................................................................................................&53&Program&Training&and&Implementation&...........................................................................................................................&57&Measures!......................................................................................................................................................................!58&Participant&Satisfaction&Survey&............................................................................................................................................&58&Coding!of!OpenVEnded!Responses!.......................................................................................................................!61&Results!..........................................................................................................................................................................!64&Student&Evaluations&of&MindUP&...........................................................................................................................................&68&Student&Learning&........................................................................................................................................................................&84&Applications&of&MindUP&to&Everyday&Life&........................................................................................................................&92&CHAPTER!4:!DISCUSSION!............................................................................................................................!96&Students’!Evaluations!of!Program!Components!.............................................................................................!97&MindUP!as!a!Program!to!Promote!Positive!Youth!Development!...........................................................!102&& v&Support!for!MLERN!Theoretical!Framework.!...............................................................................................!105&Strengths!of!the!Present!Study!..........................................................................................................................!105&Limitations!of!the!Present!study!......................................................................................................................!106&Future!Directions!...................................................................................................................................................!108&REFERENCES!.................................................................................................................................................!111&APPENDIX!A:!PARENT/GUARDIAN!CONSENT!FORM!.......................................................................!128&APPENDIX!B:!PARTICIPANT!ASSENT!FORM!.......................................................................................!132&APPENDIX!C:!PARTICIPANT!SATISFACTION!SURVEY!......................................................................!135&   &&&&&    & vi&List of Tables  Table 2.1 Review of Outcome Studies on Mindfulness Education Programs with SEL         Components for Early Adolescents…………………………………………………………..17 Table 3.1 Vancouver School District Demographics …………………………………………………..48 Table 3.2 A Summary of Participant Demographics………………………………………………….. 52 Table 3.3. MindUP Units and Weekly Lessons……………………………………………………….. 57 Table 3.4 Summary of Teacher Implementation by Class…………………………………………….. 68 Table 3.5 2 x 2 ANOVA on Items Regarding Student Evaluations of MindUP……………………… 69 Table 3.6 Selected Responses to Illustrate Thematic Analysis of Open-end Question About  Student Likes………………..………………………………………………………………….72 Table 3.7 Selected Responses to Illustrate Thematic Analysis of Open-end Question About Student  Dislikes………………………………………………………………………………………… 75 Table 3.8 Selected Responses to Illustrate Thematic Analysis of Open-end Question About Student  Recommendations……………………………………………………………………………... 81 Table 3.9 Selected Responses from Thematic Analysis of Why Students Would Not Recommend  MindUP…………………………………………………………………………………………83 Table 3.10 Descriptive Statistics for Likert-Square Items…………………………………………….. 85 Table 3.11 Pairwise Comparison to Test Simple Effects for Gender X Grade Group Interaction for  Learning……………………………………………………………………………………….. 87 Table 3.12 Two-Way ANOVA (Grade by Gender) on Items Regarding Student Learning………….. 89 Table 3.13 Selected Responses to Illustrate Thematic Analysis of Open-end Question About Student  Learning……………………………………………………………………………………….. 91 Table 3.14 2 x 2 ANOVA Items Regarding Applications of  MindUP in Everyday Life………………93 Table 3.15 Student Reports of Whom They Taught Component of MindUP………………………… 94 &  & vii&List of Figures  Figure 1.1 MLERN’s Theoretical Model of Change for Cultivating Healthy Educational Contexts…..15 Figure 3.1. Conditions for the Randomized Controlled Trial on MindUP……………………………..50 Figure 3.2. Bar Chart Themes: Student Likes…......................................................................................70 Figure 3.3. Bar Chart Themes: Student Dislikes……………………………………………………… 74 Figure 3.4 Bar Chart Themes: Why Students Would Recommend MindUP…………………………. 77 Figure 3.5. Bar Chart Themes: Why Students Would Not Recommend MindUP……………………. 82 Figure 3.6. Interaction Plot: Gender by Grade Group Interaction of Student Learning………………..86 Figure 3.7. Plots illustrating Gender by Grade Group Learning of Mindfulness and About the Brain...89 Figure 3.8. Bar Chart Themes: Student Learning………………………………………………………90 Figure 3.9. Bar Chart Themes: What Students Taught to Others………………………………………95        &             & viii& List of Abbreviations   EF: Executive Functions MBI: Mindfulness-Based Intervention MBCT: Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy MBSR: Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction RCT: Randomized Controlled Trial SEL: Social and Emotional Learning VSB: Vancouver School Board VSD: Vancouver School District          & ix&Acknowledgements  Thank you to the students who participated in this study and were willing to take the time to share their insights and impressions of MindUP. Thank you also to the teachers who dedicated their time and effort to implementing the program. Being willing to take on a new program among your many other obligations, clearly demonstrates your dedication to your students.  Thank you to the members of Dr. Kimberly Schonert-Reichl’s Social and Emotional Learning Lab, past and present, who are dedicated to the study of well-being for children and adults alike. And, thank you to those specific members who worked on this important study evaluating MindUP. In particular, I thank Molly Stewart Lawlor, who was the primary author of the MindUP program, and played a key role in the design of several studies evaluating MindUP, including the participant satisfaction survey employed in this study. She has contributed valuable feedback regarding the interpretation and discussion of the data presented here via a collaboration on two previous projects based on this data set (see Preface).  Thank you also to Jenna Whitehead, who was the Project Coordinator for this study. Jenna acted as second rater for the thematic analysis in this study, and provided helpful insights into the analysis and interpretation of the results. Jenna has been a joy to work with, and an important mentor and guide for me into the complexities and challenges of conducting research in schools.  Thank you to my wonderful committee members, Dr. Jennifer Vadeboncoeur and Dr. Martin Guhn, for their commitment to promoting the well-being of young people and for advocating for including young people’s voices in research.  I am grateful for their guidance, support, and insight.  Lastly, I express my profound gratitude to my thesis supervisor, Dr. Kimberly Schonert-Reichl, whose lifelong dedication to promoting well-being in young people, and open-minded curiosity to explore innovative ways to do so, has led her to investigations of mindfulness education programs. Listening to and honoring the wisdom of young people is at the heart of everything she undertakes. Her wisdom, intellect, kind heart, and compassionate tenacity have provided me with unending inspiration in my academic, professional, and personal life. I am indebted to her for the support and guidance throughout my master’s degree. She has providing me with the opportunity, resources, and enthusiasm to pursue my interest in contemplative education. More than an advisor, I feel honoured to count Kim as both a mentor and a friend.  & x&Dedication  To my family, who has unequivocally supported me in pursuing my, somewhat unconventional, vocation as a contemplative educator.  To my beloved, Brice, for his unwavering support. And, for responding with a resounding “Yes!” every time I asked “Can I really do this?” when feeling challenged by juggling myriad academic and professional responsibilities. As usual, you were right.  And, to you, dear reader, for your interest in exploring ways to support the well-being of young people. May you - and all beings everywhere - be happy, healthy, and filled with peace.&&!& 1&CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION  We all have, lying deep within us, in our hearts and in our very bones, a capacity for a dynamic, vital, sustaining inner peacefulness and well-being, and for a huge, innate, multifaceted intelligence that goes way beyond the merely conceptual. When we mobilize and refine that capacity and put it to use, we are much healthier physically, emotionally, and spiritually much happier. Even our thinking becomes clearer, and we are less plagued by storms in the mind… We gain access to [these capacities] starting from wherever we are, which is always here, and in the only moment we ever have, which is always now.  (Kabat-Zinn, 2014a, p. 336)     When evaluating new programs in schools, students are rarely asked to report on their experiences and impressions of the program. Yet, studies have shown that including young peoples’ perspectives in research can provide meaningful insights not provided by adults (Fattore, Mason, & Watson, 2009; Moore, Saunders, & McArthur, 2011). At the same time, including young people’s voices in research elevates the integrity and quality thereof (Kirby, 2004). The present study investigated early adolescents’ evaluations of MindUP, an innovative program that integrates mindfulness, social and emotional learning (SEL), neuroscience, and positive psychology. More specifically, MindUP is a theoretically-derived program that aims to promote students’ attention and self-regulation, and foster their resilience, positive relationships, and a positive mindset towards school and life (The Hawn Foundation, 2011). As the introductory quote by Kabat-Zinn suggests, the MindUP program aims to go beyond conceptual learning by offering practical tools for promoting health and well-being in young people through the development of mindful awareness. Offering young people mindfulness practices that cultivate their ability to pay attention to the present moment, and applying this mindful awareness to exercises grounded in social and emotional learning and positive psychology is theorized to help them find the inner peace and happiness of which Kabat-Zinn writes.   The first aim of the present study was to understand students’ experiences with and evaluations of the MindUP program. The goal was to investigate whether they found the program useful and relevant to their everyday lives, and whether they reported any benefits to their health and well-being. & 2&Such information could be valuable in determining whether including mindfulness and SEL in schools is an appropriate and effective use of school time from students’ perspectives. A secondary aim was to investigate whether students’ experiences and impressions of the MindUP program varied by grade and/or gender.  This exploratory study examined the evaluations of the MindUP program of fourth to seventh grade students from eight classrooms across seven public elementary schools in a large urban school district in Western Canada. Qualitative and quantitative data from a written post-program participant satisfaction survey were analyzed to answer four research questions. First, what were students’ evaluations of the program? Second, what skills and concepts did students report learning in the MindUP program? Third, how did students extend what they learned beyond the program? Fourth, were student evaluations dependent on grade and/or gender? Investigating student impressions of MindUP can contribute valuable knowledge to the fields of both mindfulness education and SEL by helping stakeholders understand the effectiveness of such programs from students’ perspectives and, hence, learning what students find most and least valuable. Obtaining students’ perspectives can also provide information on the effectiveness of integrating mindfulness practices and SEL that, theoretically, appear to be synergistic (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Lawlor, in press). Taken together, knowledge gained from students who have participated in MindUP can inform future implementation of the program, as well as areas of future investigation in research on both mindfulness education and SEL.   This introductory chapter begins with a brief summary of some of the critical biological, psychological, and social changes that young people undergo during early adolescence – a period characterized by rapid development in almost all spheres – from a positive youth development lens (e.g., Lerner & Silbereisen, 2007). Second, an introduction to the fields of contemplative science and, more specifically, mindfulness education is put forth. Third, a brief summary and description of social and emotional learning (SEL) is presented, followed by a description of the ways in which the fields of & 3&mindfulness education and SEL overlap. The chapter ends with a description of a prominent theoretical framework for contemplative education put forth by the Mind and Life Education Research Network (MLERN, 2012) that informs this study. Early Adolescent Development: A Time of Rapid Growth and Increased Challenges  Early adolescence (approximately ages 9 - 12) is a transitional life period in which vast and rapid neurocognitive, biological, social, psychological, and environmental change take place, second only to infancy (Graber & Brooks-Gunn, 1996).  One’s development during early adolescence can have lasting effects in every domain of life throughout late adolescence and adulthood (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2012). Indeed, without appropriate environmental support during this transitional period, early adolescents are at increased short- and long-term risks in a variety of arenas, including increased risk for mental illness and school failure (Eccles, 1999).    During this developmental period, early adolescents undergo significant change in neurocognitive development instigated by considerable shifts in their social sphere, as well as the onset of pubertal maturation (Sherman et al., 2014).  Advances are made in executive functioning (EF), such as the ability to halt impulsive responses and think before taking action (i.e., inhibitory control); the ability to understand different perspectives and adjust to new situations (i.e., cognitive flexibility); and the ability to keep relevant information in mind when seeking solutions to problems (i.e., working memory; Diamond, 2012; Sherman et al., 2014). EF overlaps with neurocircuitry associated with emotion regulation (MLERN, 2012). Thus, states of prolonged emotional arousal, such as anxiety, can interfere with attention and working memory (Shackman et al., 2006), whereas cultivating a sense of calm is likely to promote proficient EF (Zelazo & Lyons, 2012).   Related to EF and emotion regulation are self-regulation skills: One’s ability to regulate behaviour in relation to one’s thoughts and feelings, and to reflect on potential consequences before taking conscious action (Moilanen, 2006; Zelazo & Lyons, 2012). Self-regulation is important for & 4&healthy relationships, success in school and work, and avoiding “snares” during adolescence that may affect the trajectory of one’s life, such as teenage parenthood, dropping out of school, and substance abuse (Moffit et al., 2011). Self-regulation may be especially crucial during adolescence, as young people increasingly find themselves in potentially risky situations (e.g., sexual encounters, exposure to drugs and alcohol, driving) without the guidance of adults. This is especially true in situations that elicit high emotional arousal, which can impair self-regulation and lead adolescents to take dangerous risks (Steinberg, 2005).  Throughout early adolescence, North American youth undergo a “social re-orientation,” spending more time with peers and less time with family (Nelson, Leibenluft, McClure, & Pine, 1999). They are presented with novel social challenges, such as increased competition with peers, greater academic expectations, and the potential development of romantic feelings towards others (Forbes & Dahl, 2010). Due to a surge in their capabilities for social-awareness, perspective taking, self-awareness and reflection, early adolescents often grow more self-conscious regarding how they look and act, and increasingly compare themselves with others (Harter, 2012). Their preoccupation with how they are seen by others can lead to “intense introspection or self-reflection, and, for many adolescents, excessive rumination, particularly about one’s negative characteristics” (Harter, 2012, p.79 Kindle edition). Their newly found capacity to construct abstract attributes regarding themselves and others (e.g., good, bad, or indifferent) can lead to unrealistic and over-generalized concepts of one’s self and others (Roeser & Pinela, 2014). During this development period, one also begins to construct “multiple selves” that vary across contexts, which can lead to the pressing, and sometimes distressing, question, which is my “true” or authentic self? (Harter, 2012).     Early adolescence is not only a time of life where youth experience an increase in developmental and contextual stressors, but they also develop a heightened sensitivity towards stressors; that is, stress may affect them more during this time of life than any other (Graber & Brooks-Gunn, 1996). In fact, adolescents may be especially predisposed towards the negative outcomes related & 5&to stress, such as rumination, anxiety, depression, aggression, underachievement at school, substance abuse, and suicidal ideation (Suldo, Shaunessy, & Hardesty, 2008).  The risk for a “stress pile up” is great, given the potential combination of normative stressors (e.g., puberty, increased academic expectations, school transitions), nonnormative stressors (e.g., death in the family, parents separating), and everyday hassles (e.g., conflict with friends, parents, teachers; Suldo et al., 2008). At this time, neurological structures associated with memory-related processes (e.g., the prefrontal cortex, the hippocampus) are highly plastic, and particularly vulnerable to chronic stress (Andersen & Teicher, 2008). By the same logic, the cortical and sub-cortical regions of the brain should also be particularly sensitive to positive influence throughout this period, although this perspective has largely been unexplored by researchers (MLERN, 2012).  Recently, however, there has been a shift in perspective that moves away from a deficit, or problem-oriented, outlook on development towards a strengths-based approach that aims to take advantage of the relative plasticity in development during this time of life to help young people not simply survive, but thrive (Lerner, Dowling, & Anderson, 2003; Schonert-Reichl & LeRose, 2008). From this perspective of positive youth development, early adolescence offers a “window of opportunity” to promote optimal development and holistic well-being by providing youth with individual skills and an environmental context that together foster social, emotional, cognitive, and psychobiological assets (Guhn et al., 2012; Roeser & Pinela, 2014; Silbereisen & Lerner, 2009). Because early adolescents spend a large portion of their time in schools, schools offer an opportune setting for creating a culture and implementing programming that provide an appropriate environmental “fit” to students’ developmental needs, thus reducing potential risks associated with this time of life (Eccles & Roeser, 2011).  Indeed, schools have the potential to be ideal venues for advancing positive youth development by promoting reciprocally constructive person-context relations through innovative programming and social initiatives (Lerner et al., 2003). Contemplative education programs, such as mindfulness education, and SEL are two movements that aim to promote positive youth development.  & 6&Contemplative Education  Contemplative practices are specific types of physical and mental training that require present-centered attention accompanied by a sense of openness, acceptance, curiosity, and compassion toward whatever experiences may unfold during practice (e.g., meditation, mindful awareness practices, yoga; Roeser et al., 2014). Contemplative education programs introduce secular contemplative practices into educational settings with the goal of promoting optimal development, student and teacher well-being, and a positive classroom environment by cultivating skills of self-awareness and self-regulation, present-centered attention, and caring and compassion for others (Jennings, Lantieri, & Roeser, 2012). A primary area of interest in the field of contemplative education is mindfulness education. What is Mindfulness?  Within the field of contemplative science, mindfulness practices refer to secular adaptations of meditative practices primarily drawn from Buddhism (Cullen, 2011; Kabat Zinn, 2003). Sometimes misconstrued as religious practices, mindfulness practices can, in fact, be integrated into any belief system. Jon Kabat-Zinn, a pioneer in introducing secular mindfulness practices into North American institutional settings through his eight-week Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) program, describes mindfulness practices as follows: [Mindfulness practices] are universal and have nothing to do with any isms, ideologies, religiosities, or belief systems. These discoveries are more akin to medical and scientific understandings, frameworks that can be examined by anybody anywhere, and put to the test independently, for oneself, which is what the Buddha suggested to his followers from the very beginning. (2014b, p. 343)    Kabat-Zinn’s comment illustrates that although mindfulness may be practiced in some religions, such as Buddhism, mindfulness practices themselves are not, in fact, religious, and can be applied to any belief system, secular or religious. He describes the congruencies between the non-judgmental observational stance with which mindfulness awareness is practiced and scientific observation to argue for the appropriate application of mindfulness practices into secular settings, such as hospitals and & 7&clinics. His comment illustrates the possibility of integrating mindfulness practices into secular school settings without infringing on the individual belief systems of students and their families.  There has been much discussion and disagreement surrounding the definition and operationalization of mindfulness among both academics and Buddhist practitioners (for discussions see Cullen, 2011; Grossman, 2011; Vago & Silbersweig, 2012). This is because mindfulness, a somewhat intangible concept, is often more easily experienced than defined. Further complicating matters, the singular term mindfulness has been used to describe different, yet related, concepts including: a (temporary) state of being; a (static) personal trait; practices applied to cultivate both the state and trait of mindfulness; and a life path of applying mindful awareness to everyday experiences with the goal of reducing suffering and, ultimately, experiencing self-realization.   The word mindfulness is an English translation of the Pali verb sati (Sanskrit smriti), which literally translated can mean “to remember” and/or to “be aware” in different contexts (Boccio, 2004). One might think of mindfulness as remembering to be aware, as opposed to being lost in one’s thoughts of past or future moments, thus missing what is happening in the present moment. For those new to the concept, mindfulness is often juxtaposed against states of mindlessness and narrow-mindedness, states that people are often more familiar with than conscious states of mindful awareness (Kabat-Zinn, 2014a). The term mindfulness, however, is used distinctly from everyday modes of attention (Grossman & Van Dam, 2011), and should not be confused with the everyday English expression of “being mindful” or, conversely, “being mindless.” Instead it refers to a specific type of metacognitive awareness (or perhaps more accurately described as a “meta metacognitive awareness”) that observes everyday modes of attention, recognizing how one’s ability to pay attention is constantly in flux and varies in capacity from moment-to-moment. In turn, mindfulness practitioners begin to reperceive (sometimes referred to as decentering) how they view their thoughts and emotions, recognizing that they too inevitably pass (Keng, Smoski, & Robins, 2011). As mindful awareness increases, practitioners recognize that their thoughts and emotions frequently are not accurate representations of & 8&reality but distortions of perception; this insight can help them let go of the tendency to self-identify with thoughts and emotions (Shapiro, Carlson, Astin, & Freedman, 2006).   Perhaps the most commonly applied definition in research literature comes from Kabat-Zinn’s (2003) succinct operational definition: “Mindfulness is: the awareness that emerges through paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally to the unfolding of experience moment by moment” (p. 145). Many have argued, however, that such a definition over simplifies the multifaceted nature of mindfulness, and leaves out interrelated concepts such as ethics, cognitive processes, and social and emotional competencies (see Grossman & Van Dam, 2011).    Another facet that has complicated research is the debate over which practices should be considered as mindfulness practices for research purposes and which should not. For example, MBSR (Kabat-Zinn, 1990) includes several types of practices including mindfully observing one’s breathing (mindful breathing); scanning the body to notice sensations and emotions (body scan); eating mindfully by bringing one’s full attention to sensations of sight, smell, taste, and emotions (mindful eating); hatha yoga (mindful movement); walking slowly while paying attention to every single step (mindful walking); deliberately extending thoughts of kindness and caring to one’s self and others (loving-kindness meditation); and formal sitting meditation in which one observes thoughts, emotions, and sensations as they come into perception without ascribing additional valence to them (e.g., positive, negative, pleasure, pain). All of these practices are undertaken with an attitude of openness, curiosity, and acceptance of whatever arises without adding judgment to the experience. Thus, those who conduct research on MBSR or its many adaptations (e.g., Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy; MBCT) may consider any or all of these mindfulness practices.   From a broader perspective, arguably any practice could be a mindfulness practice as long as one practices mindful awareness when conducting it. For example, Zen master Thich Nhat Hahn (2009) describes how everyday activities, such as washing dishes, can be mindfulness practices. Sometimes in research these are referred to as “informal practices.” From a narrower perspective, some researchers & 9&argue for distinguishing purely observational practices, such as mindful breathing and sitting meditation, from other contemplative practices (e.g., yoga, loving-kindness meditation, body scan) with the intention of understanding the underlying mechanisms and effects of specific contemplative practices in isolation (for a discussion, see Vago & Silbersweig, 2012).  Working Definitions of Mindfulness in the Present Study   Given the confusion surrounding the term mindfulness, it is necessary to distinguish between different aspects of mindfulness to maintaining clarity. I employ Grossmann and Van Dam’s (2011) understanding of the construct of mindfulness, described as: …ranging from mindfulness of bodily sensations to awareness of more expansive mental content and processes, such as emotion and altered view of self (Nanamoli and Bodhi 2001). It connotes several features: (1) deliberate, open-hearted awareness of moment-to-moment perceptible experience; (2) a process held and sustained by such qualities as kindness, tolerance, patience and courage (as underpinnings of a stance of nonjudgmentalness and acceptance); (3) a practice of nondiscursive, non-analytic investigation of ongoing experience; (4) an awareness markedly different from everyday modes of attention; and (5) in general, a necessity of systematic practice for its gradual refinement (Bodhi 1994; Hanh 1998; Ireland 1997; Kabat-Zinn 2005; Nanamoli and Bodhi 2000). p. 221  Thus, in the current study, mindfulness encompasses both the focused-attention practices that seek to cultivate mindful awareness, as well as the dispositions cultivated through practice: those of kindness, compassion, understanding, patience, perseverance, and open-mindedness.    For the purpose of this study, my working definitions are as follows: Mindful attention involves purposely focusing one’s attention on an object, sensation, or experience in the present moment in a non-discursive way. It is distinct from everyday modes of attention in that it is practiced with a sense of openness, curiosity, compassion, and acceptance without adding valence to one’s perceptions. Mindful awareness refers to the state of mind that arises from engaging mindful attention; it can be temporary or long-term, and it is cultivated with practice.  Mindfulness practices refer to the purposeful cultivation of mindful awareness by intentionally applying mindful attention to perceptions, recognizing when mindful awareness has lapsed (i.e., mind wandering), and applying one’s mindful & 10&attention to perceptions again without judging one’s performance. I include any practice in which mindful awareness is applied as a mindfulness practice, including sitting meditation, yoga, loving kindness meditation, mindfully listening and speaking to others, and mindfully treating others with compassion and kindness (metta practice). I use the word mindfulness to refer to the path that people embark on with the intention of cultivating lasting mindful awareness in order to relieve suffering of oneself and others by cultivating sympathetic joy, compassion, loving-kindness, equanimity, and self-realization (Bodhi, 2011). Mindfulness Education  Mindfulness education programs fall within the larger field of contemplative education; however, the terms are often applied interchangeably. Mindfulness education programs are mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) applied in educational settings. Interest in mindfulness education programs has largely stemmed from a convergence of research over the last 40 years conducted with adults that indicates that practicing mindfulness increases psychological well-being (Keng et al., 2011), improves neurocognitive abilities (Chiesa, Calati, & Serretti, 2011), promotes emotional resilience through building effective emotion-regulation skills (Campbell-Sills, Brown, & Hofmann, 2006), and encourages prosocial action (Condon, Desbordes, Miller, & DeSteno, 2013) in both clinical and non-clinical populations.   Some mindfulness education programs, such as Stress Management And Relaxation Training in-Education (SMART; Cullen & Wallace, 2010) are specifically designed to reduce stress, increase well-being, and improve social and emotional competencies among educators. Others are implemented by outside instructors specifically for students within the regular school day (e.g., Mendelson et al., 2010).  Universal school-based MBIs, such as MindUP (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015), are implemented by the regular classroom teacher during class time with the aim of promoting teacher and student social and emotional competencies, well-being, healthy student-teacher relationships, and a positive & 11&classroom climate conducive to learning.  Some universal MBIs are implemented school wide (e.g., Wisner, 2014) while others are offered at the classroom level (e.g., Parker Kupersmidt, Mathis, Scull, & Sims, 2014). Still others, such as the Inner Resilience Program (Lantieri, Nambiar, Harnett, & Kyse, in press) are offered at the school level, providing specific programming for principals and teachers, as well as classroom-based programs for students taught by their classroom teachers.  MBIs designed for classrooms often create lessons to meet prescribed learning outcomes and support existing school curricula and district mandates in order to help educators meet school and district expectations, rather than burden them with “one more thing to do.” Thus, they may include yoga practices to be integrated into physical education (e.g., Mendelson et al., 2010); kindness practices to match district mandates to foster social and emotional competencies (e.g., Broderick & Metz, in press; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015); sitting meditation practices to promote skills to theorized to enhance learning, such as attention, self- and emotion-regulation, and self-control (e.g., Britton et al., 2014; Wisner, 2014); and/or art programs to promote present-centered creativity (e.g., Klatt, Harpster, Browne, White, & Case-Smith, 2013). The plethora of programs demonstrate the many possibilities for integrating mindfulness practices into school settings and personalizing programs to meet individual and contextual needs. Mindfulness Education and Social and Emotional Learning At the forefront of the movement towards positive youth development has been a push towards social and emotional learning (SEL) – a field that focuses on helping young people build and apply core competencies. These include self-awareness (e.g., the ability to accurately perceive thoughts and emotions, and their effects on behaviour); social-awareness (e.g., the ability to understand and empathize with others); self-management (e.g., the ability to cope with stress and overwhelming emotions); relationships skills (e.g., the ability to nurture healthy relationships with others); and responsible decision-making (e.g., the ability to make effective and respectful choices that fall in line & 12&with one’s ethics when taking action; Durlak, Weissberg, & Pachan, 2010). A distal goal of SEL programs is to foster “a shift from being predominantly controlled by external factors to acting increasingly in accord with internalized beliefs and values, caring and concern for others, making good decisions, and taking responsibility for one’s choices and behaviors” (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011, p. 406). Evidently, there is considerable overlap between the fields of mindfulness education and SEL. In fact, competencies fostered in SEL are arguably foundational for mindfulness practice (for a discussion on the role of secular ethics in mindfulness practice, see Greenberg & Mitra, 2015). In turn, mindfulness practices may be an effective way to foster the awareness necessary to put concepts learned in SEL into action by going beyond a cognitive didactic approach (i.e., teaching the what) and offering pedagogical tools for building social and emotional competencies (i.e., teaching the how; Broderick & Frank, 2014). Thus, there appears to be a synergy between mindfulness and SEL, one that remains largely unexplored. Empirical research conducted on mindfulness-based SEL programs, such as Learning to Breathe (Broderick & Metz, 2009), the Inner Resilience Program (Lantieri et al., in press), SMART-in- Education (Benn, Akiva, Arel, & Roeser, 2012; Roeser et al., 2013) and Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE; Jennings, Snowberg, Coccia, & Greenberg, 2011) has demonstrated that taking part in them, indeed, boosts social and emotional competencies. They have been shown to increase self-awareness and self-compassion, emotion regulation/resilience, prosocial behaviour, and one’s ability to manage stress. Participants also have reported having less conflict and more satisfying relationships with others after taking part in the programs. This preliminary research suggests that combining mindfulness practices with SEL programs may be a good fit for school environments when they are designed to meet the contextual and developmental needs of participants. & 13&A Theoretical Framework for Mindfulness Education  Grounded in research on mindfulness practices conducted with adults, educational and developmental science, and preliminary evidence gained from empirical research on mindfulness practices with children and adolescents, the Mind and Life Education Research Network (MLERN, 2012) has put forth a theoretical framework of how contemplative education programs, such as mindfulness education, may promote positive youth development and enhance learning. MLERN consists of a board of interdisciplinary experts across the areas of developmental science (Eccles, Greenberg), cognition (Jha, Meyer), educational psychology (Jennings, Lantieri, Roeser), neuroscience (Davidson, Vago), philosophy (Dunne, Jinpa), and contemplative practice (Engle). In their theoretical framework, they have outlined a set of mental and social and emotional competencies that they believe to be of the utmost relevance to both education and life in the 21st Century, theorizing that these competencies can be bolstered through contemplative practice. These include several of the areas of rapid development that early adolescents undergo previously mentioned, including EF, self- and emotion regulation, social competencies (e.g., compassion, empathy), and self-representations (see Figure 1.1).   Based on research in neuroscience conducted with adults, the MLERN group posited that contemplative practices, such as mindfulness meditation, can create change in brain structure and function in adaptive ways that promote attention regulation, self-regulatory capacity, and social and emotional competencies. They propose that offering contemplative practices to students, teachers, school counselors, principals, and school administrators will increase learning, school engagement, prosocial behaviour, and well-being among all who take part in contemplative practice, resulting in healthier educational contexts that promote academic success. Moreover, they suggest that the changes that result from engaging in contemplative practices will increase practitioners’ contributions to the world.   & 14&   Figure'1.1 Model&of&the&psychological&constructs&most&impacted&by&contemplative&practices&and&the&key&behavioral&outcomes&that&are&being&studied.&&Note.&The&classes&of&individuals&who&might&benefit&from&such&mental&training&are&delineated&on&left&and&include&all&of&the&major&constituents&in&a&school&system.&Contemplative&practices&impact&specific&neural&substrates&and&in&turn&impact&key&psychological&constructs&leading&to&specific&behavioral&outcomes.&Other&school>related&more&macro&variables&such&as&the&leadership,&school&culture,&and&classroom&environment&are&also&noted&as&these&will&impact&the&key&neural&and&psychological&systems&as&well.'(MLERN,&2012,&p.&147)&&&Emerging research conducted on school-based MBIs provides preliminary support for the MLERN theoretical framework, as well as inspiring new insights and questions not accounted for by the framework. In the last decade, there have been several small intervention studies conducted in school settings that suggest that participating in mindfulness education programs can, indeed, improve EF, attention regulation, social and emotional well-being, engagement in school, and academic success.  The next chapter includes a literature review of research on mindfulness-based interventions Figure 1.Model of the psychological constructs most impacted by contemplative practices and thekey behavioral outcomes that are being studied. The classes of individuals who mightbenefit from such mental training are delineated on left and include all of the majorconstituents in a school system. Contemplative practices impact specific neural substratesand in turn impact key psychological constructs leading to specific behavioral outcomes.Other school more macro variables such as the leadership, school culture and classroomenvironment are also noted as these will impact the key neural and psychological systems aswell.Page 13Child Dev Perspect. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 June 01.NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript& 15&(MBI) for early adolescents being implemented in schools in relation to the MLERN framework. Chapter 3 outlines the methodology applied in the present study, including a description of the MindUP program and the participant satisfaction survey employed to elicit students’ evaluations of the program, concluding with the results of the analysis. Finally, Chapter 4 includes a discussion of the findings and a description of some of the strengths and limitations of the study, along with suggestions for future research.&  & 16&CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW OF MBIS FOR EARLY ADOLESCENTS & Chapter 2 provides a review of several studies that have examined outcomes of mindfulness education programs with early adolescents. The criteria for inclusion in the review were as follows: (1) They examined universal school-based mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs); (2) they aimed to promote at least one of the social-emotional competencies, that is, self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and/or responsible decision making; (3) they included at least some participants in the age range of 9 - 13; (4) they were intervention studies, not correlational studies; and (5) they appeared in peer-reviewed journals. I found 11 articles that met these criteria (see Table 2.1 for a summary). I included one additional article (Huppert & Johnson, 2010) that did not meet these criteria (participants were ages 14 -15) because it included a participant satisfaction survey similar to that employed in the present study. This review includes two studies conducted on earlier iterations of MindUP (Schonert-Reichl & Lawlor, 2010; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015) that contain most of the same program components as in the current curriculum (see Chapter 3 for a description of the current MindUP curriculum).  ! 17!Table  2.1  Review of Outcome Studies on Mindfulness Education Programs with SEL Components for Early Adolescents  Study& Design& N" Participants& Program&Location& Mindfulness&Program&Components&& Length&and&Frequency& Outcome&Measures& Significant&Findings&& Student&Evaluations&of&Program&Black&&&Fernando&(2014)& Field&Intervention&with&No&Control&&Pre/Post&test&and&7@week&follow&up&409& Lower@income&and&ethnic&minority&children&grades&K&@&6&17&classrooms&in&a&public&elementary&school&in&Richmond&California&Mindful(Schools(&&Body&scan&&Gratitude&practice&&Mindful&awareness&of&thoughts&and&feelings&&Mindful&breathing&&Mindful&eating&&Mindful&listening&&Mindful&movement&&Mindful&test@taking&&Mindful&walking&&Classrooms&randomly&assigned&to&one&of&two&curricula:&&(A):&Shorter&program&of&5&weeks,&3&15@min&sessions&per&week&(B):&Longer&program&of&5&weeks&+&7&weekly&15&min&sessions&thereafter&&Program&was&taught&by&two&trained&mindfulness&teachers,&one&with&3&years&of&formal&personal&practice,&the&other&with&20&years&of&personal&practice.&&&Teacher@reported&observations&of&students’:&Attention,&Self@Control,&Participation&in&School&Activities,&Caring/Respect&for&Others&+&attention,&self@control,&participation&in&school&activities,&and&caring/respect&for&others&at&post@test.&&&Results&were&maintained&at&follow&up.&&Additional&weekly&classes&for&students&in&longer&program&provided&significant&gains&in&paying&attention&over&and&above&those&in&the&shorter&program.&Not&reported&! 18!Study& Design& N& Participants& Program&Location& Mindfulness&Program&Components&& Length&and&Frequency& Outcome&Measures& Significant&Findings&in&Comparison&to&Control&Group&Student&Evaluations&of&Program&Britton&et&al.&(2014)& RCT&with&Active&Control&(creating&a&model&of&Pharaoh’s&tomb&in&African&history&course)&&pre/post&test&100& 6th&grade&students&(46%&girls)& Private&Quaker&school&in&Providence,&Rhode&Island&Daily&&mindfulness&meditation&practice&at&the&beginning&of&an&Asian&history&course&&Body&scan&&Mindful&awareness&of&thoughts&and&feelings&&Mindful&breathing&6&weeks,&daily&mindfulness&practice&ranging&from&3&to&12&minutes&taught&by&classroom&teachers&with&prior&experience&practicing&mindfulness&&&&Mindful&Awareness&&Psychological&Distress&and&Well@being&&Positive&and&Negative&Affect&&Program&Acceptability&(via&Student&Journals)&No&difference&in&internalizing,&externalizing&or&attention&problems&as&measured&by&the&Youth&Self&Report;&however&both&groups&showed&significant&decreases&from&pre@&to&post@test&&+&positive&and&&@&negative&affect&with&small&to&medium&effect&size&&@&development&of&suicidal&ideation&and&self@harm&&No&difference&in&mindful&awareness&&&&Based&on&content&analysis&of&student&journals:&&94%&engaged&with&the&practice&on&nearly&all&occasions.&&7%&reported&feeling&bored&on&at&least&one&occasion.&&82%&reported&feeling&more&focused&after&meditation&on&at&least&one&occasion&&88%&feeling&more&relaxed&and&calm&or&less&stress,&anxiety,&or&tension&after&practice.&&&&&&! 19!Study& Design& N& Participants& Program&Location& Mindfulness&Program&Components&( Length&and&Frequency& Outcome&Measures& Significant&Findings&in&Comparison&to&Control&Group&Student&Evaluations&of&Program&Flook&et&al.&(2010)& RCT&&&Active&control&group&(silent&reading&period)&64& Ethnically&diverse&children&ages&7@9&&&&Four&2nd&and&3rd&&grade&classrooms&at&an&on@campus&university&elementary&school&in&LA&Mindful(Awareness(Practice(Training(&Body&scan&(supine)&&Kindness&practices&(guided&visualizations)&&Mindful&awareness&of&thoughts&and&feelings&&Mindful&breathing&(sitting&and&supine)&&Mindful&walking&&&&&&&&&&&&8&weeks,&30&min@lessons&twice&a&week&implemented&by&&Teacher&report&and&parent&reports&of&EF& +&behavioural&regulation,&metacognition,&and&global&executive&control&in&children&with&poor&EF&at&baseline&&not&reported&! 20!Study& Design& N& Participants& Program&Location& Mindfulness&Program&Components&& Length&and&Frequency& Outcome&Measures& Significant&Findings&in&Comparison&to&Control&Group&Student&Evaluations&of&Program&Huppert&&&Johnson&(2010)& Matched&Active&Control&(religion&classes)&&pre/post&test&155& 14&and&15&year&old&boys&(95%&Caucasian&British,&5%&ethnic&minorities)&Private&schools&for&boys&in&Britain& Variation&of&MBSR&&Body&scan&&Mindful&awareness&of&thoughts&and&emotions&&Mindful&breathing&&Mindful&listening&&Walking&meditation&4&weekly&40@minute&sessions&taught&by&religion&teachers&with&personal&mindfulness&practice.&&Optional&daily&home&practice&of&8@min&meditation.&Self@reports&of:&mindful&awareness&&Resilience&&Psychological&well@being&&Big@five&personality&(short@form)&&Consumer&satisfaction&survey&with&forced@choice&responses&No&difference&in&group&differences&on&self@report&measures&&+&mindfulness&and&psychological&well@being&with&higher&frequency&of&practice&&&+&well@being&after&MBI&in&students&with&higher&scores&in&neuroticism,&and&students&who&were&both&sympathetic&and&less&critical.&&&69%&enjoyed&the&program&&74%&would&like&to&continue&with&mindfulness&practices&&43%&thought&the&program&should&have&been&longer&Joyce&et&al.&(2010)& Field&Intervention&No&Control&&pre/post&175& Students&aged&10&–&13&(56%&male)& Eight&5th&and&6th&grade&classrooms&in&2&public&elementary&schools&in&the&suburbs&of&Melbourne,&Australia&Self7Awareness(and(Relaxation(Program&&Mindful&&awareness&of&thoughts&and&emotions&&Mindful&Ten&45@minute&lessons&taught&by&classroom&teachers.&&Daily&10&minute&practice&Student&self&reports&of:&&Strengths&and&Difficulties&Questionnaire:&Hyperactivity/inatten@tion,&Emotional&Symptoms,&Conduct&Problems,&and&Peer&Relationship&Problems&&@&overall&mean&scores&and&number&of&students&who&fell&into&diagnostic&categories&not&reported&! 21!breathing&&Mindful&sensing&&Sitting&meditation&Child’s&Depression&Inventory&Study& Design& N& Participants& Program&Location& Mindfulness&Program&Components&( Length&and&Frequency& Outcome&Measures& Significant&Findings&in&Comparison&to&Control&Group&Student&Evaluations&of&Program&Kuyken&et&al.&(2013)& Non@Randomized&Matched&Control&&pre/post&test&and&3@month&follow&up&522& Students&ages&12&–&16&(37%&female),&&75%&Caucasian,&16%&Asian&& Mindfulness(in(Schools(Programme&(Adaptation&of&MBSR&and&MBCT&for&adolescents)&&Details&of&specific&practices&not&provided&9&scripted&weekly&lessons&taught&by&teachers&trained&in&the&program&(length&of&lessons&and&teacher&training&not&provided)&Self@reports&of:&Mental&well@being&&Perceived&stress&&Depression&&Acceptability&via&a&consumer&satisfaction&survey&at&post@test&and&follow&up&&Frequency&of&mindfulness&practice&at&follow&up&&&&@&Depressive&symptoms&at&post@test&and&follow&up&&@&Stress&at&follow&up&&+&Well@being&at&follow&up&&Children&who&reported&more&frequent&mindfulness&practices&showed&higher&well@being&scores&at&post@test&and&follow&up;&lower&depression&scores&at&post@test;&and&lower&stress&at&follow&up&&&Post&Test:&Means&of&student&ratings&on&10@point&Likert&Scales:&&&Enjoyment&=&7&&&Amount&Learned&=&6&&Likelihood&of&using&techniques&learned&=&5.9&&Follow&UP&&80%&of&students&reported&using&practices&they&learned&at&least&once&since&the&training&had&ended.&! 22!&60%&noticed&where&they&felt&stress&in&their&bodies.&&52%&Mindful&walking&or&eating.&&44%&“Beditation”&Study& Design& N& Participants& Program&Location& Mindfulness&Program&Components&( Length&and&Frequency& Outcome&Measures& Significant&Findings&in&Comparison&to&Control&Group&Student&Evaluations&of&Program&Mendelson&et&al.&(2010)& RCT&pre/post&test& 97& 4th&and&5th&grade&(61%&female),&&84%&African&American,&&4%&“Latino”,&4%&Caucasian&&4&Public&Inner@city&Elementary&Schools&in&Baltimore&City&Holistic(Life(Foundation((HLF)(Mindfulness(and(Yoga(Program(&Focused&attention&mindfulness&practice&&Mindful&breathing&&Mindful&movement&(yoga)&&Supine&relaxation&(savasana)&12&weeks&&Four&45@min&sessions/week&taught&by&HLF&instructors&Self@reports&of:&Involuntary&Stress&Responses&(rumination,&intrusive&thoughts,&emotional&arousal,&impulsive&action,&physiological&action)&&Depressive&Symptoms&&Positive&and&Negative&Affect&&Peer&Relations&&3&Focus&Groups&of&3&to&7&students&&@&Rumination,&intrusive&thoughts,&emotional&arousal&&Non@significant&decreases&in&depressive&symptoms,&negative&affect,&impulsive&action,&and&physiological&arousal&&No&difference&in&positive&affect&or&relationships&No&systematic&analysis&of&focus&group&data&was&reported,&but&authors&provided&3&quotations&that&indicated&students&felt&the&program&offered&them&skills&for&relieving&and&coping&with&stress.&&&&&&&&&! 23!Study& Design& N& Participants& Program&Location& Mindfulness&Program&Components&( Length&and&Frequency& Outcome&Measures& Significant&Findings&in&Comparison&to&Control&Group&Student&Evaluations&of&Program&Parker&et&al.&(2014)&&&RCT&&&Waitlist&&Control&&pre/post&&test&111& ages&9&–&11&(58%&female)& 4th&and&5th&grade&classrooms&in&2&Public&elementary&schools&in&rural&southeastern&USA&Master(Mind:&&&&Compassion&practice&&Mindful&breathing&&Mindful&journeys&(guided&visualization)&&Mindful&movement&(yoga)&&Applications&to&daily&life&through&student&workbooks&(homework)&&15&min&daily&&4&week&program&–&20&lessons&in&total&&Lessons&were&facilitated&by&classroom&teachers,&using&audiotapes&of&mindfulness&activities,&videotapes&of&children&teaching&yoga&poses,&and&&discussion&based&on&hypothetical&scenarios.&&EF&Performance&Task&(Flanker&Fish)&&Teacher@ratings&of&student&behaviour,&emotion&regulation,&and&self@control.&&Self@reports&of&intentions&to&use&alcohol&and&tobacco&&Program&acceptability&and&feasibility&via&participant&satisfaction&surveys&consisting&of&Likert@Scale&questions&and&1&open@ended&question:&What(is(the(most(important(thing(you(learned(from(the&Master(Mind(program?&&+&EF&skills&&@&Social&problems&and&aggressive&behaviours&&@&Anxiety&in&girls&&+&Self&control&in&boys&&No&difference&in&student@reported&intentions&to&use&alcohol&or&tobacco.&&&Favourite&activity:&Mindful&eating&&Least&favourite:&Tracking&positive&emotions&daily&&Most&important&thing&they&learned:&“The&importance&of&being&mindful&and&how&to&be&mindful&in&their&everyday&lives,&in&particular,&stopping&to&pause&and&take&three&breaths.”&(p.&14)&&&&&&&! 24!Study& Design& N& Participants& Program&Location& Mindfulness&Program&Components&( Length&and&Frequency& Outcome&Measures& Significant&Findings&in&Comparison&to&Control&Group&Student&Evaluations&of&Program&Schonert@Reichl&&&Lawlor&(2010)&Quasi@Experimental&&&6&teachers&selected&to&implement&program,&6&selected&as&Waitlist&Controls&on&a&first@come,&first&serve&basis&as&mandated&by&the&district&246& Students&ages&9&to&13&from&a&diverse&range&of&cultural&and&socio@economic&backgrounds&4th&to&7th&grade&classrooms&across&12&public&elementary&schools&in&a&western&Canadian&city&Mindfulness(Education&&Mindful&breathing&&Mindful&listening&&Mindful&sensing&&Affirmations&and&visualizations&to&elicit&positive&affect&&&10&weeks&led&by&classroom&teacher&who&underwent&a&daylong&training.&&1&weekly&lesson&@50&min&&&Daily&breathing&practices&with&chime&@&&3&times&a&day&for&3&minutes&Teacher@ratings&of&social&and&emotional&competence&&Self@reports&of:&&Optimism&&School&and&General&Self@Concept&&Positive&and&Negative&Affect&&&+&Attention,&emotion&regulation,&social&and&emotional&competencies&&+&Optimism&&+&General&self@concept&in&grade&4&and&5&students&&@&General&self@concept&in&grade&6&and&7&students,&while&increasing&in&control&group&&No&difference&in&negative&affect&&Non@significant&+&in&positive&affect&&&&&&&&&&Not&reported.&! 25!Study& Design& N& Participants& Program&Location& Mindfulness&Program&Components&( Length&and&Frequency& Outcome&Measures& Significant&Findings&in&Comparison&to&Control&Group&Student&Evaluations&of&Program&Schonert@Reichl&et&al.&(2015)&&&RCT&&pre/post&test&99& Ages&9&@&11& 4th&and&5th&grade&classrooms&in&4&public&elementary&schools&in&an&urban&western&Canadian&City&MindUP&&Acts&of&kindness&&Gratitude&practice&&Mindful&breathing&&Mindful&eating&&Mindful&&movement&&Mindful&sensing:&seeing,&smelling,&listening&12&weeks&led&by&classroom&teacher&who&underwent&a&half@day&training&&&1&weekly&lesson&@50&min&&&Daily&breathing&practices&@&&3&times&a&day&for&3&minutes&EF&Performance&Tasks&(Flanker&Fish&&&Hearts&and&Flowers)&&Physical&Stress&Levels&via&Salivary&Cortisol&&&Self@Reports&of&Well@being,&Prosocial&Behaviour&(e.g.,&empathy,&optimism,&depressive&symptoms,&emotion&control,&self&concept),&and&Mindful&Awareness&&Year@end&Math&Grades&20%&+&in&self@reported&well@being&and&prosociality&&@&Symptoms&depression&&+&Optimism&&+&Empathy&&&perspective&taking&&+&Emotional&control&&+&Mindful&awareness&&+&Peer&acceptance&&&24%&@&&in&peer@rated&aggression&&&+&School&self@concept&&+&15%&in&math&achievement&&+&EF&&&Not&reported&! 26!Study& Design& N& Participants& Program&Location& Mindfulness&Program&Components&( Length&and&Frequency& Outcome&Measures& Significant&Findings&in&Comparison&to&Control&Group&Student&Evaluations&of&Program&van&de&Weijer@Bergsma&et&al.&(2014)&RCT&Waitlist&Control&&baseline,&pre@&and&post@test&and&follow&up&after&7&weeks&&199& Children&ages&8&–&12&(55%&girls)& 8&classes&in&3&public&elementary&schools&in&Amsterdam&MindfulKids((based&on&MBSR)&&Body&scan&&&Kindness&practice&&Mindful&awareness&of&thoughts&and&emotions&&Mindful&breathing&&Mindful&eating&&Mindful&listening&&Mindful&sensing&6&weeks,&twelve&30@minute&sessions&led&by&trainer&&Daily&5@min&meditation&led&by&classroom&teacher&&&&Perceived&stress&(via&self@reports&of&rumination)&&Self@reports&of&emotional&awareness&and&happiness&&Parent&reports&of&child&problem&behaviours,&anxiety&symptoms,&and&sleep&issues&&Teacher&reports&on&class&climate&+&&Verbal&sharing&of&emotions&and&bodily&awareness&aspects&of&emotional&awareness&at&post@test&&+&Student&respect,&friendship,&and&belonging&at&post@test&&+Differentiating&emotions,&verbal&sharing&of&emotions,&bodily&awareness,&and&not&hiding&emotions&at&follow&up&&&@&Rumination,&anxiety,&analyzing&emotions,&and&aggressive&or&angry&behaviour&at&follow&up&&No&difference&in&happiness&Not&reported.&! 27!Study& Design& N& Participants& Program&Location& Mindfulness&Program&Components&( Length&and&Frequency& Outcome&Measures& Significant&Findings&in&Comparison&to&Control&Group&Student&Evaluations&of&Program&White&(2012)& RCT&&Waitlist&Control&&&pre/post&test&&155& 4th&and&5th&grade&girls&(ages&8@11),&mostly&Caucasian&After@school&program&in&2&public&schools&in&Boston&Mindful(Awareness(for(Girls(through(Yoga&(Adaptation&of&MBSR)&&Mindful&breathing&&Mindful&listening&&Mindful&movement&(yoga&poses)&&Supine&relaxation&(savasana)&1&hour&per&week&over&8&weeks&&&10&minutes&of&daily&home&practice&(mindful&breathing,&yoga&poses,&and&supine&relaxation)&Self&Reports&of:&&&Perceived&Stress&&Stress&Coping&Strategies&&Global&Self@Worth&&Self@Regulation&No&difference&in&Self@Worth&and&Self@Regulation&&+&in&perceived&stress,&especially&among&those&who&completed&home&practice&despite&no&changes&in&frequency&of&reported&stressors&&+&Application&of&stress&coping&strategies&Not&reported&(Notes.&In&the&five&studies&that&included&some&form&of&student&evaluation,&none&reported&results&using&qualitative&analysis.&Also,&no&study&investigated&gender&and&grade&differences&in&students’&evaluations&of&the&programs.&RCT&=&randomized&controlled&trials:&Experimental&studies&in&which&students&were&randomly&assigned&to&take&part&in&an&MBI&or&to&a&control&group&that&did&not&participate&in&an&MBI.&Active(control(groups&were&given&structured&tasks&in&lieu&of&the&MBI,&whereas&passive&control&groups&continued&with&their&regular&classroom&routine.&In&quasi7experimental(studies,&students&were&matched&and&not&randomly&assigned&to&an&MBI&or&a&control&program.&Waitlist(controls&indicated&that&participants&received&the&MBI&after&the&study&was&completed.&Pre/Post&indicates&assessment&took&place&before&and&after&the&program&and&follow(up&indicates&that&an&additional&assessment&took&place&some&months&after&the&program&ended.&The&plus(sign&(+)&indicates&increases&in&an&outcome.&The&minus(sign((@)&indicates&decreases&in&an&outcome.&!! 28! Mindfulness Education Program Components ! One of the challenges of comparing outcomes across MBIs is they that include different components. Moreover, there is no clear definition of what constitutes a mindfulness practice and what does not. In my review, I included any study that claimed to be a mindfulness education program. For example, I included studies that described yoga as mindful movement and included additional mindfulness practices, such as mindful breathing. I did not, however, include studies that proclaimed to study yoga without any mention of mindfulness. Another challenge was that several studies did not clearly outline program component in their articles. Further complicating matters, most studies did not provide a description of the actual activity (e.g., employing ambiguous terms such as sitting meditation, which can describe a variety of practices, including mindful breathing, observing and labeling one’s thoughts and emotion, seated body scan, meditation focusing on a specific object, and loving-kindness meditation). In many cases, I had to infer key components from the article; thus, in some cases the descriptions of program components here may be incomplete or inaccurate.  Most programs contained a variety of practices from Kabat-Zinn’s (1990) Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), adapted for early adolescents by making the practices shorter and more frequent. All programs used didactic instruction, experiential practice, and discussion of how practices might apply to students’ everyday lives.  One component that every study had in common was a variation of mindful breathing: Taking time to observe one’s pattern of breathing for a length of time (ranging from 3 breaths to 10 minutes across studies). Other common seated practices included focused attention meditation, in which students focus on a specific object, thought, or sensation (Mendelson et al., 2010), and practicing introspective mindful awareness of one’s thoughts and feelings by noticing any thoughts or feelings as they arise, and practicing to greet them with compassion and non-judgment, ! 29!and letting them pass by (Black & Fernando, 2014; Britton et al., 2014; Flook et al., 2010; Huppert & Johnson, 2010; Parker et al., 2014; van de Weijer-Bergsma et al., 2014).   Seven studies included some form of mindful movement, including yoga poses (Mendelson et al., 2010; Parker et al., 2014; White, 2012), walking meditation (Black & Fernando, 2014; Flook et al., 2010; Huppert & Johnson, 2010), and the ambiguous description of mindful movement (Black & Fernando, 2014; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015). The body scan exercise was included in six studies (Black & Fernando, 2014; Britton et al., 2014; Flook et al., 2010; Huppert & Johnson, 2010; Mendelson et al., 2010; van de Weijer-Bergsma et al., 2014).  Several programs offered mindful sensing activities in which students practiced focusing mindful attention on particular sense perceptions, such as mindful eating, mindful listening (often to the resonant sound of a chime), mindful smelling, and mindful seeing (Black & Fernando, 2014; Huppert & Johnson, 2010; Joyce et al., 2010; Schonert-Reichl & Lawlor, 2010; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015; van de Weijer-Bergsma et al., 2014; White, 2012). Similar to MBSR’s loving-kindness practice, some programs included mindful prosocial practices, such as practicing acts of kindness (Flook et al., 2010; Mendelson et al., 2010; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015; van de Weijer-Bergsma et al., 2014) and compassion (Parker et al., 2014). Two studies also included gratitude practices (Black & Fernando, 2014; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015).  A few studies included additional components not typically found in MBSR, such as mindful test taking (Black & Fernando, 2014), mindful guided visualization (Parker et al., 2014; Schonert-Reichl & Lawlor, 2010), and positive affirmations (Schonert-Reichl & Lawlor, 2010). In the next section, I summarize some of the findings from these studies related to early adolescent development and the MLERN framework.  ! 30!Neurocognitive Competencies  Intervention studies on mindfulness education programs conducted with children and adolescents suggested that MBIs may improve EF and attention regulation, but results are unclear due to mixed findings. Of the 12 studies included in this review, five included measures of EF and/or attention regulation via student self-reports, teacher and/or parent reports, and objective tasks (e.g., computer tasks). Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted with students in grades 4 - 7 found significant improvement in EF in students who participated in an MBI compared to the control groups as measured through computer-based tasks (Parker et al., 2014; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015). Several studies reported significant reductions in attention- and EF-related problems as rated by teachers (Black & Fernando, 2014; Flook et al., 2010; Schonert-Reichl & Lawlor, 2010). Flook and colleagues (2010), however, found that only MBI students with lower EF scores at pre-test showed the significant improvement in scores at post-test, compared to controls, as measured by teacher and parent ratings of EF. Additionally, Joyce and colleagues  (2010) reported a significant decrease in the number of students who fell into diagnostic categories for hyperactivity and inattention as rated by teachers from pre- to post-test; however their intervention did not include a control group, limiting any conclusions regarding whether findings were the result of the MBI or some other influence.  On the other hand, in an RCT conducted with sixth-grade students, no significant decreases in attention problems were observed between the MBI and active control group students at post-test, although both groups showed significant decreases in attention problems from pre-test to post-test in this area (Britton et al., 2014). Similarly, White (2012) found no significant differences in her study conducted with fourth- and fifth-grade girls on self-reports of self-regulation among the MBI group and the control group. Notably, both of these studies used self-report measures as opposed to the objective tasks and observer reports employed in the studies that reported significant findings. ! 31!Psychological and Subjective Well-being   Eight studies reported on some aspect of psychological (e.g., symptoms of anxiety and depression, incidences of self-harm) and/or subjective well-being (e.g., affect, optimism). All studies reported improvements in students who participated in the MBIs in psychological well-being from pre-to-post test, including decreased symptoms of depression (Joyce et al., 2010; Kuyken et al., 2013; Mendelson et al., 2010; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015), anxiety and rumination (Mendelson et al., 2010; Parker et al., 2014; van de Weijer-Bergsma et al., 2014), and suicidal ideation and self-harm (Britton et al., 2014).  In addition to decreases in psychological ill-being, all eight studies reported increases in subjective well-being among early adolescents, including increases in positive affect (Britton et al., 2014; Schonert-Reichl & Lawlor, 2010) and optimism (Schonert-Reichl & Lawlor, 2010; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015), and decreases in negative affect (Britton et al., 2014).  Two studies reported more benefits with increased frequency of practice (Huppert & Johnson, 2010; Kuyken et al., 2013). Additionally, in two RCTs, statistical differences in improvements between MBI and control groups in psychological and subjective wellbeing were not evident at post-test, but were observed at follow-up several months later (Kuyken et al., 2013; van de Weijer-Bergsma et al., 2014). One study also found interaction effects with student personality: Students scoring higher in agreeableness and lower in emotional stability on the Big Five personality dimensions demonstrated larger gains in well-being after participating in an MBI than their peers (Huppert & Johnson, 2010). Taken together, these studies indicate that participating in a school-based MBI is likely to have a positive impact on some students’ psychological and subjective well-being. Social and Emotional Competencies  Emotion Regulation. In all four studies that examined emotion regulation skills (e.g., emotion awareness, responses to emotional arousal), significant improvements were observed. Van de Weijer-Bergsma and colleagues (2014) found that students ages 8 - 12 reported more emotional awareness and ! 32!verbal sharing of emotions at post-test in comparison to a control group. They observed additional significant gains in MBI students in aspects of emotion regulation at follow-up seven weeks later, such as being able to differentiate emotions and not hiding emotions. MBI students were also less likely to analyze and ruminate over emotions at follow up compared to control students. Schonert-Reichl and colleagues found improvements in MindUP students’ self-reports of emotional control (2015) and teacher reports of students’ emotion regulation skills (2010) in comparison to control groups. Mendelson et al. (2010) found that grade 4 and 5 students who participated in an MBI compared to control students demonstrated significant decreases in self-reported emotional arousal.    Prosocial Behaviour. Of the four RCTs that examined behavioural outcomes related to MBIs, most have used teacher observations. Teachers reported significant increases in observations of student prosocial behaviour (Schonert-Reichl & Lawlor, 2010) and significant decreases in disruptive and aggressive behaviour (Flook et al., 2010; Parker et al., 2014) for students exposed to MBIs in contrast to students in a control group. In addition to teacher reports, Schonert-Reichl and colleagues (2015) examined self-report and peer-ratings of prosocial behavior in their evaluation of the MindUP program. They found significant gains in both self-reported and peer-rated prosocial behaviour for students who participated in MindUP in contrast to students in the control group. They also found significant decreases in peer-reported aggression and increases in peer-reported acceptance in MindUP students in contrast to students in a control group. Students in the MindUP program also reported significant increases in empathy and perspective-taking skills, in comparison to students in the control condition, important competencies requisite for prosocial action (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015).   Resiliency to Stress. Few studies reported here included measures related to stress, which is surprising considering that most programs were modeled after Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (Kabat-Zinn, 1990). Those that did had mixed, and somewhat ambiguous results. Mendelson and colleagues (2010) found that MBI students reported significantly fewer involuntary stress responses, such as rumination, intrusive thoughts, and emotional arousal when compared to control groups. ! 33!Although Kuyken and colleagues (2013) did not find any significant differences on self-reported perceived stress at post-test between intervention and control groups, they observed significant differences at a three-month follow up.   Conversely, White (2012) found that grade 4 and 5 girls who participated in an 8-week after school MBI reported significant increases in perceived stress at post-test, whereas the control group reported decreases in perceived stress, despite showing no significant increases in the reported number and intensity of stressors for either group. Participants in the MBI, however, also reported significant increases in the application of stress coping skills. Such a finding may allude to the feelings of increased distress that has been reported in qualitative studies at the onset of practice (e.g., Monshat et al., 2012), or perhaps as a result of feeling that one does not have enough time to practice, as may have been the case by assigning a daily practice as homework to the students in the MBI.   Schonert-Reichl and colleagues (2015) found similarly ambiguous findings regarding measures of physiological stress via diurnal cortisol patterns. Although there were no significant differences in cortisol patterns between MindUP and control students at pre-test, MindUP students demonstrated significantly higher morning cortisol scores at post-test than control students. Having elevated cortisol levels in the morning has been associated with patterns of increased stress in children, although more recent studies have challenged this interpretation (Gunnar & Vazquez, 2001). On the other hand, MindUP students maintained a healthy diurnal cortisol pattern throughout the day (higher levels in the morning with a downward cascade throughout the rest of the day) from pre-test to post-test whereas control children showed significantly lower levels of morning cortisol and a flatter daytime diurnal rhythm. This blunted pattern is theorized to be an indicator of neuroendocrine dysregulation and allostatic load, and has been observed in other populations experiencing chronic stress, such as teachers experiencing burnout (see Gunnar & Vazquez, 2001). Thus, another interpretation of the findings is that control students actually exhibited maladaptive stress responses in the face of chronic stress at post-test. Because little is known about healthy cortisol patterns in children and adolescents and their ! 34!responses to temporary and chronic stress, few conclusions can be drawn from this biological measure alone. Qualitative findings could help illuminate and disentangle these results. Academic Learning, School Engagement, and Classroom Climate  Only four studies reported on findings related to classroom climate, school engagement, and academic performance. Black and Fernando (2014) found that teachers reports of their students’ willingness to participate in school activities increased significantly after participating in a school-based MBI, and that students demonstrated significantly more care and respect for their classmates. An RCT study conducted in the Netherlands had similar findings: In classes that participated in an MBI, teachers rated their students significantly higher on aspects of class climate, including student respect, friendship, and belonging, than teachers of control classrooms (van de Weijer-Bergsma et al., 2014).  Schonert-Reichl and colleagues conducted two separate studies that examined how earlier iterations of MindUP affected school-related outcomes. Schonert-Reichl and Lawlor (2010) found no significant effects on student-reported academic self-concept compared to control students after participating in a 10-week version of MindUP. However, in a later RCT conducted on a 12-week version of MindUP, they found a significant increase in the MindUP group compared to controls on the same measure of student academic self-concept (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015). As a measure of academic achievement, Schonert-Reichl and colleagues (2015) also looked at students’ year-end math scores and found that the MindUP students’ math grades were, on average, 15% higher than those in the control group after participating in MindUP.   There are some limitations to evaluating the school-related results of these studies, however. Because there was no control group in the Black and Fernando (2014) study, we cannot be sure whether change was a result of participating in the MBI. In the same vein, because MindUP is a mindfulness-based SEL program, it is not clear whether increases in school self-concept and math grades were related to mindfulness practices or the SEL components of the program, especially because ! 35!participating in SEL programs has been linked to significant academic gains (Durlak et al., 2011). Furthermore, teachers in the two studies that included teacher-ratings were not blind to condition, and teachers implemented some program components, likely introducing bias into their student-ratings. Nonetheless, it can be argued that a positive shift in teachers’ perceptions of their students and class climate may be a benefit in itself. All in all, whether mindfulness education programs can positively impact school-related outcomes remains to be seen. Self-Representation  The MLERN framework posited that mindfulness practices can change the way people perceive and conceive of “self” and “other” with consistent practice (i.e., self-representation). This hypothesis is a difficult one to explore using quantitative measures. Even so, two of the reviewed studies included measures related to self-representation: self-worth and self-concept. White (2012) included the Global Self-Worth subscale of Harter’s (1985) Self-Perception Profile for Children in her study. Both control and MBI groups showed significant gains in self-worth over the eight weeks, but there was no significant difference between the two groups at post-test. Schonert-Reichl and Lawlor (2010) employed the General Self-concept subscale of the Self-Description Questionnaire (Marsh, 1984) that included items such as: “In general, I like being the way I am;” “I can do things as well as most people;” “Other people think I am a good person;” and “I’m as good as most other people.” They found a significant two-way Group x Age interaction, with grade 4 and 5 students demonstrating significant increases in general self-concept compared to controls, but grade 6 and 7 students exhibiting a significant decrease in general self-concept compared to controls, with the control group reporting a significant increase in self-concept from pre-test to post-test. The authors put forth potential explanations for this finding, including it being the result of increased self-awareness during a time when an increase in self-comparison is a developmental norm. Another suggestion was that students ! 36!may have developed a more realistic view of oneself as a result of the increased self-awareness gained in practice.   Ultimately, whether a decrease in self-concept is maladaptive remains unclear, but it is interesting given that qualitative research with adults (Lomas, Cartwright, Edginton, & Ridge, 2014), Buddhists philosophical texts (Bodhi, 2011), and theoretical frameworks on contemplative practices (MLERN, 2012; Roeser & Peck, 2009; Vago & Silbersweig, 2012) all posit change in self-representation, that is, changes in individual beliefs and values regarding the self. They suggest that mindfulness practitioners move away from detrimental self-narrative that is value-laden and strongly influenced by contextual factors and societal values. Instead, mindfulness practitioners cultivate a valence-free sense of conscious awareness that recognizes the non-duality of “self” and “other,” resulting in the development of compassion towards one’s self and others, and a sense of sympathetic joy and equanimity (Roeser & Peck, 2009; Vago & Silberweig, 2012). Qualitative work could illuminate the influence of contemplative practices on the development of self-representation during early adolescence, and the related constructs of self-concept, self-worth, and self-compassion. Mindful Awareness  Surprisingly, only two studies actually included measures of mindful awareness. This is likely due to a paucity of age-appropriate measures of mindful awareness. There has also been significant debate regarding the validity of self-report measures of mindful awareness in general, because accurately reporting one’s mindful awareness inherently requires a degree of self-awareness (for discussions, see Brown et al., 2011; Grossman, 2011). Britton and colleagues (2014) employed the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale -Revised (CAMS-R; Feldman et al., 2007) designed for adults, which includes items such as “I try to notice my thoughts without judging them;” “I can tolerate emotional pain;” “I am able to pay close attention to one thing for a long period of time;” and “I am able to accept the thoughts and feeling I have.” They found no significant changes in mindful ! 37!awareness scores over time, nor differences between control and MBI groups at post-test. Schonert-Reichl and colleagues (2015) employed the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale adapted for children (MAAS-C; Lawlor, Schonert-Reichl, Gadermann, & Zumbo, 2014), modeled after Brown and Ryan’s (2003) original scale for adults. Like Brown and Ryan’s MAAS, the items are statements reflecting mindlessness, following the argument that most North American individuals are more familiar with mindless states than states of mindfulness (e.g., “I can’t stop thinking about the past or the future; I could be feeling a certain way and not realize it until later ”). Thus, all items are reverse scored, with higher average scores theorized to indicate higher levels of mindful awareness. Students who participated in the MindUP program demonstrated significantly greater increases in mindful awareness scores compared to control students as hypothesized. Discrepancies in findings between the two studies may be related to the different measures employed, especially because the study conducted by Britton and colleagues (2014) employed an instrument designed for and validated with adults. Moving Beyond Outcome Studies – Including Student Voices Although the studies reviewed in the previous section offer preliminary evidence in support of beneficial outcomes that may result from mindfulness education programs, they also inspire important questions that may have serious consequences for early adolescents. Understanding how mindfulness practices may affect development of self-concept and stress regulation during early adolescence is of utmost importance, especially given the current ubiquity of mindfulness education programs being implemented in schools.  Further, there is a tendency in outcome research to treat young people as if they were “passive objects who are acted on by the adult world” (Ben-Arieh, 2007, p. 7). Young people should be seen as valued contributors to the research process (Ben-Arieh, 2005; Hennessy, 1999). Their perceptions of a program can help researchers and educators understand students’ perceived benefits and difficulties, assisting them in the refinement of program content and implementation to better fit students’ needs. It is imperative to understand whether students themselves find mindfulness education ! 38!programs acceptable and useful considering that it is their well-being that is the target of the interventions.  Research on Students’ Perceptions of Mindfulness Education Programs Three of the previously reviewed studies employed post-program participant satisfaction surveys to gauge whether students found the program valuable or not (i.e., program acceptability), each with Likert-scale questions to evaluate enjoyment, engagement with practice, and amount of learning that took place. Huppert and Johnson (2010) remarked that although only 69% of participants reported enjoying the program, 74% reported that they would like to continue with mindfulness practice. Further, 43% of participants thought the program should have been longer. Similarly, students who took part in the Mindfulness in Schools Programme on average rated their enjoyment of the program 7 out of 10 on a Likert-scale question, with their average reports of learning and likelihood of using the techniques learned scoring 6 and 5.9 points respectively. Nonetheless, at a three-month follow up, 80% of participants reported using practices that they had learned in the program at least once. Of these, the most commonly applied practices were noticing where students felt stress in their bodies (60%), mindful walking or eating (52%), and “beditation” to help students fall asleep (44%).  Parker and colleagues (2014) also solicited ratings of student satisfaction of the Master Mind program via a participant satisfaction survey employing 5-point Likert scales. On average, students reported enjoying the program (M = 3.5), and having learned something new from taking part in it (M = 3.6). Students’ most favourite activity was mindful eating (M = 4), the least being the daily of tracking positive emotions (M = 2.4). Students were also asked one open-ended question: “What was the most important thing that you learned from the program?” The authors commented that “students replied they learned the importance of being mindful and how to be mindful in their everyday lives, in particular, stopping to pause and take three breaths” (p. 14). No systematic analysis of open-ended responses was reported. ! 39!To investigate students’ engagement with mindful awareness practices, Britton and colleagues (2014) asked participants to journal their reactions after each daily meditation practice, producing a total of 633 journal entries chronicling students’ experiences with meditation. The researchers conducted a content analysis of responses, coding for instances of engagement versus disengagement with the practice. They reported that 94% of students engaged with the practice on nearly every instance of practice. Six percent reported rejecting the practice at least once, in order to daydream or to disrupt other students.  Thirteen percent of students reported feeling bored at least once, but continued to persevere with the practice despite the boredom.  There were no descriptive details provided of how students felt after practice or their conceptualization of mindful awareness practices, however. Each of these studies provides valuable information about students’ general perceptions of mindfulness education programs, yet they do not provide rich description that illuminates the variation among student experiences, and how students felt in relation to practice.  Recently, there have been a handful of studies conducted with older adolescents with the primary purpose of investigating students’ perceptions and experiences with mindfulness practices. Here, I provide an overview of two studies that were conducted with community, as opposed to targeted, samples because their findings may be most relevant to universal populations found in schools.  To my knowledge, there has been only one published study in which the primary purpose was to investigate adolescents’ subjective experience in a school-based MBI (Wisner, 2014). The mixed-method study included 35 adolescents (46% female) from an alternative school in rural north-eastern USA. Students participated in an eight-week mindfulness education program consisting of sitting meditation practice that increased in length and frequency throughout the program. Upon completion of the program, students took part in a Concept Mapping evaluation in order to elicit their experiences with the program. First, they took part in a brainstorming session in which they were given the focus prompt, “Since we have begun practicing meditation, changes that I have noticed include…” Students generated spoken statements together in a focus group, followed by the opportunity to write ! 40!confidential written statements afterwards. In the next stage, each participant was given a set of the 111 statements generated in the focus session to sort into clusters of themes. Then, students rated the importance of each cluster on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = not important, 4 = very important).  The authors turned the students’ cluster ratings into a cluster-rating map using statistical software, which indicated which clusters held most importance for students on average. Students were then presented with the results of the maps to discuss. Some of the perceived benefits students reported in the cluster mapping process were that participating in the mindfulness education program helped them manage stress better; enhanced their self-awareness; increased daily feelings of calm and relaxation; improved student focus, engagement, and general school climate; and improved social relations with family, teachers, and other students. There was only one statement that reported challenges with meditation that, interestingly, was assigned one of the lowest ratings of importance by students: “Some people have become angry from meditation” (Wisner, 2014, p. 633). Further, although the overwhelming majority of students expressed acceptability and enthusiasm for the program, there were a few students who reported that they did not learn anything from the program. Although this study offers some support for the MLERN framework, it also highlights the need to address challenges and potentially negative outcomes that arise from meditation that generally have not been addressed in research on contemplative education programs. A smaller study conducted with older adolescents (ages 16 -24) in a university setting examined 11 participants’ in-depth experiences with a six-week MBI via focus groups, open-ended interviews at eight time points, and weekly written reflections over three months. Using thematic analysis of data informed by grounded theory, Monshat and colleagues (2012) created an explanatory model to capture participants’ described experiences, which included three phases of practice. Phase One included feelings of psychological distress and reactivity. Participants reported experiencing emotional distress, and a sense of “overreacting” to emotional stimuli when they were first introduced to mindfulness practices. One participant remarked that when first introduced to practice, there was a “self-doubting, ! 41!self questioning voice.” The participant observed, “You’re always saying to yourself, Am I doing the right thing? Or I’d put myself in someone else’s shoes and I’d think if I was looking at myself I’d think I was lazy and it’s a kind of self-hate cycle and you get that anxiety as well” (p. 575).  Monshat and colleagues described Phase Two as “gaining stability.”  Participants began to experience a sense of calm, relaxation, and letting go as they practiced. They began to dis-identify from emotions and self-doubt decreased. This calmer state of mind became associated with “conscious control,” described by one participant as “not controlling [emotions] but being aware of them and then dealing with them” (p. 576). Phase Three in the explanatory model was labeled “insight and application” in which participants experienced a clarity of mind, self-awareness, and self-understanding. One participant described mindfulness practice as “a way to look into yourself” and “get a sense of who you are” allowing an “understanding how you work and what freaks you out and how to avoid that or remedy it” (p. 576). Participants remarked a new-found awareness of the ever-changing nature of their bodies, thoughts, and emotions. One participant distinguished this new self-understanding from self-centeredness because it was “about acknowledging how you’re feeling. And I think that’s a big deal for me because I don’t really listen to myself. So I’m able to think about myself a lot more without being overly selfish and self-indulgent” (p. 576). Participants related this new awareness with a sense of competence and confidence that helped them see situations more clearly and make better decisions.   These two studies illustrate the depth of understanding that can be gained by soliciting students’ perceptions of mindfulness practices in their own words. The present study extends previous research by conducting an in-depth exploration of the impressions and experiences of a universal, school-based MBI among fourth- to seventh-grade students via a written participant satisfaction survey that not only included closed-ended questions, but also included open-ended questions in which students could expand upon their answers to the closed-ended questions in their own words. The aim of examining their responses was to answer the following questions: (1) What were students’ evaluations of the ! 42!program? Specifically, what aspects did they like and/or dislike, and why would they recommend the program to a friend or not? (2) What skills and concepts did students report learning in the MindUP program? (3) How did students extend what they learned beyond the program?   A secondary question was whether variation in responses to the research questions was related to gender and/or grade. Research on some of the components included in the program has identified variation related to gender that may influence students’ impressions of the program. For example, a review of gender differences in child and adolescent social behaviour reported that, on average, girls tended to value prosocial goals more than boys, who tended to value agentic and status-oriented goals, and maintaining control in social situations (Rose & Rudolph, 2006). Several studies on adults have demonstrated that women tend to report greater experiences of happiness and pleasant emotions linked to well-being (see Nolen-Hoeksema & Rusting, 1999). Additionally, in a series of studies on gender and gratitude conducted with adults, women found exercises of expressing gratitude more interesting and exciting, and experienced more positive affect as a result of practicing gratitude, whereas men were more critical of gratitude practices and reported fewer benefits as a result of practice (Kashdan, Mishra, Breen, & Froh, 2009). There is a paucity of research that examines whether experiences with mindfulness practices varies by gender, although a handful of studies have indicated that there may be gender variation in both acceptability and outcomes of MBIs. In an RCT on a school-based MBI conducted with grade 4 and 5 students, teachers reported that the girls in their class showed significantly fewer symptoms of anxiety, whereas boys showed significantly more self-control compared to the control group (Parker et al., 2014). Similarly, a review of studies on gender differences in adults who participated in MBIs for substance abuse reported that women were more likely to participate in MBIs and reported greater benefits (Katz & Toner, 2012). Taken together, these studies provide a rationale for examining potential gender effects on students’ evaluations of and experiences with the MindUP program. ! 43! Due to the rapid developmental and social change that takes place during pre- and early adolescence, it is possible that younger students may experience and value program components differently than older students. Indeed, following the previous study on MindUP, in which statistically significant differences in self-concept were observed among preadolescents (grade 4 and 5 students) and early adolescents (grade 6 and 7 students; Schonert-Reichl & Lawlor, 2010), a similar distinction is made here by examining potential variation between grade groups (grade 4 and 5 students versus grade 6 and 7 students) and interaction of grade group with gender. A description of the MindUP program employed in the present study, as well as the participants, the survey, and the study results are presented in the next chapter.   ! 44!CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY !! This chapter is divided into several sections to outline the methodology employed in this study. I begin by proving a reflection on my position as a researcher in order to identify how my background and assumptions may have influenced the analysis. This is followed by a description of the context in which the study was conducted, a summary of the data set and participant demographics, and an overview of the data collection procedure. Next, the components of the MindUP program are illustrated, followed by the construction and contents of the participant satisfaction survey. The chapter ends with a summary of the results. Researcher Reflexivity !  An important aspect of the research process, especially in qualitative research, is a careful and intentional examination of how the researcher’s background and belief system may bias the research process (Patton, 2002). Thus, a short summary of my background and predispositions towards the topic at hand is helpful to remain cognizant of how they could potentially influence my findings.  Before becoming a yoga teacher, I was a classroom teacher, teaching English as an Additional Language to early adolescents. It was in this classroom context that I first began to introduce contemplative practice to young people, in particular mindful breathing and mindful movement. At the time, I had previously taken a 28-hour training in introducing yoga and meditation to children, but was not a registered yoga teacher. I had, however, been practicing yoga and meditation regularly for five years.   The majority of students was very enthusiastic about the practices, and often asked to take breaks to practice throughout the day. There were some, however, who were less enthusiastic, so taking part was always optional. More often than not, students would join in over time. I noticed that if students were brimming with energy, after practicing mindful breathing they were calmer, more focused, and ready to concentrate on the learning task at hand. If students were lethargic, practicing ! 45!mindful movement helped reinvigorate them. I also noted that after practice, their moods were generally positive, but not overly excited. Contemplative practices seemed particularly welcome to those whose language skills were not as proficient as others, which often left them feeling tired and frustrated later in the day. The practices seemed to offer a respite from focused academic activity. Because they were not language based, contemplative practices were activities in which everyone could participate together as a group regardless of their language proficiency.  What surprised me most, however, is that students’ social behaviour began to shift. They began to be more patient, kind, and understanding to one another, and more willing to work together with students from other cultural backgrounds. Moreover, I noticed that I was less exhausted and frustrated by mid-day once we began to include contemplative practices into our classroom. After practice, I was able to be more attentive, less reactive when challenges inevitably arose in the classroom. I was less attached to “getting through” lessons and “getting things done,” and more open to taking our time on something when students were engaged. I gave students more time to think after asking questions encouraging, rather than being afraid of, silence. I asked more questions about students’ opinions on issues with genuine curiosity, and I listened more carefully to what they had to say. In short, after introducing contemplative practices, the classroom climate was much more pleasant, and I felt that my relationships with my students were more authentic. I found much more enjoyment in my work and was less tired and stressed at the end of the day. This profound shift led me to become a certified yoga teacher, and eventually I transitioned into teaching yoga full time.  Currently, I am a Registered Children’s Yoga Teacher with the Yoga Alliance and have been sharing contemplative practices with early adolescents over the last nine years. These include practices also found in the MindUP program such as mindful breathing, mindful listening, mindful seeing, mindful tasting, and mindful movement. I have taught classes in several settings including schools, hospitals, community centers, and yoga studios. I have taught an array of ages, preschoolers to older adults, but much of my work has been with early adolescents. I also direct a Kids’ Yoga Teacher ! 46!Training in which I guide people in strategies on how to share contemplative practices with children and adolescents. It is this work that inspired me to return to university with several questions in mind.   Given my background as a contemplative educator, I have used this lens throughout the paper to interpret the MindUP program and the findings here. Although MindUP consists of four pillars, mindfulness, SEL, neuroscience, and positive psychology (see section below entitled, The Intervention: The MindUP Program), from my experience, all of these program aspects actually fall within the broader definition of mindfulness because lessons grounded in each pillar are linked to the topic of mindfulness. Thus, the present study has focused on neuroscience, positive psychology, and SEL in relation to mindfulness, rather than how mindfulness relates to neuroscience, positive psychology, or SEL.   As a result of my academic and profession interests, I may be predisposed to a positive bias when analyzing data, something I have kept in mind during throughout the process. I am also, however, skeptical of whether mindfulness practices have universal benefits to all students, especially when introduced by classroom teachers who do not have their own personal practice and have little training in introducing mindfulness practices to early adolescents. Additionally, I am not convinced that introspective mindfulness practice, in which students are left unguided for minutes at a time to explore their thoughts and feelings, is developmentally appropriate at a time when one’s sense of self is rapidly developing. In fact, I introduce this practice with caution during this developmental period, and only after students have developed baseline skills and dispositions of concentration, non-judgment, compassion, patience, and perseverance in other more externally-focused practices.  I do so with careful observation, watching for signs of boredom or distress, and provide guidance to students on how to address the challenges that inevitably arise with practice. Older adolescents have reported this practice (i.e., sitting meditation) particularly challenging in several research studies (e.g., Monshat et al., 2012). I am not sure whether this finding also holds for early adolescents who are undergoing rapid development in many of the areas that have been linked to contemplative practice (i.e., neurocognitive, ! 47!social, emotional, and physiological change). Conversely, because of this rapid change in development, it could be an opportune time to introduce the practice.   In short, despite my tendency to view contemplative practices in a positive light, I do have some reservations about which practices may be developmentally appropriate and a bias towards believing the teachers should have their own personal mindfulness practice and would also benefit from some training in teaching the practices before teaching their students mindfulness practices. I have a genuine curiosity to know what early adolescents have to say about their experience with the MindUP program, positive or negative, rather than simply looking for confirmation of my own biases.  Study Context   According to the Vancouver School Board’s Web site (, the Vancouver School District (VSD) has one of the most diverse populations among Canadian public school districts (see Table 3.1 for a description of demographics). The neighbourhoods it serves represent a wide range of socio-economic statuses, from impoverished to affluent. The multicultural population of students consists of speakers of 126 different languages. Self-identified Aboriginal students come from 600 different bands and nations. Special education populations make up 7% of the total Kindergarten to grade 12 population. The VSD reports that its goal is “to serve the needs and tap the potential of each of our students so that they may achieve their unique potential” ( Their mission is “to enable students to reach their intellectual, social, aesthetic and physical potential in challenging and stimulating settings which reflect the worth of each individual and promote mutual respect, cooperation, and social responsibility” ( In support of this mission, the VSD has been implementing the MindUP program in elementary and middle schools since 2005. Currently, more than 1000 educators in the VSD have been trained in MindUP. The program is being offered in classrooms across the district, and in some cases, school-wide.   ! 48!Table 3.1    Vancouver School District Demographics  !Vancouver!School!District!Demographics!!Elementary*schools* 92*Elementary*students* 29,*000*Self7identified*Aboriginal*students* 2000*(K712)*Students*who*speak*a*language*other*than*(or*in*addition*to)*English*at*home* 60%*(K712)*Designated*English*Language*Learners*(ELL)* 25%*(K*712)*Special*education*learners* 7%*(K712)*Students*who*participate*in*a*school*meal*program* 16%*(K712)*!Note:*Unless*percentages*are*provided,*numbers*indicate*the*number*of*students*for*each*description.** Research Guidelines for Vancouver School Board  The present study was approved by the Vancouver School Board (VSB) ethics committee. The VSB accepts research proposals from teachers, university faculty members, and graduate students, requiring that the proposal receive approval by the VSB Research Committee, as well as the Ethics Board of any university affiliated with the study. In order to receive approval from the VSB research committee, the applicant must demonstrate that the time demands on students, teachers, and principals is not burdensome, and that the research has the potential to contribute to staff and student education well-being. Topics that are considered to be an invasion of teacher, parent, or student privacy are not permitted.   Researchers must approach each school individually and receive principal consent before approaching teachers and students with the study. Teachers must self-select whether they choose to participate or not, and students must have consent from their parent or guardian to participate. In order to be fair to teachers, schools prefer that teachers have the opportunity to participate on a “first come, first serve” basis.  Thus, all research conducted in the VSD will involve aspects of self-selection. The ! 49!VSB prefers that studies take place at a classroom level, rather than randomizing children within a classroom, which can be disruptive to the class and teacher. Consequently, individual data collected in the VSD is often “nested” in classrooms, making it challenging to obtain truly independent observations.  Method Data Set  A secondary data set was used for the current study. The data were collected via a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of two contemplative education programs: MindUP, a universal classroom-based intervention that integrates mindfulness practices into an SEL program; and Stress Management And Relaxation Training (SMART)-in-Education, a mindfulness-based stress reduction program designed specifically for teachers (see Figure 3.1). The study, conducted by Kimberly Schonert-Reichl and her research team over the 2011-2012 school year, took place in 16 public elementary schools throughout the VSD. Teachers were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: (1) teachers who received training to implement MindUP; (2) teachers who participated in the eight-week SMART-in-Education program and received training to implement MindUP; (3) teachers who participated in SMART-in-Education, but did not receive MindUP training; and 4) a control group. Data were collected at three time points over the course of one school year. Only those students in classrooms who received the MindUP program (N = 8 classrooms) completed the participant satisfaction survey regarding the program, and thus, are included in the present study.  ! 50! Figure!3.1.*Conditions*for*the*randomized*controlled*trial*on*MindUP.*A*secondary*data*set*from*a*larger*randomized*controlled*trial*(RCT)*was*used*in*the*present*study.*Only*students*from*the*classrooms*that*received*the*MindUP*program*are*included*in*the*present*study.*These*classrooms*came*from*two*conditions:*Teachers*who*received*an*87week*mindfulness7based*SEL*program,*SMART7in7Education,*for*themselves*prior*to*implementing*MindUP,*and*those*that*did*not.* Participants Ninety-one percent of students approached to participate in the RCT received parental consent to participate in the study and gave assent themselves. A total number of 200 students were randomized to the MindUP group. Over the duration of the study, however, six students moved away before post-test. In addition, two students were absent during post-test data collection so they did not complete the participant satisfaction survey and one student chose not to fill out the survey. Two additional participants were omitted from data analysis due to insufficient language proficiency; their responses to the open-ended questions indicated that they did not understand the survey questions. Thus, data collected from 189 students were included in the final analysis.  Students attended urban schools throughout different neighbourhoods in Vancouver, coming from a diverse range of socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds reflective of the Vancouver School District demographics as well as the larger city of Vancouver (Statistics Canada, 2011). Diversity in culture can be inferred from the 22 different languages students reported speaking at home (see Table 3.2). The range of socioeconomic status (SES) can be inferred by the diverse neighbourhoods in which RCT!SMART!+!MindUP!3!Classes!MindUP!5!Classes!SMART! CONTROL!! 51!schools were situated ranging from low SES to high SES according to the Vancouver Area Neighbourhood Deprivation Index (Bell & Hayes, 2012). Family composition of students varied little, with 97% reported living with two parents/guardians (e.g., mother & father, mother & stepfather, mother & mother), and 3% reported living with a single parent/guardian. ! 52!Table 3.2  A Summary of Participant Demographics   MindUP!Student!Demographics!!Total*Number*of*Participants* * 189*Gender** * ** Girls* 99*(52%)** Boys* 90*(48%)*Grade* * ** Grade*4* 22*(12%)** Grade*5* 31*(16%)** Grade*6* 88*(47%)** Grade*7* 48*(25%)*First*Language(s)*Learned* * ** English* 133*(70%)** Cantonese,*Mandarin,*or*Taiwanese* 76*(40%)** Austronesian*Languages*(Tagalog,*Kapampangan)** 15*(8%)** Other*Asian*Languages*(Korean,*Vietnamese,*Japanese,*Burmese)** 13*(7*%)** European*Languages*(French,*Russian,*Polish,*Ukrainian,*Greek,*German,*Swedish)** 11*(6%)** Punjabi*or*Hindi* 10*(5%)** Bantu*Languages*(Swahili,*Kirundi)* 2*(1%)** Persian* 1*(<*1%)*Language*Proficiency* * ** Easy*or*Very*Easy*to*Read*English* 179*(95%)** Hard*or*Very*Hard*to*Read*English* 10*(5%)*Family*Composition* * ** Two*Caregivers*at*Home* 183*(97%)** Single*Caregiver*at*Home* 6*(3%)** * *Took*Part*in*a*Mindfulness*Activity*Before*the*Program* * ** Yes* 61*(32%)** No* 63*(33%)** I*don’t*know* 61*(32%)*!Note.!37%!of!students!learned!more!than!one!first!language!at!home.!The!array!of!languages!spoken!at!home!indicates!the!cultural!diversity!of!the!population. !! 53!Procedure  Following ethics approval by the university and the school board, school principals were contacted to request their participation in this study. Once schools and teachers were recruited, the Principal Investigator or her research assistants visited the schools and described the study to the students in age-appropriate language, provided parental/guardian consent forms, and answered any questions the students had. Students were told that their class would receive a pizza party after bringing back all of the permission slips, regardless of whether they chose to participate or not. The researchers emphasized that the pizza party was not contingent on participation, and that choosing to participate was completely up to students and their caregivers. Teacher consent, parent/guardian consent, and student assent were obtained from all participants (see Appendices A & B for consent forms). At the time of data collection, participants were reminded that participation in the study was voluntary, they could withdraw from the study at any time, and all responses and identities would be kept confidential, with schools and students remaining unidentified in the reporting of the results. Demographic information was collected at pre-test in October and participant satisfaction surveys were completed after the outcome evaluations at post-test in May/June, which took approximately five to ten minutes to complete. Research assistants read the survey aloud to the students, were present to answer any questions regarding the survey, and made sure students did not communicate with one another during the survey.  The Intervention: The MindUP Program The MindUP program is a school-based universal preventive intervention grounded in research and theory in four key areas: developmental contemplative science and mindfulness training (e.g., Brown & Ryan, 2003; MLERN, 2012; Roeser & Zelazo, 2012), developmental neuroscience (e.g., Diamond & Lee, 2011), social and emotional learning (e.g., Greenberg et al., 2003), and positive psychology (e.g., Boehm & Lyubomirsky, 2009). MindUP was designed to promote psychological ! 54!well-being, self-regulation via improved EF and mindful awareness, social and emotional awareness, and academic success. Some of the key components of the program include: (1) universal participation of all class members; (2) encouraging an atmosphere of an “optimistic classroom” that emphasizes mindful awareness of one’s self and others, embracing differences among classmates, and personal growth; (3) a 15-lesson manualized curriculum that is evidence-based, classroom tested, and meets several prescribed learning outcomes; and (4) extension of the concepts and skills learned in the program to other areas of the classroom curriculum and to daily life outside of the classroom. In each lesson, students are introduced to key concepts and offered the opportunity to practice skills related to the concepts. Each of the 15 lessons are linked to research on neuroscience with the goal of helping students develop a sophisticated understanding of how the nervous system operates and the role it plays in emotions, behavior, decision making, and learning. For example, students learn about the limbic system, and the role the amygdala play in the “flight, fight, or freeze” response.   The 15 lessons are divided into four main units (see Table 3.3). The first unit, entitled “Getting Focused,” introduces students to the concept of mindful awareness, “attending to the here and now - other people, the environment, a concern or challenge - in a considerate, nonjudgmental way” (The Hawn Foundation, 2011, p. 34).  Students are also introduced to the Core Practice, a self-regulatory routine that is practiced three times a day for up to three minutes per practice throughout the duration of the program. The Core Practice is a mindfulness practice whereby participants focus their attention on the sound of a resonant chime, followed by observing their own breathing patterns. Participants are guided to recognize when their attention has been drawn away from the object of their focus and to return their focus to the chime or their breath without judging or evaluating their performance on the task. Previous research on programs that include this practice has demonstrated improvements in EF, increased feelings of relaxation, decreased psychological distress, and better self- and emotion regulation skills (see Chapter 2).  ! 55!Unit two, “Sharpening Your Senses,” introduces students to the practice of mindful sensing in which students concentrate on one of their senses in order to practice focused, present-centered awareness. Lessons include mindful listening, mindful seeing, mindful smelling, mindful tasting, and mindful movement. For example, in the mindful tasting, students are guided to pay conscious attention when eating something, such as a piece of fruit. They are encouraged to carefully look at it; smell it; notice how it feels in one’s mouth before biting down; slowly chew it, noticing how the taste changes; and observe how they feel afterward. By practicing mindful eating without judging whether they like or dislike the food, students may be more likely to try new food and become more open to exploring food from a variety of cultures. Taking the time to look and smell the food, while resisting the urge to quickly gobble down the food may build self-control, which predicts myriad positive outcomes in late adolescence and adulthood including better social skills, proficient stress-coping skills, higher self-worth, better planning skills (Mischel, Shoda, & Peake, 1988), better physical health and personal finances (Moffit et al., 2011), and lower body mass index (Schlam, Wilson, Shoda, Mischel, & Ayduk, 2013).      Unit three, “It’s All about Attitude,” aims to foster a positive mindset in students with the goal of preparing the mind for learning, building positive relationships, and consciously choosing prosocial actions. Students learn about and practice perspective-taking, optimism, and savoring happy experiences. Through discussing literature, students learn to take the perspectives of others and consider the consequences of their own actions. Building on the perspective-taking lesson, students learn about optimistic and pessimistic perspectives. Inspired by the research conducted on optimism by Seligman (2002), students learn to recognize optimistic and pessimistic thinking and to notice how their perspective might affect their actions and emotions. One example provided is different ways to look at a rainy weather on the day of a planned picnic. One might conclude that the picnic has to be called off, or by applying an optimistic perspective, one might come up with a new plan: Let’s have the picnic inside instead. After learning about optimism, students then brainstorm ways they can “think ! 56!happy” to post on a list in the classroom as a reminder to practice optimism. In their overview on positive psychology, Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) cite research that demonstrates fostering optimism can prevent depression and increase health among people diagnosed with illness.  Another practice offered in this unit that aims to promote well-being and positive emotions is “Appreciating Happy Experiences.” Students learn to create a “happy movie” in their minds that draws from past experiences that initiate present feelings of happiness. They mindfully focus on the small details of the memory, and then notice any thoughts that arise and how their body is feeling afterward.  This exercise is inspired by research that has shown savouring happy experiences induces positive affect and has been found to be enjoyable by adult participants (Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2006). The last unit, “Taking Action Mindfully,” aims to boost student prosocial behaviour by offering opportunities to practice gratitude, perform random acts of kindness, and collaboratively plan as a class a social action project to benefit their larger community or the world. Students are encouraged to reflect on how they feel before, during, and after each action. Research with both adults and children on practicing gratitude has shown modest, yet positive effects on their self-reported happiness and immediate mood (e.g., Froh, Sefick, & Emmons, 2008; Seligman et al., 2005). Performing actions to benefit others has also been associated with positive outcomes in research with adolescents, including increased positive affect and academic engagement (Ouweneel et al., 2013).   ! 57!Table 3.3. MindUP Units and Weekly Lessons  *MindUP!Program!Components!*Unit! Lessons! Week!1.*Getting*Focused* * ** How*Our*Brains*Work* 1** Mindful*Awareness* 2** Focused*Awareness:*The*Core*Practice* 3*2.*Sharpening*Your*Senses* * ** Mindful*Listening* 4** Mindful*Seeing* 5** Mindful*Smelling* 6** Mindful*Tasting* 7** Mindful*Movement*1* 8** Mindful*Movement*2* 9*3.*All*About*Attitude* * ** Perspective*Taking* 10** Choosing*Optimism* 11** Appreciating*Happy*Experiences* 12*4.*Taking*Action*Mindfully* * ** Expressing*Gratitude* 13** Performing*Acts*of*Kindness* 14** Taking*Mindful*Action*into*the*World* 15* Note. After the Core Practice (mindfully listening to a chime followed by mindful breathing for 3 minutes) is introduced in Week 3, it is suggested in the curriculum to be implemented 3 times a day, everyday thereafter.  Program Training and Implementation The program was implemented by students’ regular classroom teachers who received a one-day training session in the program by one of the authors of the curriculum. Additionally, teachers received a curriculum manual that delineated the theory and research underlying the program and provided detailed instructions and teaching scripts for each of the 15 lessons. Additional resources were provided for teachers to extend the lesson topics into other areas of classroom curriculum and connect the concepts to life outside of the classroom. Lesson implementation was monitored via weekly implementation calendars completed by teachers.  ! 58! Measures Participant Satisfaction Survey Demographic Questionnaire. Students were asked to fill out a short demographics questionnaire, providing basic information indicating their gender, birth date, grade, language(s) spoken at home, family composition, English proficiency, and whether they had participated in an MBI previously (see Appendix C). Program Satisfaction. The two-page participant satisfaction survey designed by the research team included 23 items (see Appendix C for full survey). To guide survey development, the research team consulted empirical literature on program evaluation and reviewed several measures used in previous studies to assess participant satisfaction in SEL programs (e.g., Roots of Empathy, Second Step).  The purpose of the survey was to investigate participants’ self-reported learning regarding specific program components; students’ evaluations of the program, including specific components participants liked or disliked and whether they would recommend the program to a friend; and the potential extension of skills learned into other aspects of students lives beyond the program. The survey included both closed-ended and open-ended questions with three types of response formats: dichotomous yes/no questions, multiple choice Likert-scale type questions, and open-ended questions in which participants were invited to explain and expand upon their answers to the closed-ended questions in their own words. The rationale for including the three different response formats was to ensure that student responses reliably reflected their opinions and were not affected by artifacts related to response formats, which may vary with cognitive abilities and reading comprehension levels (Marsh, 1986).  Mellor and Moore (2014) have suggested that yes/no questions are the “gold standard” response format for reliability in surveys designed for children and early adolescents because they are the least ! 59!likely to be ambiguous, and do not require participants to respond in degrees. Although responses to yes/no questions may most reliably reflect participants’ attitudes and judgments, they do not provide information regarding the degree of one’s response or why a participant responded in a particular way. Thus, in order to obtain more descriptive information, the survey included Likert-scale questions, in which students were specifically asked to describe their impressions of particular program components in degree. For example, one section asked participants to circle the response that best described how they felt about statements regarding the program. Students responded to positively-worded declarative statements, such as “The MindUP program helped me learn about my brain,” and “Since the MindUP program I try to help others more often” using a 4-point scale (1 = not at all true, 2 = a little bit true, 3 = true most of the time, 4 = true all of the time). All of the multiple-choice responses included Likert-scales consisting of four or five response options.  Including fewer than four response options has been shown to decrease reliability and validity of results (Lozano, Garcia-Cueto, & Muniz, 2008), whereas including more than five scale points appear to minimally impact reliability in adult populations (Lissitz & Green, 1975). There has been some evidence to show that early adolescents can provide reliable answers using all responses on a 5-point scale when appropriate on manipulated tasks that required mid-scale or extreme answers (Chambers & Johnston, 2002). In a recent study, however, Mellor and Moore (2014) demonstrated that some response-format options on 5-point scales elicit higher error rates in early adolescents when compared to dichotomous yes/no scales. For example, 5-point scales that included options from “never” to “regularly” were strongly correlated to yes/no responses (73%) whereas options with responses “not like me at all” to “very much like me” were not (37%; Mellor & Moore, 2014). Thus, having other response options in addition to the Likert-scale question allows researchers to better assess the validity and reliability of early adolescents’ self-report responses.  Open-ended questions, in which participants were invited to explain or expand upon their response to closed-ended items, may be considered less leading than forced-choice formats. They also ! 60!offer participants the opportunity to share opinions that may not be included in forced-choice formats. However, answering open-ended questions on a written survey requires more proficient language skills than forced-choice questions. Given the range of ages and language proficiency, as well as the intention of the researchers to elicit information about specific program components, creating a survey that consisted solely of open-ended questions was not appropriate.  Using all three response formats allowed researchers to ask similar questions in slightly different ways to elicit more nuanced information about students’ experiences. For example, to investigate students’ evaluations of the program, they were asked, “How much did you like the MindUP program?” and were provided with a 5-point response format from “I did not like it at all” to “I liked it a lot.” Additionally they were asked the open-ended question, “What did you like best about the MindUP program?” A dichotomous question was used to address unacceptable program components: “Was there anything that you did not like?” Yes/No, followed by the open-ended prompt, “please explain.” It should be noted that the question regarding what participants disliked was the only negatively-worded question on the survey (i.e., a question where students had to employ double negative logic to indicate a positive response). The research team intentionally avoided negatively-worded questions. Whereas it has been argued by test construction specialists that negative items should be employed in self-report instruments to express attitude in order to “disrupt response sets,” this principle does not seem to hold true for self-report instruments designed for early adolescents (Marsh, 1986). Studies conducted with early adolescents have found that including negatively-worded questions on surveys may actually bias results because students of this age find it difficult to indicate agreement through disagreement (Benson & Hocevar, 1985). In fact, Benson and Hocevar (1985) found responses to both positively- and negatively- worded forced-response questions on self-report surveys were affected by the phrasing of the question and not the item content. Nevertheless, having both a positively- and a negatively-worded item regarding program satisfaction was important to ! 61!specifically understand potential negative aspects of the program. By following the forced-choice question with an open-ended response, it was possible to understand whether participants correctly interpreted the meaning of the question while gaining important information about positive and negative impressions of the program.   The research team piloted the survey in a previous study with 50 students of a similar demographic before employing it in the current study. They evaluated students’ comprehension by noting any questions that came up during administration, and looking for missing or inconsistent data. They concluded that the survey was suitable for early adolescents and provided the information they sought to investigate. Coding of Open-Ended Responses  The data from each individual open-ended question were analyzed separately, via a six-step thematic analysis that can be applied to any theoretical framework: (1) becoming familiar with the data set by reading and re-reading it to note initial ideas; (2) systematically generating initial codes across the data set and collating data relevant to each code; (3) collating codes into potential themes; (4) checking to see if themes describe the sample of the data set accurately, and once they do, applying them to the entire data set; (5) refining and defining specific themes, generating clear definitions for each theme; and (6) selecting compelling examples relevant to research questions and literature in the field for final analysis and scholarly report (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Braun and Clarke (2006) defined a theme as “something important about the data in relation to the research question, and represents some level of patterned response or meaning in the data set” (p. 82).   In addition to myself, another rater independently coded the data to obtain both inter-rater reliability and multiple perspectives on the data set. The goal was to provide rich description of the entire data set to illuminate prominent and important themes as opposed to a detailed, nuanced approach, given that early adolescents’ perceptions on the topic of mindfulness are relatively unknown ! 62!(see Braun & Clarke, 2006) and the survey data was not rich enough for a detailed analysis. Data were first entered into an Excel sheet and were read to become familiar with the student responses, taking note of any patterns, especially frequently mentioned or striking content, and content related to the MLERN framework for contemplative education and related theories. Development of the codebook was an iterative process that involved several cycles of coding (Saldaña, 2013). First, I conducted a word count of content words (nouns, verbs, adverbs, and adjectives) across all five open-ended questions and printed two sets of words that occurred frequently and/or were potentially related to the MLERN framework and/or the research questions. The raters individually collated these words into potential codes for the first iteration of coding, only differing on two out of 27 initial codes (25/27 = 93% reliability; Miles & Huberman, 1994).   Next, the raters collated the codes into potential themes, collectively operationalizing the thematic codes based on the data and the theoretical model, discussing examples and non-examples of the codes (DeCuir-Gunby et al., 2011). There was only one major discrepancy defining thematic codes after the initial analysis of a sub-sample of data. One rater identified self-regulation and emotion regulation as separate themes based on a theoretical distinctions made in the literature (see Chapter 2). The other rater identified the responses as a singular theme of self-regulation because they fell in line with the iterative reprocessing model of self-regulation (Cunningham & Zelazo, 2010). In this model, it is theorized that neural circuits related to EF have a “top-down” influence on self-regulation. At the same time, top-down influences interact with neural circuitry involved in emotional responses, referred to as “bottom-up” influences. Zelazo and Lyons (2012) suggested that ideal interventions to promote optimal development of self-regulation would exercise top-down processes while regulating bottom-up influences, such as emotional arousal, which may hinder one’s ability to engage top-down control. They have suggested that mindfulness training may be one such intervention because it “disrupts the automatic elicitation of emotional responses, resulting in greater calmness and emotional stability” ! 63!(Zelazo & Lyons, 2012, p. 158). The raters agreed on using the theme self-regulation because student responses fell in line with the iterative processing model.   Another area of challenge arose in the coding of instances of the word “calm,” which, depending on the context, often fell into two themes: self-regulation and well-being. The theme of well-being was defined as mentions of increased pleasant affect, such as happiness, peace, calm, and relaxation; decreased negative affect, such as anger, impatience, and anxiety; and cognitive evaluations of life satisfaction, such as possessing a positive outlook on life and being happy with one’s life (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999). Ultimately, the raters concluded that mentions of using self-regulation skills to achieve an outcome of calm would be coded as self-regulation and well-being. Responses that solely included mentions of feeling calm were coded as well-being.   The raters, then, applied the thematic codes across all five open-ended questions: (1) Describe what you taught; (2) Is there anything else that you learned about in the MindUP program; (3) What did you like best about the MindUP program; (4) Please explain (anything you didn’t like); and (5) Why would you/ wouldn’t you recommend the program to a friend. We used new Excel documents for each round of coding, placing each question and their responses on separate tabs. Each response was coded for as many themes present; thus several responses had multiple codes. For example, in response to the question, “Did you learn anything else?” one respondent wrote, “I learned about how to be optimistic and nicer to people and when something bad happens, I try to calm myself down.” Each of the coders separately analyzed this statement as having four codes: optimism, prosocial behaviour, self-regulation, and well-being.   After this first round of coding, we found that not all of the themes generated from the initial analysis were pertinent to each question, so we refined the codes for each separate question. Over several cycles of coding on subsets of data, the codes evolved into broader themes guided by the theoretical and empirical literature on mindfulness, SEL, positive psychology, and developmental science, as well as frequent and striking items not related to the extant literature. At each stage, the ! 64!raters coded separate subsamples of data for each question, and then reconvened to compare and discuss findings and further clarify or redefine themes as necessary. The process was repeated until a 90% inter-rater reliability was achieved on a subsample of data across all five questions (Hruschka et al., 2004). The codebook was updated six times over the three-month iterative coding process.   In the next step, the raters coded the entire data set independently comparing the results for discrepancies, which we discussed until coming to consensus. Then, to provide a context for the interpretation of student responses, I read the teacher implementation calendars that described what they did in their weekly lessons and adjusted any codes that may have misinterpreted due to lack of context. In the final step, I decided which themes were relevant for the final report, discarding themes that did not contribute to the research questions. For example, I did not include several mentions that students made about the research process, including cortisol collection, participating in EF Tasks, impressions of the survey, or the pizza party, but kept this useful information in mind to inform future research studies.   There were a few responses to the questions “Describe what you taught” (n = 3), “What else did you learn?” (n  = 1) and “Would you recommend the program – why? (n  = 1)” that could not be interpreted, either due to lack of context or the response not corresponding to the question. All other responses were included. After the final cycle of coding, each theme was entered into SPSS as being present (1) or not present (0) for each student. Not all of the open-ended questions were relevant to all participants. For example, for students who did not teach anyone something from the program, the first open-ended question did not apply. Thus, frequency percentages were calculated out of the subsample of students who replied to the question, not the entire sample of 189 students.  Results ! Results are presented in four main sections. Section 1 provides a summary of the data from teacher implementation calendars to provide a context for student responses. Section 2 includes results ! 65!from items pertaining to student evaluations of MindUP. Section 3 reports results from items pertaining to students’ learning. Section 4 outlines the results from items depicting student application of program components to everyday life. Each section includes results from both open-ended and closed-ended questions, applying the appropriate analysis for each. To begin, I provide a general overview of the analysis applied to each type of question: Likert-Scale, dichotomous yes/no, and open-ended.  Analysis of Likert-Scale Questions.  Because student data was nested in classrooms and, in turn, some classroom teachers took part in a mindfulness-based SEL program (SMART-in-Education) prior to the study while others did not, an ideal model of analysis for the Likert-scale questions in this data set would have been a mixed linear model of regression (MLM). To reliably employ MLM, however, a minimum of 10 classrooms per condition would have been necessary (Hoyle & Gottfredson, 2014). Thus, I conducted a series of 2 x 2 (Gender x Grade Group) analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests on each Likert-square item. Two-way ANOVAs are, generally, appropriate for investigating the effects of two independent variables on continuous data, as well as assessing the interaction of the two independent variables on the dependent variable. The nested data, however, violates the independence assumption for ANOVA, thus increasing the likelihood of Type 1 errors (i.e., detecting a statistically significant difference when no true different exists in the population; Gamst, Meyers, Guarino, 2008). Effect sizes, however, are not affected by the violation of the independence assumption in nested data (Slavin, 2008). Thus, as an estimate of effect size, eta square (η2) was calculated by dividing the sum of squares (SS) of the effect by the total sum of squares1 (TSS; Levine & Hullet, 2002). η2  is a correlation that represents the proportion of the variance in the dependent variable (i.e., response to the Likert-scale question) explained by the independent variable (i.e., Gender, Grade Group, or an interaction between Gender and Grade Group) on a scale of 0 to 1. For social science data, the recommended minimum effect size for η2 that indicates practical significance is .04, with .25 and .64 signifying moderate and strong effect sizes, respectively (Ferguson, 2009). !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!Labeled!as!Corrected!Total!Sum!of!Squares!in!SPSS!output!2!Student!comments!appear!exactly!as!written!on!surveys,!with!no!changes!made!to!spelling!or!grammar.!! 66!! Analysis of Yes/No Questions. I conducted a series of chi-square tests of independence for each of the yes/no questions, employing a three-way contingency table in which gender acted as the explanatory variable, the response to the yes/no question acted as the response variable, and grade group as the control variable. Chi-square tests of independence are non-parametric tests appropriate for nominal data with unequal group sizes (McHugh, 2013). Effect size was measured using Cramer’s V. The recommended minimum effect size for Cramer’s V that indicates practical significance in social science research is .20, with .50 and .80 representing moderate and strong effects, respectively (Ferguson, 2009, p. 533).    Analysis of Open-Ended Questions. Results from the thematic analysis of open-ended questions are described in frequencies calculated by dividing the number of mentions of a theme by the number of students who responded to the question (see previous section for an overview of the coding process employed to identify themes). Distribution of themes by gender are illustrated in graphs for each open-ended question. Because of the unequal grade groupings, distribution of themes by grade groups was not meaningful, and thus not presented here. Example responses for each theme are provided in tables for each question that include a description of students’ grade and gender, however.!Program Implementation  MindUP Lessons. Data on teacher implementation was collected via a program implementation calendar completed by teachers. Results are summarized in Table 3.4 to provide a context for the findings from the participant satisfaction surveys. Only two teachers implemented 100% of the 15 program lessons (range 67 – 100%). Whereas all teachers implemented lessons on mindfulness practices and neuroscience, several teachers omitted lessons on SEL and positive psychology. The most commonly omitted lesson was the last lesson in the program: Mindful Action in the Community (n  = 6, 75%). Notably, none of the students in grade 4 or 5 received lessons on Gratitude, and none of the grade 5 students received lessons on Optimism and Acts of Kindness. Nevertheless, these topics spilled over into other MindUP lessons that were implemented. For example, concepts of being kind and ! 67!helping others were included in lessons on mindful awareness. The concept of optimism played a key role in the lesson on appreciating happy experiences, and was also emphasized throughout the program in suggestions for teachers to create an “optimistic classroom.” The primary reason for omitting lessons cited by teachers was lack of time. A few teachers mentioned that they omitted lessons because the topic had already been addressed in the regular classroom curriculum (e.g., perspective taking).  None of the teachers implemented 100% of the Core Practice (mindful listening to the chime followed by mindful breathing; range 20% - 78%). The MindUP curriculum suggests implementing the practice three times a day for three minutes at a time. Again, the most frequently cited reason for missing practice was lack of time. Some teachers mentioned that they thought that doing the Core Practice three times a day was too frequent, observing that their students got bored or frustrated when the Core Practice was implemented that often.   ! 68!Table 3.4  Summary of Teacher Implementation by Class  Grades!by!Classroom! Number!of!Students!in!Class! Number!of!Lessons!Completed!(out!of!15)! Topics!of!Missed!Lessons! Percentage!of!Daily!Core!Practice!Completed!!(out!of!213)!4* 22* 13*(87%)* Gratitude*Mindful*Action*in*Community* 78%*5* 20* 11*(73%)* Gratitude*Optimism*Acts*of*Kindness*Mindful*Action*in*Community*20%*5/6* 28* 10*(67%)* Gratitude*Optimism*Acts*of*Kindness*Mindful*Action*in*Community*25%*6* 23* 15*(100%)* * 61%*6/7* 25* 12*(80%)* Perspective*Taking*Savoring*Mindful*Action*in*Community* 50%*6/7* 24* 13*(87%)* Mindful*Smelling*Mindful*Action*in*Community* 57%*6/7* 20* 14*(93%)* Mindful*Action*in*Community* 64%*6/7* 27* 15*(100%)* * 61%*!Note.*Teachers*reported*the*number*of*times*(up*to*3*daily)*that*the*class*completed*the*Core*Practice.**Table*3.3*!Student Evaluations of MindUP  “It calms you and helps you be conscious of what you're doing, you can learn alot about yourself while doing it.” – Grade 7 girl2.   The primary purpose of this study was to assess student satisfaction with the program, investigating which components they liked and disliked, and whether they would recommend the program to someone else. An additional question was whether there were any systematic differences in students’ impressions of the program related to gender or grade grouping. Thus, I examined responses to the following questions: “How much did you like the MindUP program?”  “What did you like best !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2!Student!comments!appear!exactly!as!written!on!surveys,!with!no!changes!made!to!spelling!or!grammar.!! 69!about the MindUP program?”  “Is there anything you did not like about the MindUP program?” and “Would you recommend the MindUP program to a friend? Why?”  Students’ perceptions of the program, on the whole, were positive with 43% indicating that they “liked it a lot,” 35% “liked it,” and 10% evaluating it as “OK” on the question, “How much did you like the MindUP program?” A 2 x 2  (Gender x Grade Group) ANOVA revealed no differences in satisfaction for grade or gender (see Table 3.5). See Table 3.10 for descriptive statistics for all Likert-scale questions). Table 3.5 Two-Way Analysis of Variance (Gender by Grade Group) on Items Regarding Student Evaluations of MindUP   Item* Source* df! SS! TSS! F! p! η2*How*much*did*you*like*the*MindUP*program?* ** Gender* 1* 2.26* 160.80* 2.65* .11* .01** Grade*Group* 1* 0.61* 160.80* 0.71* .39* .004** Gender*x*Grade*Group* 1* 0.11* 160.80* 0.13* .72* 0*!Note:*No*statistically*significant*gender*or*grade*group*differences*were*observed*in*degree*of*student*enjoyment.*   Students’ Reports of What they Liked about MindUP. Themes from the open-ended question “What did you like best about the MindUP program?” are broken down by gender in Figure 3.2. Because of unequal grade group sizes, breaking down answers into grade grouping was not meaningful for open-ended questions. Table 3.6 provides example responses for each theme. !!! 70!!Figure!3.2.*Bar*chart*illustrating*theme*frequency*counts*broken*down*by*gender*of*student*likes.*!!    Of the 148 students who opted to answer the open-ended question about what they liked about MindUP, the most frequent responses were the mindfulness practices (n = 79, 53%). Specifically mentioned were the mindful sensing activities (n = 55, 37%), mindful eating being the most popular (n = 37, 25%). The Core Practice was also frequently mentioned (n = 293, 13%), especially as a self-regulation technique (n = 8, 5%) to calm down when feeling intense emotions, such as anger, impatience, and hyperactivity. For instance, a grade 7 girl wrote, “I liked the breathing exercises, it helped me calm down in situations and also calm down my Amygdala.” A girl in grade 4 alluded to how the Core Practice helped her focus and memory, commenting that she liked “Mindfulness where I breathed quietly and helped my brain get blood and remember things.” Others (n = 3, 2%) appreciated the opportunity to enjoy silence, citing the Core Practice as a “calming period in some hectic days” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!3!This number is likely to be an underestimate. I only counted explicit mentions of the Core Practice. However, it is possible that other comments that mentioned feelings of calm and self-regulation were also implicitly linked to the Core Practice.  32!12!7!7!6!3!3!2!2!2!4!1!47!15!8!5!3!5!5!6!4!3!2!Mindfulness!Practices!Increased!WellUbeing!Neuroscience!Increased!Awareness!General!Increased!SelfURegulation!Optimism!Other!Prosocial!Activities!Increased!Focus!Gratitude!Quiet/Silence!What%did%you%like%best%about%the%MindUP%program?%%Boys! Girls!! 71!(Grade 7 boy). Other program components that students mentioned enjoying were neuroscience (n = 15, 10%), optimism (n = 8, 5%), and gratitude (n = 3, 2%).   Students frequently mentioned that, in general, participating in the MindUP program led to experiences of well-being (n = 27, 18%), such as a more positive outlook on life and feelings of calm, peace, and relaxation. For example one grade 6 boy reported that MindUP “makes me more positive about myself” while another appreciated “being able to wind down.” A grade 7 boy expressed an overall shift in well-being as a result of participating in the MindUP program: “I thought it has made me a more calm person.”   Other skills that students appreciated gaining from the MindUP program were increased awareness (n = 12, 8%), optimism (n = 8, 5%), prosocial skills (n = 6, 4%), and improved focus and concentration (n = 5, 3%).  For example, a grade 6 boy reported that appreciated his newfound awareness “to understand myself and others.” A grade 4 girl had a similar experience, reporting: “You can learn a lot about yourself.” A grade 6 boy mentioned that he “could focus on school work better” after MindUP. Similarly, a grade 6 girl shared “I could finish and do works efficiently and more happily than before I learned about mindfulness.” Some students reported enjoying being able to help others and learning to be “nice.”  A grade 6 girl shared: “What I liked from the MindUP Program was the way they taught me about thoughtfulness.”    ! 72!Table 3.6  Selected Responses to Illustrate Thematic Analysis of Open-end Question About Student Likes ! !Theme! Selected!Responses!to!Question:!What!did!you!like!best!about!MindUP?! Grade!&!Gender!Mindfulness*Activities**(n*=*79,*53%)* “We*can*have*about*10*minutes*everyday*that*we*can*use*to*calm*down.”*“Mindful*smelling*because*you*have*to*use*memory*to*help*remember*the*smell.”*“I*liked*the*mindfully*breathing.”*“Going*outside,*laying*down*and*listening*to*the*chime.”*Grade*4*Boy*Grade*5*Boy*Grade*5*Girl*Grade*6*Girl*Increased*Wellbeing*(n*=*27,*18%)* “The*calmness*of*it*all.”*“After*PE,*it*feels*really*good*and*relaxed.”*“I*can*relax*in*MindUP*time.**“The*best*part*about*the*MindUP*Program*was*learning*about*thing*that*can*help*other*people*to*calm*down*think*positive.”*Grade*6*Boy*Grade*7*Girl*Grade*7*Boy*Grade*7*Girl*Neuroscience*Component*(n!=*15,*10%)* “When*we*learned*about*the*part*of*the*brain*and*what*it*does.”*“I*like*learning*about*the*brain*and*what*it*does*for*example*the*Amygdala,*Hippocampus,*Frontal*Cortex.”*“helped*me*understand*the*brain*better.”*Grade*4*Boy*Grade*6*Girl**Grade*7*Girl*Increased*awareness*(n*=*12,*8%)* “You*can*learn*a*lot*about*yourself.”**“Being*aware*of*your*senses*and*being*mindful.”* Grade*4*Girl*Grade*6*Boy*General*(n*=*9,*6%)* “I*learned*alot,*it*makes*me*think,*it*helps*me*alot.”*“Everything.”*“We*learned*about*many*things*that*we*have*never*learned*about.”*“I*like*that*everyone*could*some*how*relate*to*everything*taught.”*“I*find*that*MindUP*has*helped*me*see*life*differently.”*Grade*5*Boy*Grade*6*Girl*Grade*6*Boy*Grade*7*Girl*Grade*7*Girl*Improved*Self7regulation*Skills*(n*=*8,*5%)* “I*liked*that*I*can*now*be*calm*in*a*minute*or*2*as*opposed*to*an*hour*or*so.”**“Going*from*hipper*and*energetic*to*mindful*and*calm.”**“The*calming*down*part*because*I*really*impatient*when*I*am*waiting.”*“I*thought*that*it*really*had*a*positive*energy*and*a*good*affect*on*everyone,*making*some*of*the*more*energetic*students*calmer.”*Grade*6*Girl*Grade*7*Boy*Grade*7*Girl*Grade*7*Girl*Optimism*Component*(n*=*8,*5%)* “About*being*optimistic.”*“The*thing*I*liked*best*about*the*MindUP*Program*was*learning*how*to*be*optimistic*about*life.”* Grade*4*Boy*Grade*6*Girl*Prosocial*Activities*(n!*=*6,*4%)* “I*liked*best*to*learn*about*having*more*empathy.”**“Altruistic*acts.”* Grade*5*Boy*Grade*6*Boy*Improved*focus**(n*=*5,*3%)* “It*got*everyone*focused*at*the*beginning*of*the*day.”**“I*liked*that*it*teaches*you*how*to*pay*attention*to*what*you're*doing.”* Grade*6*Boy*Grade*6*Girl*Gratitude*(n!=*4,*3%)* *“I*usually*liked*learning*about*ways*I*can*improve*my*life*and*learning*about*gratitude.”*“I*really*like*making*a*gratitute*bracelet.”* Grade*6*Boy**Grade*6*Boy*Quiet/Silence*(n!=*3,*2%)* “Everything*was*quiet*when*we*did*it.”*“In*breathing,*the*class*was*quiet.”* Grade*6*Boy*Grade*7*Girl*!Note.!Percentages!are!based!on!the!148!students!who!responded!to!this!question. !! 73! Students’ Reports of What They Disliked About MindUP.  In response to the closed-ended question, “Was there anything you did not like about MindUP?” 29% of students reported there was an aspect of MindUP that they did not like. A chi-square test of independence was conducted on this item, employing a three-way contingency table in which gender acted as the explanatory variable and grade group as the control variable. The test revealed no significant differences in responses regarding gender when controlling for age group, X2 (1, n = 189) = 0.93, p = .58, V  = .01.   In response to the open-ended question that asked students to explain their response to the yes/no question, more than half of the 86 students who responded reiterated a positive impression of MindUP (n = 48, 56%). Figure 3.3 illustrates frequency of themes by gender. Table 3.7 provides some example responses to this question. The most frequently mentioned dislikes were that a small number of students found the program boring (n = 15, 17%) or time consuming (n = 6, 7%). In particular, eight students (9%) reported not liking the Core Practice. One grade 6 boy expressed, “Deep breathing.  It seemed ridiculous how you could find a complete mental stillness in your mind even after weeks of practice.” Another grade 5 girl mentioned that she did not like that the Core Practice took away from class time: “The mindful breathing at times, we end up doing it when we are doing work or homework due to the next day.” A grade 4 boy found the Core Practice made him tired: “Closing my eyes and breathing because after I want to fall asleep.” Six students (7%) who mentioned that they appreciated the Core Practice in response to other questions, also mentioned that they did not like how frequently it was practiced. For example, a grade 6 boy found that the Core Practice helped him “calm down,” and even taught it to others outside of the program, yet he mentioned that “I think we did it a little too much.” Similarly, another grade 6 student reported that “Going outside, laying down and listening to the chime” was his favourite part of MindUP; however, he did not like “listening to the chime every single day 2's a day.” ! 74! Other mentions of program components that students did not like included one mention by a grade 5 boy who enjoyed mindful smelling, but did not like mindful eating: “I did not like mindful tasting because the tongue is not a big sense needed to me.” A grade 6 boy wrote, “I wasn't a huge fan on learning how the brain works, it was kind of boring.” There were mentions that pertained to program implementation as well. There were a few mentions of how teachers introduced practices. For example, a grade 6 boy mentioned, “It was boring and the teacher kept on grueling on and on,” although a grade 6 girl from the same class mentioned that she “ like[d] how they organized and how the information was taught.” Another expressed that the lessons went on too long and involved too much sitting. Two did not like that some of the worksheets from the program were assigned as extra homework. One grade 7 girl mentioned that she found her classmates distracting during the Core Practice: “Lots of others disturbed and judged the way I did my mindfulness.  Others act disrespectfully (read, laugh, play on phone or iPod, etc).” A grade 6 girl offered feedback regarding how the Core Practice was taught, writing, “I didn't like how in the middle of meditating, [the teacher] started giving us instructions even though [the teacher] said we should ignore everything we hear.” !Figure!3.3.!Bar!chart!illustrating!theme!frequency!counts!broken!down!by!gender!of!student!dislikes.!Table 3.7  24!8!5!3!4!4!1!24!7!6!7!4!2!2!Positive!Comment!!Boring!Other!Implementation!Core!Practice!Time!Consuming!Too!Challenging!Was%there%anything%that%you%did%not%like?%%Boys! Girls!! 75!Selected Responses to Illustrate Thematic Analysis of Open-end Question About Student Dislikes ! *Themes* *Is*there*anything*you*didn’t*like*about*MindUP?** *Grade*&*Gender*Reported*Positive*Experience*(n*=*48,*56%)* “I*liked*everything*because*you*can*learn*more*about*your*body.”*“It*was*exciting*so*that*I*could*learn*better.*“Everything*was*great!**It*really*helped*me*to*be*more*optimistic.”*“[MindUP]*uses*excellent*techniques*in*order*to*make*a*person*calm.”*“I*thought*it*was*a*good*idea*to*teach*student*how*to*be*thankful*and*make*better*decisions.”*“I*loved*everything*because*it*fits*the*situation*I*was*stuck*in*and*helped*me*a*lot.”**“Sometimes*I*was*stress*and*every*minute*was*gold.”*Grade*4*Girl*Grade*4*Boy*Grade*6*Girl*Grade*6*Boy*Grade*6*Boy**Grade*7*Girl**Grade*7*Girl*Boring*(n*=*15,*17%)* “Well,*I*felt*a*little*bit*bore.”**“Sometimes*I*would*get*bored*or*I*couldn't*calm*down*enough.”* Grade*4*Boy*Grade*7*Girl*Core*Breathing*Practice**(n*=*8,*9%)* “I*didn't*like*breathing*3*times*a*day*everyday.”*“I*didn't*like*doing*the*breathing*every*single*day*because*I*think*it*was*boring!”* Grade*6*Boy*Grade*7*Boy*Implementation*(n*=*10,*12%)* *“We*didn't*really*do*anything*with*it.**We*just*breath*everyday*and*did*hearing,*tasting*and*eyesight.**No*lessons*on*optimism,*happiness,*gratitude.”*“Teacher*taking*forever*to*explain*things.”*Grade*6*Girl***Grade*7*Boy*Too*Time*Consuming**(n*=*6,*7%)* *“I*think*that*mindfulness*is*very*time*consuming.”*“The*lessons*were*very*long.**Too*much*sitting.”**“I*did*not*like*the*MindUP*because*I*thought*it*was*waste*of*time.”* Grade*6*Boy*Grade*6*Girl*Grade*7*Boy*Neuroscience*Component*(n*=*2,*2%)* “The*brain*because*it*was*too*hard*to*learn.”** Grade*4*Girl**!Note.*Percentages*are*based*on*the*86*students*who*responded*to*this*question.*! !! 76! Willingness to Recommend to a Friend. In response to the question “Would you recommend the program to a friend?” 69 % (n = 127) of students responded “yes.” A chi square test of independence was conducted to test whether willingness to recommend the program was dependent on gender, when controlling for grade group. The test revealed a partial association between Gender and Grade Group. Specifically, when controlling for Grade Group, the relationship between Gender and Willingness to Recommend MindUP was statistically significant for grade 6 and 7 students, with a greater number of female students responding yes to the question than grade 6 and 7 boys, X2 (1, n = 133) = 3.83, p = .05, V  = .17. Nevertheless, the effect size failed to reach a minimum of .20, suggesting that it may not be of practical significance (Ferguson, 2009). The relationship between Gender and Willingness to Recommend MindUP was not statistically significant for grade 4 and 5 students, X2 (1, n = 52) = 0.48, p = .49, V  = .01.  Theme frequencies to the open-ended question that investigated why students would recommend the program to others can be seen in Figure 3.4.  160 students provided a response to this question. Several students made general comments about why they would recommend MindUP to a friend, including finding the program helpful (n = 33, 21%) and enjoyable (n  = 12, 8%). For instance, a grade 7 girl remarked that she would recommend the program because “I found that it helped with alot of things we go through.”  *! 77!!*Figure!3.4.!Bar!chart!illustrating!theme!frequency!counts!broken!down!by!gender!of!reasons!why!students!would!recommend!MindUP!to!a!friend.**** The most popular reason for recommending the program to a friend was that it could help friends improve their well-being (n = 53, 33%). Several of these students mentioned that it might help their friends feel more positive. For example, a grade 7 boy remarked “I have a friend that is like Egor4 in the Winnie the Pooh show and I think he will become more positive after it.” Others referred to the positive impact MindUP could have on a friend’s mood. “There are quite a few friends of mine who's pessimistic and feel bad most of the time. I think it would cheer them up and make them have better life,” wrote a grade 6 girl.  Many others mentioned that it could help friends feel calm, relaxed, or peaceful. “It's very peaceful and nice also relaxing” shared a grade 7 girl. Some students mentioned that the program could improve their friends’ outlook on life. For instance, a grade 7 girl remarked, “It could help them be more mindful and see life better.” Similarly, a grade 6 girl wrote “It taught me a lot and every time I act, I think of what I learned in the MindUP Program.” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!4 I presume the student is referring to the pessimistic character of Eeyore. 19!12!12!12!7!4!2!3!2!1!1!34!22!21!16!5!4!5!1!1!1!Increased!WellUbeing!Better!SelfURegulation!Helpful!Learn!Mindful!Awareness!Enjoyable!Learn!About!the!Brain!Better!Cope!with!Stress!Become!Kinder!Become!Grateful!Learn!Problem!Solving!Skills!Improve!Focus!Reasons%for%Recommending%MindUP%Boy! Girl!! 78! Many students mentioned that their friends could learn valuable self-regulation (n = 34, 21%) and stress-coping skills (n  = 7, 4%) from the program. Some students noted that MindUP offered skills to prevent or recover from overwhelming emotions. For instance, a grade 5 boy remarked “It helps to calm yourself down instead of heating up and getting angry.” Similarly, a grade 4 boy wrote: “It can help others when they are mad or stressed.”  A grade 6 girl noted that she would recommend the program to a friend because it can help in situations that might promote anxiety: “It helps when you are nervous because when I get ready for a race I breath and it helps to calm me down.” A grade 5 girl reflected on how self-regulation skills gained from MindUP might affect her relationship with her friends: “So they don't go up in a fuss with me when they're mad.”   Other students would recommend the program to a friend because it could help their friends build mindful awareness (n  = 28, 18%). For instance, a grade 6 girl remarked that she would recommend the program because “It helped me became very conscious and mindful about everything.” For some students, gaining mindful awareness was a way to become more attentive to the outer world, such as the grade 7 boy who commented that the program “makes you more aware of the things around you.” For others, they saw MindUP as a tool for gaining inner awareness, such as the grade 6 girl who suggested, “It could help them learn more of themselves.”   Other reasons students provided for recommending the program were: It could help them improve prosocial behaviour, focus, problem-solving abilities, schoolwork, and grades. Many students also expressed enthusiasm for learning about the brain. Table 3.8 includes illustrative responses to remaining themes.   There were several other unique responses that provided insight into the program, but did not fit into a specific theme. For instance, a grade 6 boy reported that he would recommend the program to a friend because “It made my life sort of easier.” Another grade 7 boy mentioned that he would suggest the program to a friend because “It teaches you something that you can't really explain.” A grade 6 girl ! 79!said she would recommend the program because “You can talk things out with each other.” Another grade 6 girl would recommend the program to a friend because “It helps people realize what a great world we live in.”  Some of the students reported that they would unequivocally recommend the program to others. For instance, a grade 6 boy remarked, “Everyone should learn about the brain and how to be more optimistic and calm.” Similarly, a grade 6 girl emphasized, “It will become helpful no matter who it is!” Other students mentioned that it would depend on the person whether the program would be helpful or not. For instance, a grade 5 girl suggested that the program may not be helpful for everyone, but “If they need, they should do it.” Similarly, a grade 6 girl remarked, “Well, it does depend on the friend, but it really relaxes you.”   Some students mentioned that the program would be appropriate for some people, but not others. For example, a grade 6 boy wrote that he would recommend the program to a friend “If they enjoy meditation and understanding things.” A grade 7 girl suggested that “It might help them if they are stressed and unmindful.” Similarly, a grade 6 girl mentioned that she might recommend the program to a friend who needed it: “Maybe it's a friend that needs to calm down and learn how to cool down.” A grade 6 boy thought the program might be more appropriate for older students: “A lot of the information was its relevant I think and that this might be more helpful to High School grades or mainly Grade 7's.” Finally, some students identified specific friends who would particularly benefit from the program. A grade 5 boy mentioned that he would recommend the program to his friend because “I have a friend that's really pessimistic.” A grade 6 boy mentioned that he would recommend the program to his friends because “Some of my friends need to learn how to be ‘mindful’.” Similarly, another grade 6 boy would recommend the program to his friend because “My friend doesn't know about how they treat people!” ! 80! There were some students who were undecided as to whether they would recommend the program. For instance, a grade 7 girl wrote: “Yes and no, it's not a bad program but it didn't really have a huge impact on my life.” Similarly, a grade 6 girl remarked “The MindUP Program was okay.  And I did learn alot in it but it is not something I would do by myself on a daily basis.” A grade 6 boy echoed this sentiment: “It was nice and informative but it is spendy of time.” ! 81!Table 3.8  Selected Responses to Illustrate Thematic Analysis of Open-end Question About Student Recommendations **Theme** *Reasons*Why*Students*Would*Recommend*MindUP* *Grade*&*Gender*Well7being*(n!=*53,*33%)* “It*helps*people*to*be*happy.”**“I*had*a*great*time*and*I*can*be*calm.*They*could*feel*like*me.”***“If*my*friend*needs*to*learn*how*to*have*a*positive*outlook*of*life.”*“I*feel*more*relaxed*when*I*do*mindfulness.”*Grade*5*girl*Grade*6*boy*Grade*6*girl*Grade*6*girl*Self7Regulation*(n!*=*34,*21%)* “It*helped*me*calm*down*and*it*was*fun.”*“It*teaches*you*how*to*calm*down*and*gives*yourself*control.”**“It*helps*you*relax*if*you*are*worried.”*“It*will*help*the*person*calm*down*when*they*are*angry.”**“If*they*were*really*stressed,*they*could*use*those*techniques*to*help*them.”*Grade*4*girl*Grade*6*boy*Grade*6*girl*Grade*6*boy*Grade*7*girl*Mindful*Awareness**(n!*=*28,*18%)* “It*teaches*you*what*is*going*around*you.”*“To*help*them*be*mindful.”**“It*is*good*to*learn*about*how*to*be*mindful*about*things*and*events*around*you.”*“It*helps*you*learn*about*yourself.”*“It's*a*great*way*to*get*in*time*with*yourself*and*helps*you*make*smart*thought*out*decisions*and*helps*you*be*mindful*of*your*surroundings.”*Grade*5*boy*Grade*6*girl*Grade*6*girl**Grade*6*boy*Grade*7*girl*Helpful**(n*=*33,*21%)* “It*would*help*them*in*many*ways.”*“It*is*good*to*learn*about*this*program,*then*you*know*about*it*for*the*future.”*“It*helps*some*people*so*why*not!”*Grade*5*girl*Grade*6*girl**Grade*7*girl*Enjoyable*(n!*=*12,*8%)* “My*friend*will*have*fun*doing*all*the*things*I*did.”*“It*is*fun*overall”* Grade*6*girl*Grade*6*girl*Learn*about*the*Brain*(n!*=*8,*5%)* “It*is*good*for*your*brain*and*it*teaches*you*about*your*brain*and*your*actions.”*“To*be*more*aware*of*your*brain*and*how*you*think.”*“It*helps*you*learn*about*your*brain*and*how*it*works.*Grade*4*girl**Grade*6*boy*Grade*7*boy*Become*Kinder*(n*=*4,*3%)* “helped*me*be*more*kind”*“If*they're*not*kind.”* Grade*6*boy*Grade*6*girl*Become*More*Grateful*(n!*=*2,*1%)* “It*can*teach*my*friends*who*didn't*do*the*program*how*to*be*grateful,*optimistic,*thankful*and*lots*of*others*things*about*the*things*I*learned.”* Grade*6*boy*Improved*Problem7Solving*Skills*(n!*=*2,*1%)* “It*would*help*them*with*solving*things*in*their*life.”**“It*helps*you*solve*problems.* Grade*5*girl*Grade*5*boy*Improved*Focus*(n!*=*2,*1%)* “you*can*focus*a*little*after*doing*it.”*“It*really*improves*my*focus*frequency.”* Grade*6*girl*Grade*7*boy*Note.*Percentages*are*based*on*the*160*students*who*responded*to*this*question. *! 82! Students’ reasons for not recommending the program were similar to their dislikes (see Figure 3.5 and Table 3.9). Several students (n = 17, 11%) reported that they thought their friends might find the program boring. Some (n = 6, 4%) suggested that MindUP wasted school time that should be spent on other things. Others felt that their friends would not learn anything new in the program (n = 7, 4%). For instance, a grade 6 girl remarked, “I didn't learn many things and it left me feeling like I could have used my time doing something productive.” Other comments were more general, such as “It didn't really work for me” (grade 6 boy) and “I know my friends would not want to do this” (grade 7 boy). One grade 4 girl mentioned that she would not recommend the program because it “Is too hard.”   !!Figure!3.5.*Bar*chart*illustrating*theme*frequency*counts*broken*down*by*gender*of*reasons*why*students*would*not*recommend*MindUP*to*a*friend.*!! !12!8!2!4!5!4!5!2!Boring!Other!Would!not!learn!anything!new!Too!time!consuming!Reasons%Not%to%Recommend%MindUP%Boy! Girl!! 83!Table 3.9 *Selected Responses from Thematic Analysis of Why Students Would Not Recommend MindUP * *Theme** *Reasons*Why*Students*Would*Not*Recommend*MindUP* *Grade*&*Gender*Boring/*Not*enjoyable*(n!=*17,*11%)* “This*program*might*be*too*boring*for*them.”*“I*don't*think*they*would*be*interested*or*like*it.*It's*kinda*boring.”*“I*thought*it*was*boring*and*kind*of*stupid.”* Grade*4*girl*Grade*6*girl*Grade*7*boy*Wouldn’t*learn*anything**(n*=*7,*4%)* “He*wouldn't*learn*anything*new.”* Grade*5*boy**Time*Consuming*(n*=*6,*4%)* “It*takes*up*school*times.”*“it*was*kind*of*a*waste*of*time.”* Grade*5*boy*Grade*6*girl*Other**(n*=*12,*8%)* “The*friend*can't*really*do*it*on*their*own.”*“Most*of*my*friends*already*did*this*program.”**“I*don't*know*anyone*who*would*want*to*do*the*program.”*“Although*I*liked*it*I*didn't*find*it*manitory.”*Grade*6*boy**Grade*6*boy*Grade*7*girl*Grade*7*boy*!Note.*Percentages*are*based*on*the*160*students*who*responded*to*this*question.*!! In summary, the large majority of the students reported enjoying the program, with students on average providing a rating of 3.39 (SD = 0.92) out of 4 on the Likert-scale question regarding how much they liked the program (1 = not all, 4 = a lot). Nonetheless, 29% of students mentioned that there was some aspect of the program that they did not like. No statistically significant differences were observed related to gender or grade group in either closed-ended question that asked students about what they liked and disliked. The most popular program components mentioned in the open-ended question were, by far, the mindfulness practices (n = 79, 53%) with mindful eating being the most frequently mentioned (n = 37, 25%) followed by the Core Practice (n = 29, 20%). The Core Practice, however, was also the most frequently cited least favourite practice, specifically mentioned by eight students. The majority of students (69%) mentioned that they would recommend the program to a friend, although Grade 6/7 girls were statistically more likely to recommend the program to a friend than boys. No significant gender differences were observed among grade 4/5 students. The most frequently cited reasons for recommending the program were that it might help promote their friends’ ! 84!well-being (n = 53, 33%) and self-regulation skills (n = 34, 21%). The most frequently mentioned reason for not recommending the program to a friend was that the friend would not like the program or might find the program boring (n = 17, 11%). Student Learning “I learned about myself and what I was capable of.” ~ Grade 7 Boy  To examine students’ reports of learning, I investigated student responses to the general question, “How much did you learn in the MindUP program?” as well as their responses to the 10 Likert-scale questions that asked them how much they learned in each of the main components of the program. Finally, to explore whether students learned anything in addition to the core components, I looked at their responses to the open-ended question: “Is there anything else you learned?”   Overall, 96% of students reported they learned something new in the program. Descriptive statistics for students’ responses to Likert-scale questions can be seen in Table 3.10. A 2 x 2 (Gender x Grade Group) ANOVA on student response to the question “How much did you learn in MindUP,” revealed a significant main effect for Gender, F(3, 189) = 7.77, p = .01, η2 =.04, but not in Grade Group, F(3, 189) = 0.57, p = .45, η2 =.003. Gender effects were superceded, however, by a significant Gender by Grade Group interaction, F(3, 189) = 3.39, p = .02, η2 =.03 (see Figure 3.6). Simple effects were performed using Bonferroni adjustment to hold the alpha level at .05. Grade 4/5 girls reported that they learned significantly more than grade 4/5 boys. No significant differences were evident among grade 6/7 girls and grade boys. See Table 3.11 for results of pairwise comparisons.  ! 85!Table 3.10 Descriptive Statistics for Likert-Square Items  * M*(SD)*Variable* Grade*4/5*Boys*(n*=*28)* Grade*4/5*Girls*(n*=*25)* Grade*6/7*Boys*(n*=*62)* Grade*6/7*Girls*(n*=74)*1. The*MindUP*program*helped*me*learn*about*my*brain.* 2.57*(0.92)* 3.08*(0.91)* 2.68*(0.84)* 2.85*(0.70)*2. The*MindUP*program*helped*me*learn*about*mindfulness.* 2.75*(0.84)* 3.32*(0.63)* 3.02*(0.90)* 3.12*(0.83)*3. The*MindUP*program*helped*me*learn*more*about*being*mindful*of*my*senses*(listening,*smelling,*seeing,*tasting).* 2.93*(0.90)* 3.12*(0.78)* 2.77*(0.98)* 2.95*(0.80)*4. The*MindUP*program*helped*me*learn*more*about*perspective7taking,*and*to*be*mindful*of*others* 2.75*(0.80)* 3.04*(0.84)* 2.79*(0.79)* 2.80*(0.86)*5. The*MindUP*program*helped*me*learn*how*to*be*optimistic,*and*think*more*positively.* 2.68*(0.90)* 3.32*(0.90)* 2.69*(0.92)* 2.80*(0.94)*6. The*MindUP*program*helped*me*learn*more*about*how*I*can*help*myself*be*happy.* 2.68*(0.86)* 3.00*(0.96)* 2.55*(0.99)* 2.66*(0.93)*7. The*MindUP*program*helped*me*learn*how*to*make*a*happy*movie*in*my*mind*(savoring).* 2.50*(0.96)* 2.88*(1.01)* 2.34*(1.0)* 2.64*(0.94)*8. The*MindUP*program*helped*me*learn*more*about*gratitude.* 2.54*(0.84)* 2.84*(1.03)* 2.81*(0.92)* 2.89*(0.92)*9. The*MindUP*program*helped*me*learn*more*about*acts*of*kindness.* 2.81*(0.92)* 2.92*(0.91)* 2.94*(0.81)* 2.96*(0.79)*10. Since*the*MindUP*program*I*try*to*help*others*more*often.* 2.5*(0.92)* 2.72*(0.89)* 2.53*(0.98)* 2.69*(0.89)*11. The*MindUP*program*has*helped*me*learn*how*to*focus*my*attention*and*calm*down.* 2.96*(0.96)* 3.04*(0.68)* 2.77*(1.03)* 2.91*(0.94)*12. How*much*did*you*like*the*MindUP*program?* 3.14*(0.93)* 3.44*(0.87)* 3.32*(1.0)* 3.51*(0.86)*13. How*much*did*you*learn*in*the*MindUP*program?* 3.04*(1.07)* 3.92*(0.91)* 3.32*(1.04)* 3.38*(1.08)*14. How*many*of*the*things*that*you*learned*about*in*the*MindUP*program*can*you*use*in*your*life*at*school*or*at*home?* 3.14*(1.0)* 3.52*(1.08)* 3.23*(1.0)* 3.32*(1.05)*!Notes.*M*=*mean,*SD*=*standard*deviation.*Items*1*through*11*were*rated*on*a*47point*Likert7scale.*Items*12*–*14*were*rated*on*a*57point*Likert7scale,*with*higher*scores*indicating*greater*strength.*See*Appendix*C*for*response*formats.***! 86!    Figure!3.6.*Interaction*plot*depicting*Gender*by*Grade*Group*interaction*of*Student*Learning.**1*=*grades*4/5*and*2*=*grades*6/7.*Grade*4/5*girls*reported*learning*significantly*more*than*grade*4/5*boys.*No*significant*differences*are*observed*between*grade*6/7*boys*and*girls.*   ! 87!Table 3.11  Pairwise Comparison to Test Simple Effects for Gender X Grade Group Interaction for Learning  Pairwise!Comparisons*Dependent*Variable:**Amount*Learned*in*the*Program*** (I)*Student*Gender* (J)*Student*Gender* Mean*Difference*(I7J)* Std.*Error* Sig.b*99%*Confidence*Interval*for*Difference*Lower*Bound* Upper*Bound*Grade*4/5* Boy* Girl* 7.884** .286* .002* 71.628* 7.140*Girl* Boy* .884** .286* .002* .140* 1.628*Grade*6/7* Boy* Girl* 7.056* .179* .755* 7.521* .410*Girl* Boy* .056* .179* .755* 7.410* .521*b.*Adjustment*for*multiple*comparisons:*Bonferroni.*!Note.*Grade*4/5*girls*reported*learning*significantly*more*than*grade*4/5*boys.*No*statistically*significant*difference*was*observed*among*grade*6/7*boys*and*girls.*Bonferroni*adjustment*for*multiple*comparisons*was*used*to*hold*alpha*levels*at*.05.*   Responses to several Likert-scale questions regarding different program components showed a similar pattern, as can be seen in the plots in Figure 3.7, but no significant interactions were observed in 2 x 2 (Gender by Grade Group) ANOVAs. In four items, significant differences in Gender were observed with girls reporting that they learned significantly more than boys about the Brain, Mindfulness, Optimism, and Savoring (see Table 3.12). In all cases, effect sizes for Gender and Grade Group were small (range .03 - .04).   ! 88! ! !Figure!3.7.*Plots*illustrating*Gender*by*Grade*Group*learning*of*Mindfulness*and*Learning*about*the*Brain*show*a*similar*pattern*to*Figure*3.5*although*the*interactions*were*not*found*to*be*significant.*Gender*differences*were*statistically*significant,*however.*Table 3.12  ! 89!Two-Way Analysis of Variance (Grade by Gender) on Items Regarding Student Learning  Item* Source* df! SS! TSS! F! p! η2*How*much*did*you*learn*in*the*MindUP*program?* ** Gender* 1* 8.39* 210.57* 7.77* .01*** .04** Grade*Group* 1* 0.62* 210.57* 0.57* .45* .003** Gender*x*Grade*Group* 1* 6.52* 210.57* 6.03* .02** .03*Learn*about*my*brain.* ** Gender* 1* 4.42* 126.1* 6.73* .01*** .04** Grade*Group* 1* 0.14* 126.1* 0.28* .64* .001** Gender*x*Grade*Group* 1* 1.06* 126.1* 1.62* .21* .008*Learn*about*mindfulness.* ** Gender* 1* 5.43* 127.47* 8.26* .001*** .04** Grade*Group* 1* .021* 127.47* 0.32* .57* .002** Gender*x*Grade*Group* 1* 1.40* 127.47* 2.12* .15* .01*Learn*about*being*mindful*of*my*senses* ** Gender* 1* 1.35* 144.65* 1.75* .19* .009** Grade*Group* 1* 0.94* 144.65* 1.23* .27* .006** Gender*x*Grade*Group* 1* .001* 144.65* .001* .98* 0*Learn*more*about*perspective7taking,*and*to*be*mindful*of*others* * * * * * * ** Gender* 1* 0.75* 129.24* 1.08* .30* .005** Grade*Group* 1* 0.33* 129.24* 0.48* .49* .003** Gender*x*Grade*Group* 1* 0.85* 129.24* 1.23* .27* .007*Learn*how*to*be*optimistic,*and*think*more*positively* * * * * * * ** Gender* 1* 5.27* 164.52* 6.22* .01*** .03** Grade*Group* 1* 2.45* 164.52* 2.89* .09* .01** Gender*x*Grade*Group* 1* 2.74* 164.52* 3.24* .07* .02*Learn*more*about*how*I*can*help*myself*be*happy* * * * * * * ** Gender* 1* 1.80* 164.02* 2.03* .16* .01** Grade*Group* 1* 2.08* 164.02* 2.35* .13* .01** Gender*x*Grade*Group* 1* 0.41* 164.02* 0.46* .50* .002*Learn*how*to*make*a*happy*movie*in*my*mind*(savoring)* * * * * * * ** Gender* 1* 4.34* 166.68* 4.82* .03** .03** Grade*Group* 1* 1.57* 166.68* 1.74* .19* .01** Gender*x*Grade*Group* 1* 0.07* 166.68* 0.07* .786* 0*Learn*more*about*gratitude* * * * * * * ** Gender* 1* 1.43* 157.13* 1.67* .20* .009** Grade*Group* 1* 0.98* 157.13* 1.14* .29* .006** Gender*x*Grade*Group* 1* 0.46* 157.13* 0.54* .46* .003*Learn*more*about*acts*of*kindness* * * * * * * ** Gender* 1* 0.16* 126.53* 0.22* .64* .001** Grade*Group* 1* 0.24* 126.53* 0.35* .56* .002** Gender*x*Grade*Group* 1* 0.06* 126.53* 0.90* .76* 0*Learn*how*to*focus*my*attention*and*calm*down* * * * * * * ** Gender* 1* 0.41* 166.67* 0.46* .50* .002** Grade*Group* 1* 1.0* 166.67* 1.12* .29* .006** Gender*x*Grade*Group* 1* 0.03* 166.67* 0.03* .89* 0* Notes. Grade Group  = grade 4/5 students compared to grade 6/7 students. df = degrees of freedom, SS = sum of squares, TSS = total sum of squares, ** p = .01, * p < .04. Statistically significant differences in gender at p ≤ .01 were observed for learning about the Brain, Mindfulness and Optimism.     ! 90! Analysis of Open-Ended Question Regarding Student Learning. There were 117 students who responded to the open-ended question: Is there anything else that you learned in MindUP? In addition to reiterating the program components mentioned in the Likert-scale questions, students frequently mentioned gaining practical tools from the program that they used to cultivate well-being (n = 53, 45%) and self-regulation (n  = 35, 30%). Figure 3.8 depicts frequencies of themes related to learning by gender. Table 3.11 provides examples of students’ comments for each identified theme.     Figure!3.8.*Bar*chart*illustrating*theme*frequency*counts*broken*down*by*gender*of*student*learning.*   25!16!13!9!8!5!3!28!23!22!13!11!10!6!WellUbeing!Neuroscience!SelfURegulation!Skills!!Mindful!Awareness!Mindfulness!Practices!Prosocial!Behaviour!Gratitude!Is%there%anything%else%that%you%learned%about%in%the%MindUP%Program?%%Boys! Girls!! 91!Table 3.13  Selected Responses to Illustrate Thematic Analysis of Open-end Question About Student Learning  Themes! Is!there!anything!else!you!learned!about!in!MindUP?* Grade!&Gender!Well7being*(n*=*52,*42%)* “If*you*are*optimistic*you*can*have*better*health.”*“You*can*make*something*better*if*you*think*positive.”*“how*to*have*a*(better)*positive*outlook*on*life.”*“I*used*to*get*mad*a*lot,*but*now*that*I*do*mindfulness*that*happens*very*rarely.”*“I*learnt*that*happiness*can*help*you*make*better*decisions.”*“I*feel*a*lot*more*calm*and*happy.”*“There*is*always*a*bright*side*and*you*have*to*be*open*to*options*in*life.”*“I*learned*how*to*relax*the*body.”*Grade*4*Boy*Grade*4*Boy*Grade*6*Girl*Grade*6*Girl*Grade*6*Boy*Grade*6*Boy*Grade*6*Girl*Grade*7*Boy*Neuroscience*(n*=*39,*31%)* “I*learned*alot*about*my*brain*and*how*it*works.”*“Prefrontol*Cortex,*the*Amygdala,*the*Hippocampus,*my*brain.”*“Construction*of*the*brain,*fight,*flight,*freeze”* Grade*5*Girl*Grade*6*Girl*Grade*7*Girl*Self7regulation*(n*=*35,*30%)* “I*learned*to*calm*down*if*I*feel*worried*or*scared*about*something.”*“When*there's*a*test*to*calm*yourself*down.”*“How*to*be*calm*when*you*are*nervous*or*angry.”*“how*to*be*calm*in*times*that*are*frustrating.”**“I*need*to*self7regulate,*relax,*and*think*before*I*react.”*“That*sitting*and*listening*to*a*chime*can*clear*my*mind*and*help*me*calm*down.”**“It*was*really*fun*because*it*calmed*us*down*alot*after*lunch.”*“I*learned*different*methods*for*breathing*and*calming*down*before*I*react*to*certain*situations.”*Grade*4*Girl*Grade*5*Girl*Grade*5*Girl*Grade*5*Girl*Grade*6*Girl*Grade*6*Girl*Grade*7*Boy*Grade*7*Girl*Mindful*Awareness**(n*=*23,*19%)* “How*to*stay*focused*and*be*aware*of*what*we're*doing.”*“To*be*aware*what*is*going*around*you.”*“I*learned*do*not*rush*things*and*pay*more*attention*to*my*surroundings.”*“I*learned*to*slow*down*and*notice*the*world*around*me.”**“I*learnt*how*to*be*alot*more*self*aware*and*to*be*able*to*understand*myself.**I*also*liked*how*we*learnt*to*enjoy*things.”*“What*you*can*hear*and*see*when*you're*mindful.”*Grade*4*Boy*Grade*5*Boy*Grade*6*Girl*Grade*6*Girl*Grade*6*Boy**Grade*7*Girl*Mindfulness*Practices*(n*=*17,*14%)* *“I*learnt*to*savour*my*food.”*“How*to*focus*on*the*present*moment*and*ignore*the*noises*around*me.”* Grade*6*Boy*Grade*7*Boy*Prosocial*Behavior*(n*=15,*12%)* “There*was*different*perspectives*in*people*so*you*have*to*try*to*put*yourself*in*other*peoples*shoes.”*“I*learned*about*how*to*be*nicer*to*people”*“In*the*MindUP*Program*I*learned*about*acts*of*kindness*and*how*it*is*kind*to*give.”*“I*learned*to*be*more*kind.”*“I*should*help*others*if*they're*getting*picked*on.”*Grade*4*Girl**Grade*5*Girl*Grade*6*Girl*Grade*6*Boy*Grade*6*Girl*Gratitude*(n!=*9,*8%)* “The*MindUP*Program*has*usually*just*taught*me*how*to*be*grateful,*and*thankful*about*the*things*I*have.”*“How*to*be*gratuitous.**To*enjoy*every*moment*for*it,*is*unique”* Grade*6*Boy**Grade*7*Girl*!Note.*Percentages*are*based*on*the*117*students*who*responded*to*this*question.** *! 92! In summary, the vast majority of students (96%) reported that they learned something new in the MindUP program. Regarding learning in general, grade 4/5 girls reported learning significantly more than grade 4/5 boys, but no significant gender differences in general learning among grade 6/7 students were observed. In response to questions that inquired about learning in regard to specific program components, girls consistently reported learning more than boys, although these differences were only found to be significant on four items: learning about the brain, mindfulness, optimism, and savoring. Effect sizes were small for all items regarding learning. In response to the open-ended question, students most frequently mentioned that they also learned skills for promoting well-being (n = 52, 42%) and self-regulation (n = 35, 30%), as well as learning about neuroscience (n = 39, 31%) Applications of MindUP to Everyday Life “I learned how to do mindfulness by myself and now every morning I do it when I wake up.” Grade 6 Girl.  To understand whether students found the program useful for everyday life, I examined their responses to two Likert-Scale questions: “How many of the things that you learned about in the MindUP program can you use in your life at school or at home?” and “Since the MindUP program, do you help others more often?” I also looked at whether they reported teaching something they learned in the program to anyone else, and if so, what they taught.   A large majority of students (n = 178, 95%) reported that they applied something they learned in the program to their school or home life, most of whom reported using “a few things” (n = 80, 43%) or “quite a few things” (n = 47, 25%).  Twenty-six students (14%) reported applying “a lot” of the things they learned in the program to everyday life. A 2 x 2 (Gender by Grade Group) ANOVA revealed no statistically significant differences among Gender and Grade Group (see Table 3.12). Since taking part in the MindUP program, 164 students (87%) reported that they helped others more often. A 2 x 2 (Gender by Grade Group) ANOVA on responses to item that inquired about helping others ! 93!revealed no statistically significant differences in Gender or Grade Group in student helping others (see Table 3.14)  Table!3.14!!Two-Way Analysis of Variance (Grade by Gender) on Items Regarding Applications of MindUP in Everyday Life !Item* Source* df* SS* TSS* F* p* η2*1.*Since*the*MindUP*program*I*try*to*help*others*more*often.* * * * * * * ** Gender* 1* 1.4* 158.65* 1.64* .20* .009** Grade*Group* 1* 0* 158.65* 0* .98* 0** Gender*x*Grade* 1* 0.03* 158.65* 0.03* .85* 0*2.*How*many*of*the*things*that*you*learned*about*in*the*MindUP*program*can*you*use*in*your*life*at*school*or*at*home?* * * * * * * ** Gender* 1* 2.06* 200.49* 1.91* .17* .01** Grade*Group* 1* 0.14* 200.49* 0.13* .72* 0** Gender*x*Grade* 1* 0.79* 200.49* 0.73* .39* .004*!Notes.*No*statistical*differences*among*Gender*and/or*Grade*Group*were*observed*for*either*item.*Grade*Group**=*grade*4/5*students*compared*to*grade*6/7*students.*Response*format*for*item*one*was*a*47point*Likert*scale*(0*=*not!at!all!true,*4*=*true!all!of!the!time).*Response*format*for*item*two*was*a*57point*Likert7scale*(1*=*none,*5*=*a!lot).**df*=*degrees*of*freedom,*SS*=*sum*of*squares,*TSS*=*total*sum*of*squares,*η2!(SS/TSS)!represents*the*percentage*of*variance*in*the*response*to*the*item*accounted*for*by*group*(i.e.,*Gender,*Grade,*or*Gender*x*Grade*Group).*    Twenty percent of students (n  = 37) taught something they learned in MindUP to someone outside of the program, primarily family members (see Table 3.15). A chi square test of independence revealed no significance differences related to Gender when controlling for Grade Group, X2 (1, n = 189) = 3.06, p = .58, V  = .07.        ! 94!Table 3.15  Student Reports of Whom They Taught Component of MindUP * Who*did*you*teach?* n* %!Mother* 20* 54*Father* 8* 22*Sibling* 14* 38*Other* 15* 41*!Note.*Although*only*37*students*reported*teaching*the*program*to*someone*else,*some*students*reported*teaching*more*than*one*person,*so*percentages*exceed*100%.*   Thirty-one students responded to the open-ended question regarding what they taught. The most frequently mentioned activities that students reported teaching were mindfulness practices (n = 18, 58%), with eight of these students mentioning they taught the Core Practice and three mentioning they taught mindful eating. For instance, a grade 6 girl taught her mother, father, and brother “How to do mindfulness and how much it helps me calm down. I think it helped them.”  Similarly a grade 7 girl taught a friend “how to breath and we meditate.”    Four students (13%) reported teaching someone about optimism, and three (10%) about gratitude, such as a grade 7 girl who reported “I taught them that Yolo (you only live once) so you should be thankful and grateful to the friends and family around you.” Similarly, a grade 6 boy taught his sister, “Do not cry or whine about the things you want or didn't get and just be optimistic and grateful about the things you had already.”   Several reported teaching skills to promote self-regulation (n = 11, 36%), such as the grade 5 boy who taught friends “How to cool down when they get angry.” Similarly, a grade 7 boy taught his friend how to “Calm down when in trouble, don't take little things too seriously.” A few students (n = 3, 10%) taught someone about the brain, such as a grade 6 girl who taught her brother “About my Amygdala and how it reacts.” Some students also reported teaching prosocial skills (n = 3, 10%), for ! 95!example, the grade 6 boy who taught a friend “about being helpful and respectful, also mindful listening.” Similarly, a grade 6 girl reported teaching “How to be optimistic, have good perspective and the act of kindness are what I taught my friends and mother.”  See Figure 3.9 for frequency counts of what students taught to others. !!Figure!3.9.*Bar*chart*illustrating*theme*frequency*counts*broken*down*by*gender*of*what*students*taught*to*others.*** In sum, most of the students (95%) reported applying what they learned in the program to their school and home life. Twenty percent of students taught something they learned in the program to a friend or family member, especially mindfulness practices and skills for self-regulation. In general, students reported that they helped others (87%) more often after participating in MindUP. In response to closed-ended questions, no significant gender or grade group differences were evident.    6!4!2!2!1!12!11!2!1!2!1!Mindfulness!Practices!SelfUregulation!skills!Optimism!Gratitude!Prosocial!Skills!Focus!Skills!What%did%you%teach?%Boys! Girls!! 96!CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION ! This study is one of the first studies of its kind to examine the effectiveness of the MindUP program from the perspective of elementary school children. Indeed, the unique contribution of the present study to the extant literature is its inclusion of the voices of students regarding their experiences and perceptions of a mindfulness-based SEL program. Overall, the results indicated that grade 4 to 7 students’ perceived the utility and efficacy of the MindUP program in fostering their self-regulation and focused attention, promoting their coping with stress and anxiety, and increasing their prosocial behaviour and well-being. Taken together, students’ responses about their experiences with the MindUP program indicate that MindUP may be an effective program in promoting positive youth development. Over the past decade, many questions have been raised about whether mindfulness education and SEL programs belong in the domain of schools, and concerns have been voiced that such programs interfere, rather than contribute, to the aims of education. From the student perspective, the answer seems to be in favour of including mindfulness-based SEL in schools. In the present study, the vast majority of students reporting that they enjoyed taking part in the MindUP program, that they learned something new, and that the things they learned were valuable for them both in school and at home. Furthermore, most of students mentioned that they would recommend the MindUP program to a friend.  This chapter begins with a discussion of gender and grade group differences observed in the study. Next, implications regarding student evaluations of program components are considered, followed by an examination of how the results of the present study provide support for MindUP as a program to promote positive youth development. Then, support for the Mind and Life Education Research Network’s (2012) theoretical framework for contemplative education is presented. A discussion of some of the fundamental strengths and limitations of the present study follows. Although suggestions for future research are included throughout the discussion, the chapter ends with a contemplation of future directions for the study of mindfulness education and SEL. ! 97! Gender and Grade Group Differences. The results indicated that there was little variation in responses across gender and grade group (grade 4 and 5 versus grade 6 and 7 students), suggesting that the MindUP program was acceptable to most students regardless of their gender or grade. Although statistical analyses indicated that girls tended to rate the program more favorably than boys, for most items these differences did not reach statistical significance. Further, any statistically significant differences that were observed had small effect sizes, thus likely having little practical significance (Ferguson, 2009). Grade group differences were more difficult to interpret given the uneven number of students across grades. Almost half of the participants were in grade 6 (n = 88, 47%). Distribution of students in grades 4, 5, and 7 were also uneven, with 22 students in grade  4 (12%), 31 students in grade 5 (16%), and 48 students in grade 7 (25%). Interpreting results is further complicated by the variation in program implementation across classrooms. For instance, none of the grade 4 and 5 students received the lesson on gratitude. Further, grade 5 students did not receive lessons on optimism or acts of kindness. Thus, the results here should be interpreted with caution, and investigated in future studies. That said, it appears that MindUP is accessible and acceptable to students as young as nine. This is noteworthy considering that several program components may be considered conceptually challenging, such as the abstract notions of mindful awareness, optimism, and pessimism, and the sophisticated introduction to the structure and function of the brain. Students’ Evaluations of Program Components   The most popular program components of MindUP were, by far, the mindfulness practices, with mindful sensing practices, especially mindful eating, being most frequently mentioned as the best part of MindUP. Mindfully focusing on one’s senses seemed to be both an accessible and enjoyable introduction to mindfulness practices, with only two students specifically mentioning that they did not enjoy these activities. Similarly, on average, in response to the series of Likert-scale questions that inquired about student learning in different program components, students reported learning more ! 98!about mindfulness (M = 3.09, SD = 0.82) than any other component on the 4-point Likert-scale. It should be noted, however, that these scores are undoubtedly influenced by the fact that some teachers did not implement all of the lessons due to time constraints, particularly those on gratitude, optimism, happiness, and mindful action in the community. Nonetheless, the results seem to indicate that mindfulness practices are an acceptable and useful addition to SEL programs.   Despite the largely positive evaluations, there were some students who offered insight into components of the program that they did not find satisfactory. There were a small number of students who did not enjoy most (8%) or any (4%) of the program, suggesting that MindUP may not be appropriate for all students. In particular, there were mixed feelings regarding the Core Practice in which students practiced mindfully listening to the resonant sound of a chime, followed by mindfully observing the breath for 3 minutes. Although many students found the practice helpful, especially as a self-regulation strategy or a way to promote well-being, 8% of participating students reported that they found the practice boring.  Although no teacher implemented 100% of the recommended Core Practice sessions (range 20 – 78%), there were still mentions among students that the Core Practice was implemented too frequently, even among those who reported finding the Core Practice helpful. Evidently, more research is needed to determine the ideal dosage of a mindful breathing practice for early adolescents in a classroom setting. Moreover, the results from the present study put into question whether mindful breathing is the most appropriate and beneficial mindfulness practice for early adolescents, who, in general, rated mindful sensing practices as more enjoyable. This is a pressing area of inquiry considering that each of mindfulness education programs reviewed in Chapter 2 included mindful breathing practice. Indeed, more research is needed to explore whether specific mindfulness practices are developmentally appropriate for early adolescents, as well as the appropriate length and frequency of practice for early adolescents new to mindfulness practices.  The reports that some students found the program boring is in line with research on previous studies on MBIs conducted with early adolescents, as well as adult descriptions of experiences with ! 99!mindfulness practices. The findings from the present study are similar to those observed by Britton and colleagues (2014), who conducted a content analysis of sixth grade students’ post-practice journals in a program that included mindful breathing; mindful observation of thoughts, feelings, and sensations; and body scan practices. Of the 52 sixth-grade students who participated in the program, 13% reported finding the practice boring on at least one occasion, but continued to persevere with the practice despite the boredom. Additionally, 6 % of students rejected the practice all together on at least one occasion, instead engaging in a different activity, such as day dreaming or disrupting others during their practice.  Indeed, even experienced adult meditators who have been practicing mindfulness meditation for many years reported that there are times when they find the practice boring, although they emphasize that sitting with boredom is a fundamental aspect of the practice (Lomas, Cartwright, Edginton, & Ridge, 2014). With practice, patience, and perseverance, however, adult practitioners have been able to develop a clarity of awareness that enables them to recognize and embrace obstacles, such as boredom or restlessness, and notice their impermanence (Kornfield, 1993; Monteiro et al., 2015). Perhaps with sufficient guidance and practice early adolescents, too, may recognize that while practicing mindfulness, they experience moments of engagement as well as moments of boredom, rather than perceiving the activity as uniformly boring. Through practice, they may discover, as one grade 7 girl in the present study did, that every moment is unique.  Thus, an important area or inquiry yet to be pursued is identifying best practices for introducing elementary school students to mindfulness activities that will encourage students to sit with boredom, rather than disengage from the activity. Future studies should address this phenomenon through qualitative inquiry with participants. Additionally, observational data of program implementation (e.g., videotaping lessons) could investigate whether specific instructional strategies are related to student engagement and their willingness to explore the experience of boredom. Longitudinal qualitative studies that investigate how students’ experiences with mindfulness practices may shift over time would also provide insight into students’ engagement with practice. For example, studies with older ! 100!adolescents (Monshat et al., 2012) and adults (Lomas et al., 2014) described the challenges that people new to mindfulness first encountered, and how they experienced less aversion to discomfort and restlessness with increased amounts of practice, becoming willing persevere and engage with unpleasant sensations and emotions rather than avoiding them.    Future studies should also explore whether program implementation may have an effect on students’ evaluations of MindUP, given that some classrooms had more negative student evaluations than others (range n 1 to 7 per classroom). Indeed a few students made comments regarding the negative effect implementation had on their experience of the program. For instance, one of the students reported that teachers took too long to explain different aspects of the program. Despite the suggestion in the curriculum to teach the program in 10 – 15 minute chunks, one student mentioned that the lessons were too long and involved too much sitting. Another student offered insight into how the Core Practice was introduced, complaining that the teacher interrupted practice with additional instructions. Other students’ comments suggested that the fundamental concepts of acceptance and non-judgment may not have been effectively conveyed to all students. These students implied that they thought they were unable to do the practice “correctly,” for instance, mentioning that it as impossible to still the mind, or that they could not achieve the “necessary” sense of calm. Understanding that there is no right or wrong way to practice mindfulness and that there is no expected outcome is an essential part of practice (see Kornfield, 1993, Chapter 5). Once again, classroom observations and qualitative inquiry would contribute valuable information on best practices for program implementation.   Because the results from the present study found that every classroom had at least one student who did not like any or most of the program, future research should explore potential similarities among students who do not enjoy MindUP in order to investigate whether the program may be better suited to students with specific personalities or needs, as has been suggested by results in some previous outcome studies of mindfulness education programs. For instance, Flook et al. (2010) found that only those students who rated lower on teacher and parent ratings of executive functions (EF), such ! 101!as behaviours related to inhibitory control, working memory, planning and organizing, and emotion control, showed significant improvements in EF after participating in a mindfulness education program compared to a control group. Huppert and Johnson (2010) found that certain personality types, as measured by the Big Five personality dimensions, may gain more from mindfulness education programs than others. They found that the higher the students scored in Agreeableness, and the lower they scored on Emotional Stability, the greater impact the MBI had on their well-being. Taken together with student comments in the present study that MindUP would be most useful for students under a great deal of stress or with pessimistic personalities, these findings indicate that mindfulness education programs may be more helpful and appealing to some students than others.   It is also important to investigate the role autonomy and motivation may play in student engagement. Mindfulness practices are traditionally taught to adult populations who have the choice of whether to practice or not, whereas young people may not be granted this same autonomy in schools. Although during their training, the teachers in the MindUP program were instructed to emphasize that participating in mindfulness practices was optional, without classroom observations, it is unclear whether teachers followed this instruction.   Findings regarding participants’ satisfaction with the MindUP program and their recommendation of the program to someone else were somewhat contradictory. Specifically, although 88% of students found the program satisfactory for themselves and 95% of students reported using something they learned from the program in their school or home life, only 69% reported that they would recommend that program to a friend. It should be noted that this could be an artifact of the response format that only offered the possibility to choose “yes” or “no” to this question. In the written responses to the open-ended question, several students mentioned that whether they would recommend the program or not would depend on the personality of the friend or the challenges that the friend was facing. It is also important to note that among grade 6 and 7 students, girls were significantly more likely to recommend the program to boys despite there being no significant gender differences among ! 102!older participants on questions regarding enjoyment, learning, or utility of the program. Exploring these incongruences is another task for future investigation MindUP as a Program to Promote Positive Youth Development  Students’ responses echo those found in outcome studies on mindfulness education programs with SEL components (e.g., Black & Fernando, 2014; Parker et al., 2014; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015): According to students, MindUP appears to foster positive outcomes in important areas of development during early adolescence. Students mentioned that participating in MindUP boosted their personal well-being by increasing positive affect and decreasing negative affect, and by helping them develop a more positive perspective towards life. This is an important finding, considering that early adolescents can be prone to excessive rumination on self-perceived negative characteristics (Harter, 2012). Indeed, several students mentioned that MindUP would be helpful for friends who tended to think in this way.  Teaching students mindful awareness, to observe what is happening in the moment without preconceived judgments that may lead to misperception, may be helpful during this time of life when students are prone to unrealistic and over-generalized concepts in relation to both oneself and others (Roeser & Pinela, 2014). Moreover, introducing students to concepts of optimistic and pessimistic thinking may be effective given students’ increased understanding of perspective-taking during this time of life (Harter, 2012). Increases in mindful awareness may help students recognize when pessimistic thinking may be misconstruing their perception of a situation and preventing them from seeing effective solutions. Applying mindful awareness to perspective-taking may also temper the tendency to overgeneralize optimistic thinking, which could potentially lead students to avoid unpleasant situations that need to be addressed in the present moment. More in-depth qualitative inquiry is needed to better understand which components of MindUP students identified as contributing to their well-being, as well as the interaction of mindful awareness and optimistic and pessimistic thinking. ! 103! Several students also mentioned outcomes associated with executive functions (EF), such as being better able to inhibit reactionary responses and think before acting, finding it easier to understand others’ perspectives, and having an easier time remembering things. Related to EF, students described experiences that coincided with the iterative reprocessing model of self-regulation (Cunningham & Zelazo, 2010), providing support for Zelazo and Lyon’s (2012) theory that mindfulness training may promote healthy development in self-regulation by simultaneously targeting top-down influences (i.e., attention regulation) and bottom-up influences (i.e., emotion regulation). They posited that practicing mindfulness “disrupts the automatic elicitation of emotional responses, resulting in greater calmness and emotional stability, which in turn may make it easier to consider multiple aspects of a given situation as well as multiple possible responses and reactions” (Zelazo & Lyons, 2012, p. 158). Indeed, the majority of students (91%) reported that MindUP helped them learn how to become more focused and calm.   In response to open-ended questions, many students mentioned they found it easier to recover from intense emotions related to sympathetic nervous system activity (i.e., “fight, flight, or freeze” response), such as anger, impatience, anxiety, excitement, and hyper-activity, to find a balanced state of calm. Some mentioned that this capability helped them gain more self-control and make better decisions. Building self-regulation skills in early adolescence is crucial given the tendency among some adolescents to take unnecessary, and potentially dangerous, risks especially in situations that elicit high emotional arousal (Steinberg, 2005). Future studies should interview students to better understand what calming means to early adolescents, and what role different components from MindUP may play in achieving a sense of calm.   Several students also explicitly mentioned that the self-regulation skills learned in MindUP were useful for coping with stress. In fact, improving one’s ability to cope with stress was a recurring reason (4%) why students would recommend the program to a friend. It seems that participating in MindUP may be an effective way to diminish negative responses to stress, such as anxiety. Stress-! 104!coping skills are particularly relevant during this period of development in which young people are especially vulnerable to the effects of stress, and during a time of life that introduces increased developmental and environmental stressors into young people’s live (Graber & Brooks-Gunn, 1996).   Student comments may also shed some light on the ambiguous cortisol findings from a previous study of MindUP (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015). In the previous study, there were no differences in MindUP and control group students’ average cortisol patterns at pre-test: Both demonstrated highest cortisol levels in the morning that gradually decreased throughout the day. This downward-cascade pattern has been observed in healthy adults (Miller, Chen, & Zhou, 2007). A different picture emerged at post-test, however. Whereas MindUP students’ diurnal cortisol pattern maintained this downward cascade over the day, control students’ diurnal cortisol pattern became blunted over the school year, an unhealthy pattern associated with chronic stress (i.e., allostatic load; Gunnar & Vazquez, 2001). MindUP students, however, showed a significant increase in morning cortisol levels post-program, which could also be indicative of increased levels of stress (Gunnar, 1992). To date, there is a paucity of research that examines healthy cortisol patterns in early adolescents; thus, it was not possible to interpret the changes in cortisol patterns in the previous study of MindUP (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015). In the present study, however, students consistently mentioned that participating in MindUP resulted in increased feelings of calm and relaxation. In fact, in response to the open-ended questions, the word “calm” appeared 84 times, and the word “relax” 32 times across the five questions. Future studies should include qualitative inquiry in combination with physiological measures of stress to be able to better interpret the impact of MindUP on students’ stress management skills. In general, more research is needed to understand how cortisol patterns relate to stress in early adolescence. Additionally, investigation is necessary into the role that self-regulation and EF play in resilience to stress.  ! 105!Support for MLERN Theoretical Framework.   The findings from this study also provide support for MLERN’s theory of change (see Figure 1.1) as a result of contemplative practice, which posits proximal outcomes of improved emotion regulation, attention regulation, EF, empathy, and perspective taking, and distal outcomes of increased well-being, prosocial behaviour, and contributions to the world. Additionally, there was some support for changes in self-representation, with several students mentioning that they learned more about themselves and appreciated their newfound self-awareness as a result of participating in the program. It is notable that no students reported distress in relation to changes in self-concept, but just the opposite; only mentions of feeling more positively about oneself were made. These findings suggest that the significant decreases in self-concept reported by grade 6 and 7 MindUP students in a previous study (Schonert-Reichl & Lawlor, 2010) may not be indicative of maladaptive change. Nevertheless, further in-depth qualitative inquiry into this area is necessary to better understand how participating in MindUP, and contemplative practices in general, may modify students’ self-representation during a time of life when a sense of self is rapidly developing.  Strengths of the Present Study  Findings from the present study indicate that a great deal of information regarding the MindUP program can be garnered from a relatively short participant satisfaction survey designed for grade 4 to 7 students. Although this is no substitute for deep qualitative exploration, it is a practical addition for researchers who are conducting studies with a large number of students that is relatively easy to implement. Furthermore, participant satisfaction surveys allow students to voice their opinions and provide important insight into the program components in a time- and cost-efficient manner. To my knowledge, the present study includes the largest sample of students to provide quantitative and qualitative data regarding their evaluations of a school-based MBI. Their responses provide information that can inform the development of research studies that include a more in-depth ! 106!qualitative inquiry, as well as inform the design of future experimental studies. The findings of the present study also indicate that students can provide cogent insights into how the MindUP program content and implementation might be changed to better suit their needs and preferences.  The format of the survey employed in this study was useful in that it included three different types of questions: dichotomous yes/no questions, Likert-scale questions, and open-ended questions. Each question provided slightly different information, yet the related nature of the responses provides evidence for the reliability of student responses. Additionally, a research assistant read the surveys aloud to the students, and multiple research assistants were present to answer any questions students may have had, contributing further to the reliability of the findings. Moreover, including questions that put varying levels of demand on language skill and cognition allowed most students to contribute information regardless of age or language capability, even if they were not able to answer the open-ended questions that required higher language proficiency than the closed-ended questions.  In addition to quantitative data, the present study conducted a thematic analysis in order to be able to present students’ unique comments in their own words. Much valuable information regarding individual experiences and insights would have been lost had a content analysis been conducted that simply quantified student open-ended responses into frequencies. As a source of trustworthiness, student responses from different grades and gender were provided verbatim for each theme. Credibility for the interpretation of themes is indicated by the consistency of responses across different questions and further bolstered by the large and diverse population of participants. Limitations of the Present study   Limitations to this study include the clustered nature of the data as result of students being nested in classrooms and schools. A further complication in interpreting the results is that three of the teachers participated in SMART-in-Education prior to being trained in MindUP and four did not. As a consequence of the study design, the independence assumption underlying ANOVA and chi-square ! 107!tests of independence was violated, which can lead to an inflation of alpha levels, thus resulting in a Type 1 error. That is, it is possible that the statistical differences observed in this study are a result of sampling error or other variables related to implementation of the program or classroom climate, and not simply the program itself. That said, effect sizes are reported here, which are not affected by dependence in data (Slavin, 2008). The small effect sizes indicate that any significant gender and grade group effects had little influence on student evaluations of the program.    Another limitation was the unequal number of students in each grade, making it difficult to analyze the data by grade alone. Indeed, even when combining grades into two groups of younger students (grades 4 and 5) and older students (grades 6 and 7), there were still far fewer participants (n = 53, 28%) in the younger grade group. Although chi-square tests of independence can be appropriately employed with unequal groups (McHugh, 2013), the unequal groupings resulted in the violation of the equal variance assumption for ANOVA, as measured by Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances, in two of the items (Learn About the Brain, Learn About Mindful Sensing). This violation reduces power, thus possibly resulting in a Type 2 error (Wu, 2013); that is, it is possible that significant effects related to grade group were present in the population but went undetected by the ANOVA tests in these items. Nevertheless, effect sizes for both of these items were, again, very small, suggesting that even if a statistically significant difference were observed in a larger sample with equal variances, the effect would account for a minimal amount of variance and have little practical significance (Ferguson, 2009).   Findings from the thematic analysis of open-ended questions are also tempered by unequal group sizes. Because there were more grade 6 and 7 students, their perceptions of the program are more represented in the thematic analysis. Future studies that include equal numbers of younger and older students are required to better understand potential variations in experiences related to grade. Additionally, the written descriptions to open-ended questions were somewhat decontextualized. For example, whereas some students mentioned specific practices that led to greater well-being and self-! 108!regulation skills, others simply mentioned that the MindUP program in general led to these outcomes. Similarly, there were several general comments that did not provide specific information about the program. Unfortunately it was not possible to follow up with individual students to better understand their responses given that data collection happened at the end of the school year. Thus, future studies should include opportunities to collect richer sources of data through focus groups, interviews, and think aloud protocols in which students describe their experiences immediately before and after partaking in mindfulness practice. Moreover, students should be offered the opportunity to comment on researchers’ interpretations of data.  In summary, results from this study should be interpreted with caution and considered exploratory. Findings should be used to stimulate additional research questions to be explored in future studies. Future experimental studies should also employ a minimum of 10 classrooms per condition in order to be able to use a multilevel model of regression, which is appropriate for nested data (Hoyle & Gottfredson, 2014). Future Directions  The results from this study inspired more questions than answers, which was, indeed, the purpose of this exploratory study. It is my hope that these findings galvanized future research into important areas of inquiry that have yet to be considered in mindfulness-based SEL programs, and contemplative education programs in general. Some of these potential areas of investigation are noted in the preceding discussion.   An important area of inquiry supported by this study is the potential synergy of SEL and mindfulness education programs. The results from this study indicated that most participants helped others more frequently after participating in MindUP. Further, several students mentioned that they learned to be kinder in MindUP and to have more empathy for others. A future question of inquiry is whether similar results would have been observed without the SEL components of MindUP. For ! 109!example how do focused attention mindfulness practices, such as mindful breathing, differ when grounded in the context of SEL as opposed to being practiced in isolation, as is more frequently becoming the case in North American institutions, such as hospitals and schools? Is a culture of ethics, such as kindness and compassion, necessary to benefit from the outcomes of mindfulness practice?   MindUP offers instruction for both individually-focused practice and other-focused practice by applying mindful awareness in one’s interactions with others. Traditional mindfulness practices are undertaken with the benefit of all beings in mind, both oneself and others. This can be seen in the theorized behavioural outcomes of the MLERN framework. Contemporary mindfulness practices in North America have been criticized as being self-centered (e.g., Grossman, 2015), which at best may stunt the possibilities of the practice to promote social change, and, at worse, create further suffering by over-emphasizing the self (see Kornfield, 1993 for a discussion of the Buddhist concept “no-self” and the relation of the concept to prosociality). Future work should compare mindfulness education programs that include only individually-focused practice to those that include prosocial practices, such as those included in MindUP. Qualitative inquiry with participants of MindUP is necessary to identify which program components they associated with increased prosocial behaviour and whether they felt mindfulness practices played a role in these changes.  Conclusion  Taken together with the two previous outcome studies conducted on MindUP (Schonert-Reichl & Lawlor, 2010; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015), the findings from the present study suggest that, from the perspectives of students, MindUP is a well-received program that can effectively promote positive youth development in Canadian early adolescents. Indeed, students reported that the program had a positive impact on their cognitive, physical, social, and emotional well-being, indicating that implementing MindUP in schools may be one way to make the most of the window of opportunity of early adolescent development to foster happy, healthy, and resilient youth. ! 110! The study also provides evidence that students as young as nine can reliably contribute valuable insight regarding program evaluation. Student responses corroborated several findings in theoretical and empirical research on mindfulness education and SEL programs for children and adolescents (e.g., Bakosh et al., 2015; Hyland, 2014; Metz et al., 2013; Roeser et al., 2014; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015). At the same time, they offered new insights regarding the implementation of MindUP and which aspects of the program they found most and least engaging. Their insights have provoked many important questions to be considered in future research. It is my hope that this study encourages researchers to recognize young people as valuable contributors to the research process, rather than simply objects of study. In future research evaluating mindfulness education and SEL programs, including young people’s voices should be the norm, not the exception.  ! 111!REFERENCES !Andersen, S. L., & Teicher, M. H. (2008). Stress, sensitive periods, and maturational events in adolescent depression. Trends in Neurosciences, 31, 183–191. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.01.004  Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13, 27–45. doi: 10.1177/1073191105283504 Bell, N., & Hayes, M. V. (2012). The Vancouver Area Neighbourhood Deprivation Index (Vandix): A census-based tool for assessing small-area variations in health status. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 103, 28 – 32. Ben-Arieh, A. (2005). Where are the children? Children’s role in measuring and monitoring their well-being. Social Indicators Research, 74, 573–596. doi: 10.1007/s11205-004-4645-6 Ben-Arieh, A. (2007). The child indicators movement: past, present, and future. Child Indicators Research, 1, 3–16. doi: 10.1007/s12187-007-9003-1 Benn, R., Akiva, T., Arel, S., & Roeser, R. W. (2012). Mindfulness training effects for parents and educators of children with special needs. Developmental Psychology, 48, 1476-1487. doi: 10.1037/a0027537 Benson, J., & Hocevar, D. (1985). The impact of item phrasing on the validity of attitude scales for elementary school children. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22, 231–240. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1985.tb01061.x Biegel, G. M., Brown, K. W., Shapiro, S. L., & Schubert, C. M. (2009). Mindfulness-based stress reduction for the treatment of adolescent psychiatric outpatients: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 855–866. doi:10.1037/a0016241 Black, D. S., & Fernando, R. (2014). Mindfulness training and classroom behavior among lower-income and ethnic minority elementary school children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23, 1242–1246. doi:10.1007/s10826-013-9784-4 ! 112!Boccio, F. J. (2004). Mindfulness yoga: The awakened union of breath, body, and mind. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications. Bodhi, B. (2005). In the Buddha’s words: An anthology of discourses from the Pali Canon. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications. Boehm, J. K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). The promise of sustainable happiness. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive psychology. Oxford Handbooks Online. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195187243.013.0063 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Britton, W. B., Lepp, N. E., Niles, H. F., Rocha, T., Fisher, N. E., & Gold, J. S. (2014). A randomized controlled pilot trial of classroom-based mindfulness meditation compared to an active control condition in sixth-grade children. Journal of School Psychology, 52, 263-278. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2014.03.002 Broderick, P. (2013). Learning to BREATHE: A mindfulness curriculum for adolescents to cultivate emotion regulation, attention, and performance. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications. Broderick, P. C., & Frank, J. L. (2014). Learning to BREATHE: An intervention to foster mindfulness in adolescence. New Directions for Youth Development, 142, 31–44. doi: 10.1002/yd.20095 Broderick, P. C., & Metz, S. (2009). Learning to BREATHE: A pilot trial of a mindfulness curriculum for adolescents. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 2(1), 35–46. doi: 10.1080/1754730X.2009.9715696 Broderick, P. C., & Metz, S. M. (in press). Working on the inside: Mindfulness for adolescents. In K. A. Schonert-Reichl & R. W. Roeser (Eds.), Handbook of mindfulness education. New York, NY: Springer. ! 113!Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822–848. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822 Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 211–237. doi: 10.1080/10478400701598298 Burke, C. A. (2010). Mindfulness-based approaches with children and adolescents: A preliminary review of current research in an emergent field. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19, 133–144. doi: 10.1007/s10826-009-9282-x Campbell-Sills, L., Barlow, D. H., Brown, T. A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2006). Effects of suppression and acceptance on emotional responses of individuals with anxiety and mood disorders. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1251–1263. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2005.10.001 Carlson, L.E., Speca, M., Faris, P., & Patel, K.D. (2007). One year pre-post intervention follow-up of psychological, immune, endocrine and blood pressure outcomes of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) in breast and prostate cancer outpatients. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 21, 1038–1049. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2007.04.002    Carmody, J., & Baer, R. A. (2007). Relationships between mindfulness practice and levels of mindfulness, medical and psychological symptoms and well-being in a mindfulness-based stress reduction program. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 31, 23–33. doi:10.1007/s10865-007-9130-7 Chambers, C. T., & Johnston, C. (2002). Developmental differences in children’s use of rating scales. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27, 27–36. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/27.1.27 Chambers, R., Gullone, E., Hassed, C., Knight, W., Garvin, T., & Allen, N. (2014). Mindful emotion regulation predicts recovery in depressed youth. Mindfulness, advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s12671-014-0284-4 ! 114!Chiesa, A., Calati, R., & Serretti, A. (2011). Does mindfulness training improve cognitive abilities? A systematic review of neuropsychological findings. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 449–464. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.11.003 Chiesa, A., & Serretti, A. (2009). Mindfulness-based stress reduction for stress management in healthy people: A review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 15, 593–600. doi:10.1089=acm.2008.0495  Condon, P., Desbordes, G., Miller, W., DeSteno, D., Hospital, M. G., & DeSteno, D. (2013). Meditation increases compassionate responses to suffering. Psychological Science, 24, 2125–2127. doi:10.1177/0956797613485603 Cullen, M. (2011). Mindfulness-based interventions: An emerging phenomenon. Mindfulness, 2, 186–193. doi: 10.1007/s12671-011-0058-1 Cullen, M., & Wallace, L. (2010). Stress Management And Relaxation Techniques in Education (SMART) training manual. Unpublished manuscript, Impact Foundation, Aurora, Colorado.  Cunningham, W. A., & Zelazo, P. D. (2010). The development of iterative reprocessing: Implications for affect and its regulation. In P. D. Zelazo, M. Chandler, & E. A. Crone (Eds.), Developmental social cognitive neuroscience (pp. 81–98). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.  Davidson, R.J., Kabat-Zinn, J., Schumacher, J., Rosenkranz, M., Muller, D., Santorelli, S.F., . . . Sheridan, J.F. (2003). Alterations in brain and immune function produced by mindfulness meditation. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65, 564–570. doi: 10.1097/01.psy.0000077505.67574.e3 Davis, D. M., & Hayes, J. A. (2011). What are the benefits of mindfulness? A practice review of psychotherapy-related research. Psychotherapy, 48, 198-208. doi: 10.1037/a0022062 DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., Marshall, P. L., & McCulloch, A. W. (2011). Developing and using a codebook for the analysis of interview data: An example from a professional development research project. Field Methods, 23, 136–155. doi: 10.1177/1525822x10388468 ! 115!Diamond, A. (2012). Activities and programs that improve children’s executive functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 335–341. doi: 10.1177/0963721412453722 Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011). Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old. Science, 333, 959–964. doi:10.1126/science.1204529 Diener, E., Suh, E. S., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276-302. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276  Dobkin, P., Irving, J., & Amar, S. (2012). For whom may participation in a mindfulness-based stress reduction program be contraindicated? Mindfulness, 3, 44–50. doi:10.1007/s12671-011-0079-9.  Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x Eccles, J. S. (1999). The development of children ages 6 to 14. Future of Children, 9, 30–44. doi: 10.2307/1602703 Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2011). Schools as developmental contexts during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 225-241. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00725.x Fattore, T., Mason, J., & Watson, E. (2009). When children are asked about their well-being: Towards a framework for guiding policy. Child Indicators Research, 2, 57–77. doi:10.1007/s12187-008-9025-3 Feldman, G., Hayes, A., Kumar, S., Greeson, J., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2007). Mindfulness and emotion regulation: The development and initial validation of the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale- Revised (CAMS-R). Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29, 177-190. doi: 10.1007/s10862-006-9035-8 Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 532–538. doi: 10.1037/a0015808 ! 116!Flook, L., Smalley, S. L., Kitil, M. J., Galla, B. M., Kaiser-Greenland, S., Locke, J., … Kasari, C. (2010). Effects of mindful awareness practices on executive functions in elementary school children. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 26, 70–95. doi:10.1080/15377900903379125 Forbes, E. F., & Dahl, R. E. (2010). Pubertal development and behavior: Hormonal activation of social and motivational tendencies. Brain and Cognition, 72, 66–72. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2009.10.007 Froh, J. J., Sefick, W. J., & Emmons, R. A. (2008). Counting blessings in early adolescents: An experimental study of gratitude and subjective well-being. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 213–233. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2007.03.005 Graber, J. A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1996). Transitions and turning points: Navigating the passage from childhood through adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 32, 768-776. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.32.4.768 Greenberg, M. T., & Harris, A. R. (2012). Nurturing mindfulness in children and youth: Current state of research. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 161–166. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00215.x Greenberg, M. T., & Mitra, J. L. (2015). From mindfulness to Right Mindfulness: The intersection of awareness and ethics. Mindfulness, 6, 74–78. doi:10.1007/s12671-014-0384-1 Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58, 466–474. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.466 Grossman, P. (2011). Defining mindfulness by how poorly I think I pay attention during everyday awareness and other intractable problems for psychology’s (re)invention of mindfulness: Comment on Brown et al. (2011). Psychological Assessment, 23, 1034-1040. doi: 10.1037/a0022713 Grossman, P, & Van Dam, N. T. (2011). Mindfulness, by any other name...:Trials and tribulations of Sati in Western psychology and science. Contemporary Buddhism, 12(1), 220 – 239. doi: 10.1080/14639947.2011.564841 ! 117!Guhn, M., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Gadermann, A. M., Marriott, D., Pedrini, L., Hymel, S., & Hertzman, C. (2012). Well-being in middle childhood: An assets-based population-level research-to-action project. Child Indicators Research, 5, 393–418. doi: 10.1007/s12187-012-9136-8 Gunnar, M. R. (1992). Reactivity of the hypothalamic–pituitary– adrenocortical system to stressors in normal infants and children. Pediatrics, 90, 491–497. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511570087.007   Gunnar, M. R., & Vazquez, D. M. (2001). Low cortisol and a flattening of expected daytime rhythm: Potential indices of risk in human development. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 515–538. doi: 10.1017/s0954579401003066 Hanh, T. N. (2009). Happiness: Essential mindfulness practices. Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press. Hanvey, L. (2006). Issues affecting the well-being of Canadian children in the Middle Years-6 to 12: A discussion paper. National Children’s Alliance, Ottawa. Retrieved from: Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Children. Denver: University of Denver. Harter, S. (2012). The construction of the self: Developmental and sociocultural foundations. New York: The Guilford Press. Hennessy, E. (1999). Children as service evaluators. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 4, 153–161. doi: 10.1111/1475-3588.00270 Herndon, F. (2008). Testing mindfulness with perceptual and cognitive factors: External vs. internal encoding, and the cognitive failures questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 32–41. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.07.002 Hölzel, B. K., Lazar, S. W., Gard, T., Schuman-Olivier, Z., Vago, D. R., & Ott, U. (2011). How does mindfulness meditation work? Proposing mechanisms of action from a conceptual and neural perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 537–559. doi: 10.1177/1745691611419671 ! 118!Hruschka, D. J., Schwartz, D., John, D. C. S., Picone-Decaro, E., Jenkins, R. A., & Carey, J. W. (2004). Reliability in coding open-ended data: Lessons learned from HIV behavioral research. Field Methods, 16, 307–331. doi: 10.1177/1525822x04266540 Huppert, F. A., & Johnson, D. M. (2010). A controlled trial of mindfulness training in schools: The importance of practice for an impact on well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 264–274. doi: 10.1080/17439761003794148 Jacobs, T.L., Epel, E.S., Lin, J., Blackburn, E.H., Wolkowitz, O.M., Bridwell, D.A., . . . Saron, C.D. (2011). Intensive meditation training, immune cell telomerase activity, and psychological mediators. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 36, 664-681. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2010.09.010 Jennings, P. A. (in press). CARE for teachers: A mindfulness-based approach to promoting teachers’ social and emotional competence and well-being. In K. A. Schonert-Reichl & R. W. Roeser (Eds.), Handbook of mindfulness education. New York, NY: Springer. Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The Prosocial Classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79, 491–525. doi:10.3102/0034654308325693 Jennings, P. A., Lantieri, L., Roeser, R. W., (2012). Supporting educational goals through cultivating mindfulness: Approaches for teachers and students. In M.W. Corrigan, & A. Higgins-D’Alessandro (Eds.), Handbook of prosocial education (pp. 371–397). Lanham, Maryland: Rowan & Littlefield. Jennings, P. A., Snowberg, K. E., Coccia, M. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2011). Improving classroom learning environments by cultivating awareness and resilience in education (CARE): Results of two pilot studies. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 46, 37–48. doi: 10.1037/spq0000035 Josefsson, T., Larsman, P., Broberg, A., & Lundh, L. -G. (2011). Self-reported mindfulness mediates the relation between meditation experience and psychological well-being. Mindfulness, 2, 49–58. doi: 10.1007/s12671-011-0042-9 ! 119!Joyce, A., Etty-Leal, J., Zazryn, T., & Hamilton, A. (2010). Exploring a mindfulness meditation program on the mental health of upper primary children: A pilot study. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 3(2), 17–25. doi: 10.1080/1754730X.2010.9715677 Kabat-Zinn, J. (1982). An outpatient program in behavioral medicine for chronic pain patients based on the practice of mindfulness meditation: Theoretical considerations and preliminary results. General Hospital Psychiatry, 4, 33–47. doi: 10.1016/0163-8343(82)90026-3 Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness. New York: Random House. Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 144–156. doi:10.1093/clipsy.bpg016 Kabat-Zinn, J. (2014a). The challenge of a life’s time—and a lifetime. Mindfulness, 5, 334–340. doi: 10.1007/s12671-014-0309-z Kabat-Zinn, J. (2014b). Meditation is not for the faint-hearted. Mindfulness, 5, 341–344. doi: 10.1007/s12671-014-0307-1 Kashdan, T. B., Mishra, A., Breen, W. E., & Froh, J. J. (2009). Gender differences in gratitude: Examining appraisals, narratives, the willingness to express emotions, and changes in psychological needs. Journal of Personality, 77, 691–730. doi:!10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00562.x Katz, D., & Toner, B. (2013). A systematic review of gender differences in the effectiveness of mindfulness-based treatments for substance use disorders. Mindfulness, 4, 318–331. doi:10.1007/s12671-012-0132-3 Keng, S., Smoski, M. J., & Robins, C. J. (2011). Effects of mindfulness on psychological health: A review of empirical studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 1041–1056. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.04.006 Kirby, P. (2004) A Guide to Actively Involving Young People as Researchers. Eastleigh, UK: Involve.  ! 120!Klatt, M., Harpster, K., Browne, E., White, S., & Case-Smith, J. (2013). Feasibility and preliminary outcomes for Move-Into-Learning: An arts-based mindfulness classroom intervention. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 233–241. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2013.779011 Kornfield, J. (1993). A path with heart: A guide through the perils and promises of spiritual life. New York: Bantam. Kuyken, W., Weare, K., Ukoumunne, O. C., Vicary, R., Motton, N., Burnett, R., … Huppert, F. (2013). Effectiveness of the Mindfulness in Schools Programme:  Non-randomised controlled feasibility study. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 203(2), 126-131. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.113.126649 Lantieri, L., Nambiar, M., Harnett, S., & Kyse, E. N. (in press). Cultivating inner resilience in educators and students: The Inner Resilience Program. In K. A. Schonert-Reichl & R. W. Roeser (Eds.), Handbook of mindfulness education. New York: Springer. Lawlor, M. S. (in press). Mindfulness and social emotional learning (SEL): A conceptual framework. In K. A. Schonert-Reichl & R. W. Roeser (Eds.), Handbook of mindfulness education. New York, NY: Springer. Lawlor, M.S. (2014). Mindfulness in practice: Considerations for implementation of mindfulness-based programming for adolescents in school contexts. New Directions for Youth Development, 2014(142), 83–95. doi: 10.1002/yd.20098 Lawlor, M.S, Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Gadermann, A. M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2013). A validation study of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale Adapted for children. Mindfulness, 5, 730-741. doi: 10.1007/s12671-013-0228-4 Lazar, S. W., Kerr, C. E., Wasserman, R. H., Gray, J. R., Greve, D. N., Treadway, M. T., … Fischl, B. (2005). Meditation experience is associated with increased cortical thickness. NeuroReport, 16, 1893–1897. doi: 10.1097/01.wnr.0000186598.66243.19   ! 121!Lerner, R.M., Dowling, E. M., & Anderson, P. M. (2003). Positive youth development: Thriving as the basis of personhood and civil society. Applied Developmental Science, 7, 172–180. doi: 10.1207/S1532480XADS0703_8 Lerner, R.M., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2007). Approaches to positive youth development. London: SAGE. Lissitz, R. W., & Green, S. B. (1975). Effect of the number of scale points on reliability: A Monte Carlo approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 10–13. doi: 10.1037/h0076268 Lomas, T., Cartwright, T., Edginton, T., & Ridge, D. (2014). A qualitative summary of experiential challenges associated with meditation practice. Mindfulness, advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s12671-014-0329-8 Lozano, L. M., García-Cueto, E., & Muñiz, J. (2008). Effect of the number of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 4(2), 73–79. doi: 10.1027/1614-2241.4.2.73 Marsh, H. W. (1986). Negative item bias in ratings scales for preadolescent children: A cognitive-developmental phenomenon. Developmental Psychology, 22, 37-49. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.22.1.37 Marsh, H. W., Barnes, J., Cairns, L., & Tidman, M. (1984). Self- description questionnaire: Age and sex effects in the structure and level of self-concept for preadolescent children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 940–956. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.76.5.940  Mellor, D., & Moore, K. A. (2014). The use of Likert scales with children. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39, 369–379. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jst079 Mendelson, T., Greenberg, M. T., Dariotis, J. K., Gould, L. F., Rhoades, B. L., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Feasibility and preliminary outcomes of a school-based mindfulness intervention for urban youth. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 985–994. doi: 10.1007/s10802-010-9418-x Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ! 122!Miller, G. E., Chen, E., & Zhou, E. S. (2007). If it goes up, must it come down? Chronic stress and the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenocortical axis in humans. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 25–45. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.25  Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Peake, P. K. (1988). The nature of adolescent competencies predicted by preschool delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 687-696. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.54.4.687 Mind and Life Education Research Network (MLERN): Davidson, R., Dunne, J., Eccles, J. S., Engle, A., Greenberg, M., Jennings, P., … Vago, D. (2012). Contemplative practices and mental training: Prospects for American education. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 146–153. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00240.x Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., … Caspi, A. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 10, 2693-2698. doi:10.1073/pnas.1010076108 Moilanen, K. L. (2006). The Adolescent Self-regulatory Inventory: The development and validation of a questionnaire of short-term and long-term self-regulation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 835–848. doi: 10.1007/s10964-006-9107-9 Monshat, K., Khong, B., Hassed, C., Vella-Brodrick, D., Norrish, J., Burns, J., & Herrman, H. (2012). “A conscious control over life and my emotions:” Mindfulness practice and healthy young people. A qualitative study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52, 572–577. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.09.008 Moore, A., & Malinowski, P. (2009). Meditation, mindfulness and cognitive flexibility. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 176–186. doi:!10.1016/j.concog.2008.12.008 Moore, T., Saunders, V., & McArthur, M. (2011). Championing choice—Lessons learned from children and young people about research and their involvement. Child Indicators Research, 4(2), 249–267. doi:10.1007/s12187-010-9083-1 ! 123!Napoli, M., Krech, P. R., & Holley, L. C. (2005). Mindfulness training for elementary school students. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 21, 99–125. doi:10.1300/J370v21n01_05 Nelson, E. E., Leibenluft, E., McClure, E., & Pine, D. S. (1999). The social re-orientation of adolescence: A neuroscience perspective on the process and its relation to psychopathology. Psychological Medicine, 35, 163–174. doi: 10.1017/s0033291704003915 Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Rusting, C. L. (1999). Gender differences in well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: Foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 330 – 350). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Ouweneel, E., Le Blanc, P., & Schaufeli, W. (2014). On being grateful and kind: Results of two randomized controlled trials on study-related emotions and academic achievement. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 148, 37–60. doi:10.1080/00223980.2012.742854 Parker, A. E., Kupersmidt, J. B., Mathis, E. T., Scull, T. M., & Sims, C. (2014). The impact of mindfulness education on elementary school students: Evaluation of the Master Mind program. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 7, 184-204. doi:10.1080/1754730X.2014.916497 Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Raes, F., Dewulf, D., Van Heeringen, C., & Williams, J. M. G. (2009). Mindfulness and reduced cognitive reactivity to sad mood: Evidence from a correlational study and a non-randomized waiting list controlled study. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47, 623–627. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2009.03.007 Raes, F., & Williams, M. G. (2010). The relationship between mindfulness and uncontrollability of ruminative thinking. Mindfulness, 1, 199–203. doi: 10.1007/s12671-010-0021-6 Roeser, R. W. (2013). Mindfulness and human development: A commentary on the special issue. Research in Human Development, 10, 273–283. doi: 10.1080/15427609.2013.818490 Roeser, R. W., & Eccles, J. S. (2011). School and community influences on human development. In M. H. Bornstein & Lamb, M.E. (Eds.), Developmental science: An advanced textbook (6th ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press. ! 124!Roeser, R. W., & Pinela, C. (2014). Mindfulness and compassion training in adolescence: A developmental contemplative perspective. New Directions for Youth Development, 142, 9–30. doi:10.1002/yd.20094 Roeser, R. W., Vago, D. R., Pinela, C., Morris, L. S., Taylor, C., & Harrison, J. (2014). Contemplative education. In L. Nucci, D. Narvaez, & T. Krettenauer (Eds.), Handbook of moral and character education (pp. 223–248). New York: Routledge. Roeser, R.W., & Zelazo, P. D. (2012). Contemplative science, education and child development: Introduction to the special section. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 143–145. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00242.x Roeser, R. W., & Peck, S. C. (2009). An education in awareness: Self, motivation, and self-regulated learning in contemplative perspective. Educational Psychologist, 44, 119–136. doi: 10.1080/00461520902832376 Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 98–131. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.98 Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sandvik, E., Diener, E., & Seidlitz, L. (1993). Subjective well-being: The convergence and stability of self-report and non-self-report measures. The Journal of Personality, 61, 317–342. doi:!10.1111/j.1467-6494.1993.tb00283.x Schlam, T. R., Wilson, N. L., Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Ayduk, O. (2013). Preschoolers’ delay of gratification predicts their body mass 30 years later. The Journal of Pediatrics, 162(1), 90–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.06.049 Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Hymel, S. (2007). Educating the heart as well as the mind: Social and emotional learning for school and life success. Education Canada, 47(2), 20–25. Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Guhn, M., Gadermann, A. M., Hymel, S., Sweiss, L., & Hertzman, C. (2012). Development and validation of the Middle Years Development Instrument (MDI): Assessing children’s ! 125!well-being and assets across multiple contexts. Social Indicators Research, 114, 345–369. doi: 10.1007/s11205-012-0149-y Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Lawlor, M. S. (2010). The effects of a mindfulness-based education program on pre- and early adolescents’ well-being and social and emotional competence. Mindfulness, 1, 137–151. doi:10.1007/s12671-010-0011-8 Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Le Rose, M. (2008). Considering resilience in children and youth: Fostering positive adaptation and competence in schools, families, and communities. Unpublished paper: Discussion paper for the Learning Partnership. Retrieved from Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Oberle, E., Lawlor, M. S., Abbott, D., Thomson, K., Oberlander, T. F., & Diamond, A. (2015). Enhancing cognitive and social and emotional development through a simple-to administer mindfulness-based school program for elementary school children: A randomized controlled trial. Developmental Psychology, 51, 52-66. doi: 10.1037/a0038454 Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.5 Seligman, M. E., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410-421. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.60.5.410 Semple, R. J., Lee, J., Rosa, D., & Miller, L. F. (2009). A randomized trial of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for children: Promoting mindful attention to enhance social and emotional resiliency in children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19, 218–229. doi:10.1007/s10826-009-9301-y Shackman, A.J., Sarinopoulos, I., Maxwell J.S., Pizzagalli, D.A, Lavric A., & Davidson R.J. (2006) Anxiety selectively disrupts visuospatial working memory. Emotion, 6, 40–61. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.6.1.40 Shapiro, D. H. (1992). Adverse effects of meditation: A preliminary investigation of long-term meditators. International Journal of Psychosomatics, 39, 62–67.  Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., & Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of  ! 126! mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 373–386. !doi:!10.1002/jclp.20237 Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2006). How to increase and sustain positive emotion: The effects of expressing gratitude and visualizing best possible selves. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 73–82. doi: 10.1080/17439760500510676 Sherman, L. E., Rudie, J. D., Pfeifer, J. H., Masten, C. L., McNealy, K., & Dapretto, M. (2014). Development of the default mode and central executive networks across early adolescence: A longitudinal study. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 148–159. doi:!10.1016/j.dcn.2014.08.002 Sibinga, E. M., Kerrigan, D., Stewart, M., Johnson, K., Magyari, T., & Ellen, J. M. (2011). Mindfulness-based stress reduction for urban youth. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 17, 213–218. doi:10.1089/acm.2009.0605 Silbereisen & Lerner (2009). Approaches to positive youth development: A view of the issues. In R.M Lerner & R.K. Silbereisen (Eds.), Approaches to positive youth development (pp. 3-30). London: Sage. Slavin, R. E. (2008). Perspectives on evidence-based research in education--What works? Issues in synthesizing educational program evaluations. Educational Researcher, 37, 5–14. doi: 10.3102/0013189X08314117 Steinberg, L. (2005). Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 69–74. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.005 Suldo, S. M., Shaunessy, E., & Hardesty, R. (2008). Relationships among stress, coping, and mental health in high-achieving high school students. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 273–290. doi: 10.1002/pits.20300 Vago, D. R., & Silbersweig, D. A. (2012). Self-awareness, self-regulation, and self-transcendence (S-ART): a framework for understanding the neurobiological mechanisms of mindfulness. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 1-30. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00296 ! 127!van de Weijer-Bergsma, E., Langenberg, G., Brandsma, R., Oort, F. J., & Bögels, S. M. (2014). The effectiveness of a school-based mindfulness training as a program to prevent stress in elementary school children. Mindfulness, 5, 238–248. doi:10.1007/s12671-012-0171-9  Weare, K. (2013). Developing mindfulness with children and young people: A review of the evidence and policy context. Journal of Children’s Services, 8, 141-153. doi:10.1108/JCS-12-2012-0014 Weissberg, R. P., Kumpfer, K. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2003). Prevention that works for children and youth: An introduction. American Psychologist, 58, 425–432. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.425 White, L. S. (2012). Reducing stress in school-age girls through mindful yoga. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 26, 45–56. doi:10.1016/j.pedhc.2011.01.002 Wisner, B. L. (2014). An exploratory study of mindfulness meditation for alternative school students: Perceived benefits for improving school climate and student functioning, Mindfulness, 5, 626–638. doi:10.1007/s12671-013-0215-9 Zelazo, P. D., & Lyons, K. E. (2012). The potential benefits of mindfulness training in early childhood: A developmental social cognitive neuroscience perspective. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 154–160. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00241.x Zoogman, S., Goldberg, S. B., Hoyt, W. T., & Miller, L. (2014). Mindfulness interventions with youth: A meta-analysis. Mindfulness, advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s12671-013-0260-4      !!!! 128!APPENDIX A: PARENT/GUARDIAN CONSENT FORM !!University!of!British!Columbia!Department!of!Pediatrics!British!Columbia!Children's!and!Women’s!Health!Center! !!October,!2011!!!Dear!Parent/Guardian:!!!We!are!writing!to!request!permission!for!your!son/daughter!to!participate!in!a!research!project!that!we!are!conducting!at!your!child’s!elementary!school!entitled!"Effectiveness!of!Mindfulness!Education!Programs!on!Children's!Social!and!emotional!Competence,!Psychological!WellUBeing,!Cognitive!Control,!and!Stress!Reactivity.”!This!study!is!being!organized!by!educators!at!the!Vancouver!School!Board!and!Dr.!Kimberly!A.!SchonertUReichl!and!Ms.!Eva!Oberle!(Faculty!of!Education,!University!of!British!Columbia),!Dr.!Adele!Diamond!(Developmental!Cognitive!Neuroscience,!University!of!British!Columbia),!and!Dr.!Tim!Oberlander!(Department!of!Pediatrics,!Children’s!and!Women’s!Health!Centre).!Listed!below!are!several!aspects!of!this!project!that!you!need!to!know.!!Purpose:%The!purpose!of!this!study!is!to!evaluate!the!effectiveness!of!the!“MindUP”!program!–!an!educational!program!for!children,!designed!to!promote!children’s!psychological!social!responsibility,!wellU!being,!and!academic!success,!as!well!as!the!SMART!(Stress!Management!and!Relaxation!Techniques)!in!Education!program!–!a!training!program!for!teachers,!designed!to!improve!teachers!ability!to!deal!with!stress!and!enhance!their!wellUbeing!and!job!satisfaction.!!The!MindUP!program!consists!of!teaching!a!series!of!simple!techniques!designed!to!enhance!self!awareness,!focused!attention,!problem!solving!abilities,!stress!reduction,!conflict!resolution,!and!prosocial!behaviours!in!children!(such!as,!sharing,!helping,!and!cooperating).!MindUP!is!being!taught!in!many!schools!throughout!the!Vancouver!School!District!as!part!of!the!District’s!goal!to!promote!students’!social!and!emotional!learning!and!social!responsibility.!Some!of!the!children!who!participate!in!the!research!study!will!receive!the!MindUP!program!in!their!classroom!while!other!children!in!the!study!will!not!receive!the!program!(comparison!group).!These!children!in!the!comparison!group!will!get!the!program!at!a!later!time.!!The!SMARTUinUEducation!program!is!a!program!for!teachers,!and!it!consists!of!a!series!of!afternoon!and!weekend!workshops.!Your!child’s!teacher!may!or!may!not!participate!in!SMART!throughout!the!duration!of!this!research!project!depending!on!whether!or!not!they!are!in!the!comparison!group.!!Our!research!project!is!concerned!with!developing!an!understanding!of!whether!or!not!the!MindUP!program!for!children!and!the!SMARTUinUEducation!program!for!teachers!have!an!effect!on!children’s!development!of!a!positive!selfUregard,!healthy!adjustment,!self!control,!and!success!in!school.!We!are!also!interested!in!learning!more!about!the!relationship!between!the!physical!body!and!the!psychological!mind;!to!do!so,!we!will!be!looking!at!a!stress!hormone,!cortisol,!which!is!secreted!into!the!body,!and!examine!its!relation!to!social!emotional!measures.!We!are!also!interested!in!understanding!the!development!of!children’s!self!control,!rule!learning,!and!memory!and!examining!whether!or!not!these!dimensions!can!be!enhanced!as!a!result!of!participation!in!the!MindUP!program.!!Procedure:%If!you!and!your!child!agree!to!participate,!we!will!work!closely!with!your!child’s!classroom!teacher!to!schedule!the!research!sessions!during!the!school!day.!We!will!visit!your!! 129!child’s!classroom!for!3!separate!sessions!in!the!next!few!weeks,!3!sessions!in!January!2012,!and!3!sessions!near!the!end!of!the!school!year.!!1. In!the!first!of!these!sessions!we!will!ask!participating!students!to!fill!out!some!questionnaires%that!ask!about!their!background,!feelings!about!themselves,!their!peers,!and!school!(described!in!more!detail!below).!Participating!students!will!complete!one!set!of!questionnaires!in!the!next!couple!of!weeks!and!another!set!of!questionnaires!at!near!the!end!of!the!school!year.!For!each!session,!it!will!take!about!50!minutes!to!complete!the!questionnaires.!We!will!be!there!to!explain!the!directions!and!make!sure!your!child!understands!the!instructions!–!as!well,!all!of!the!survey!questions!will!be!read!out!loud!to!students.!The!first!questionnaire!asks!about!background,!such!as!age,!gender,!family!composition,!and!language!spoken!at!home.!Another!set!of!questionnaires!asks!about!students’!feelings!about!themselves,!their!classroom,!and!their!positive!social!behaviours.!The!third!set!of!questionnaires!asks!students!to!provide!ratings!of!their!classmates’!positive!classroom!behaviours,!and!the!last!questionnaire!asks!for!information!on!their!feelings!about!school.!In!addition!to!obtaining!information!directly!from!participating!students,!your!child’s!teacher!is!being!asked!to!complete!a!checklist!that!tells!us!about!your!child’s!social!behaviours!in!the!classroom.!Children!who!do!not!participate!in!this!research!will!be!given!an!activity!to!do!that!is!related!to!their!regular!classroom!instruction.!!!2. In!the!second!of!the!three!sessions!(one!in!the!next!couple!of!weeks!and!the!other!at!the!end!of!the!year),!we!want!to!learn!about!the!daily!pattern!of!substances!found!in!children’s!saliva!–!the!stress!hormone!cortisol.!To!learn!about!this,!we!will!ask!your!child!to!give!us!a!saliva%(spit)%sample%3!times!over!the!duration!of!one!typical!school!day:!when!he/she!first!comes!to!school,!at!lunch!time,!and!before!dismissal!(approximately!5!minutes!for!each!collection).!Saliva!will!be!collected!with!a!neutral!tasting!cotton!swab;!there!are!no!harms!to!the!saliva!collection.!Your!child’s!saliva!samples!will!be!destroyed!after!we!have!done!our!testing.!!!3. In!the!final!session!(one!in!the!next!couple!of!weeks!and!the!other!near!the!end!of!the!school!year),!we!want!to!learn!about!the!development!of!children’s!selfUcontrol,!rule!learning,!and!memory!and!see!how!these!“cognitive!control”!behaviours:!1)!might!change!as!a!result!of!participation!in!the!ME!program,!and!2)!are!associated!with!children’s!psychological!wellUbeing!and!academic!success.!To!learn!about!this,!we!will!be!giving!children!games%to%play%and%problems%to%solve%on%the%computer.!Specifically,!your!child!will!be!asked!to!respond!to!pictures!using!various!rules!that!we!will!explain!to!them.!During!the!course!of!the!game,!the!rules!might!change.!Before!each!game!we!will!explain!the!rules!and!go!over!them!with!your!child,!giving!your!child!practice.!In!games!where!the!rules!change,!we!will!explain!that!and!explain!what!they!will!change!to.!We!will!do!our!very!best!to!make!sure!that!your!child!understands!how!to!play!a!game!before!we!start.!We!never!rush!or!criticize!anyone,!and!try!to!keep!each!child!engaged!so!that!he!or!she!performs!well.!Most!children!enjoy!the!individual!attention.!The!computer!session!will!be!done!individually!with!each!participating!student!and!takes!about!15!minutes!to!complete.!!!If!you!chose!not!to!have!your!child!participate,!the!researchers!will!collaborate!with!your!child’s!classroom!teacher!to!arrange!an!alternative!activity!for!students!who!do!not!participate!in!the!study.!Activities!can!range!from!working!on!current!assignments,!or!completing!a!fun!sheet!(word!search,!crossword!puzzle)!that!the!researchers!provide.!Please!note!that!agreeing/!declining!for!your!child!to!participate!in!this!study!applies!only!to!the!research%portion%of!this!project.!This!means!that!if!you!decline!your!child’s!participation,!she!or!he!will!not!participate!in!! 130!any!of!the!research!activities!involved!in!this!study!(i.e.,!the!questionnaire,!the!saliva!collection,!and!the!computer!tasks).!However,!your!child’s!classroom!teacher!may!still!implement!the!MindUP!program,!and!the!classroom!teacher!may!still!be!receiving!the!SMARTUinUEducation!program.!MindUP!is!a!classroomUbased!social!and!emotional!promotion!program,!and!teachers!who!decide!that!this!program!be!implemented!in!their!classroom!do!not!exclude!individual!children.!Similarly,!SMARTUinUEducation!is!a!program!for!teachers,!and!your!child’s!teacher’s!participation!in!SMARTUinUEducation!is!not!affected!by!parental!consent.!!Risks:%For!the!questionnaire!portion!of!this!study,!it!is!important!for!you!to!know!that!it!is!not!a!test!and!there!are!no!right!or!wrong!answers!–!we!are!not!in!any!sense!“testing”!the!children.!We!are!only!interested!in!finding!out!children’s!opinions!and!feelings.!It!is!hoped!that!the!results!of!this!study!will!help!teachers!and!parents!better!understand!the!way!that!students!think!and!improve!education!for!all.!For!the!portion!of!this!research!in!which!we!collect!your!child’s!saliva!(spit),!you!should!know!that!helping!with!this!project!will!not!hurt!your!child!or!make!him/her!sick.!The!dental!rolls!used!to!collect!saliva!will!taste!like!paper.!There!are!no!known!risks!or!side!effects!in!collecting!saliva!or!administering!the!computer!tasks!to!the!child’s!development.!!Confidentiality:%Any!information!resulting!from!this!research!study!will!be!kept!strictly!confidential.!All!documents!will!be!identified!only!by!code!number!and!kept!in!a!secured!information!system!and!locked!filing!cabinet.!The!identity!of!the!participants!in!this!study!(both!teachers!and!students)!will!be!entirely!confidential.!No!information!that!discloses!your!child’s!identity!will!be!released!or!published!without!specific!consent!to!the!disclosure.!Your!child’s!identity!will!not!be!identified!by!name!in!any!reports!of!the!completed!study.!!Copies!of!the!relevant!data,!which!identify!the!participants!only!by!code!number,!may!be!published!in!scientific!journals,!but!no!participant!will!be!identified!by!name.!However,!research!records!identifying!participants!may!be!inspected!in!the!presence!of!the!Investigator!or!his!or!her!designate!by!representatives!of!the!UBC!Research!Ethics!Board!for!the!purpose!of!monitoring!the!research.!!Contacts:%If!you!would!like!more!information!and!have!any!questions!and/or!concerns!at!any!time!regarding!this!study,!please!call!Dr.!Kimberly!A.!SchonertUReichl!at!604U822U3420.!If!you!have!any!concerns!now!or!later!about!your!child’s!treatment!or!rights!as!a!research!subject,!you!may!contact!the!Research!Subject’s!Information!Line!in!the!UBC!Office!of!Research!Services.!!We!would!appreciate!it!if!you!could!indicate!on!the!slip!provided!on!the!attached!page!whether!or!not!your!son/daughter!has!your!permission!to!participate.!Would!you!kindly!sign!and!date!the!attached!slip!where!indicated.!We!would!appreciate!it!if!your!son/daughter!could!return!the!bottom!portion!of!the!slip!to!school!tomorrow.!!Thank!you!very!much!for!considering!this!request.!!Sincerely,!!Kimberly!SchonertUReichl!!Principal!Investigator!Associate!Professor!Department!of!Educational!and!Counselling!Psychology,!and!Special!Education,!UBC!!CoFInvestigators%! !Dr.!Tim!Oberlander,!Professor,!Department!of!Pediatrics,!UBC!! !Dr.!Adele!Diamond,!Professor,!Developmental!Cognitive!Neuroscience,!UBC!! !Ms.!Eva!Oberle,!Ph.D.!student,!Department!of!Educational!and!Counselling!and!Special!Education,!UBC!!______________________________________________________________________________________________________________%! 131!PARENT%CONSENT%FORM%!Study%Title:%"Effectiveness!of!Mindfulness!Education!Programs!on!Children's!Social!and!emotional!Competence,!Psychological!WellUBeing,!Cognitive!Control,!and!Stress!Reactivity”!!Principal%Investigator:%Dr.!Kimberly!SchonertUReichl,!Associate!Professor,!Department!of!Educational!and!Counselling!Psychology!and!Special!Education!!University!of!British!Columbia,!Vancouver,!B.C.!!KEEP%THIS%PORTION%FOR%YOUR%RECORDS%!I!understand!that!my!child’s!participation!in!the!above!study!is!entirely!voluntary,!and!that!I!or!my!child!may!refuse!to!participate,!or!I!or!my!child!is!free!to!withdraw!from!the!study!at!any!time!without!any!consequences.!I!have!received!a!copy!of!this!consent!form!for!my!own!records.!I!consent!to!my!child’s!participation!in!this!study!and!in!signing!this!document!I!am,!in!no!way,!waiving!the!legal!rights!of!myself!or!my!child.!I!have!read!and!understand!the!attached!letter!regarding!the!study!entitled!"Effectiveness!of!Mindfulness!Education!Programs!on!Children's!Social!and!emotional!Competence,!Psychological!WellUBeing,!Cognitive!Control,!and!Stress!Reactivity”!!I!have!also!kept!copies!of!both!the!letter!describing!the!study!and!this!permission!slip.!!!PLEASE!CHECK!ONE!_______!YES,!I!agree!to!my!son/daughter!participating!in!this!project.!!! ! ! _______!NO,!my!son/daughter!does!not!have!my!permission!to!participate.!!!_____________________________! ! _________________________! ____________________________!Parent’s!Signature!! ! ! Printed!Name!! ! ! Date!!!_________________________________!Son!or!Daughter’s!Name!!!!! 132!APPENDIX B: PARTICIPANT ASSENT FORM !!University!of!British!Columbia!Department!of!Pediatrics!British!Columbia!Children's!and!Women’s!Health!Center! !!!!February!28th,!2011!!%You!are!invited!to!participate!in!a!research!project!that!we!are!conducting!at!your!elementary!school!entitled!"Effectiveness!of!Mindfulness!Education!Programs!on!Children's!Social!and!emotional!Competence,!Psychological!WellUBeing,!Cognitive!Control,!and!Stress!Reactivity.”!This!study!is!being!organized!by!educators!in!the!Vancouver!School!District!and!Dr.!Kimberly!A.!SchonertUReichl!(Faculty!of!Education,!University!of!British!Columbia),!Dr.!Adele!Diamond!(Developmental!Cognitive!Neuroscience,!University!of!British!Columbia),!Dr.!Tim!Oberlander!(Department!of!Pediatrics,!Children’s!and!Women’s!Health!Centre)!and!Ms.!Eva!Oberle!(Faculty!of!Education,!University!of!British!Columbia).!Listed!below!are!several!aspects!of!this!project!that!you!need!to!know.!!Why$are$we$doing$this$project?$!The!purpose!of!this!study!is!to!evaluate!the!effectiveness!of!the!“MindUP”!program!–!an!educational!program!for!!children!designed!to!promote!children’s!psychological!wellUbeing!and!academic!success,!and!the!SMART!(Stress!Management!and!Relaxation!Techniques)!program!–!a!training!program!for!teachers!designed!to!reduce!stress!and!increase!wellUbeing.!The!MindUP!program!consists!of!teaching!a!series!of!simple!techniques!designed!to!enhance!self!awareness,!focused!attention,!problem!solving!abilities,!goal!setting,!stress!reduction,!conflict!resolution!and!prosocial!behaviors!in!children.!It!is!being!taught!in!several!schools!throughout!the!Vancouver!School!District!as!part!of!the!District’s!goal!to!promote!students’!social!responsibility.!Some!of!the!children!who!participate!in!the!research!study!will!receive!the!MindUP!program!in!their!classroom!while!other!children!in!the!study!will!not!receive!such!a!program!(comparison!classrooms).!The!SMARTUprogram!is!a!program!for!teachers,!and!it!consists!of!a!series!of!afternoon!and!weekend!workshops.!Your!teacher!may!or!may!not!(comparison!group)!participate!in!SMART!throughout!the!duration!of!this!research!project.!!Our!project!is!concerned!with!developing!an!understanding!of!whether!or!not!the!MindUP!program!for!children!and!the!SMART!program!for!teachers!effect!children’s!development!of!a!positive!selfUregard,!healthy!adjustment,!and!success!in!school.!Also,!we!are!interested!in!learning!more!about!the!relationship!between!the!physical!body!and!the!psychological!mind;!to!do!so,!we!will!be!looking!at!a!stress!hormone,!cortisol,!which!is!secreted!into!the!body,!as!well!as!psychosocial!and!cognitive!test!measures.!We!are!inviting!all!of!the!children!in!your!class!to!participate!in!our!project.!!What$will$happen$during$this$project?$!If!you!decide!to!participate!in!this!project,!we!will!visit!your!classroom!for!3!separate!sessions!during!the!next!week,!3!sessions!in!January,!and!3!sessions!at!the!end!of!the!school!year!in!June!2012.!!1.!In!the!first!session!we!will!ask!you!to!fill!out!some!questionnaires%that!ask!you!about!your!background,!your!feeling!about!yourself,!your!peers,!and!school.!You!will!complete!one!set!of!questionnaires!in!the!next!couple!of!weeks,!one!set!in!January!2012,!and!another!set!of!! 133!questionnaires!at!near!the!end!of!the!school!year.!For!each!session,!it!will!take!you!about!50U60!minutes!to!complete!the!questionnaires.!We!will!be!there!to!explain!the!directions!and!make!sure!you!understand!the!instructions.!The!first!questionnaire!asks!about!your!background,!such!as!age,!gender,!family!composition,!and!language!spoken!at!home.!Another!set!of!questionnaires!asks!you!about!your!feelings!about!yourself,!your!classroom,!and!your!positive!social!behaviours.!The!third!set!of!questionnaires!asks!you!to!provide!ratings!of!your!classmates’!positive!classroom!behaviours,!and!the!last!questionnaire!asks!for!information!on!your!feelings!about!school.!In!addition!to!obtaining!information!directly!from!you,!your!teacher!is!being!asked!to!complete!a!checklist!that!tells!us!about!your!social!behaviors!in!the!classroom.!!4. In!the!second!of!the!three!sessions,!we!want!to!learn!about!the!daily!pattern!of!substances!found!in!your!saliva!–!the!stress!hormone!cortisol.!To!learn!about!this,!we!will!ask!you!to!give!us!a!saliva%(spit)%sample%3!times!over!the!duration!of!one!typical!school!day:!when!you!first!come!to!school,!at!lunch!time,!and!before!dismissal!(approximately!5!minutes!for!each!collection).!Your!saliva!samples!will!be!destroyed!after!we!have!done!our!testing.!!!5. In!the!third!session,!we!would!like!to!learn!about!your!cognitive!control!abilities!(e.g.,!how!well!you!can!remember!things).!We!will!invite!you!to!participate!in!two!short!(in!total!ca.!15!minutes)!computer%games%where!you!are!asked!to!remember!the!game’s!rules!and!to!play!the!game.!We!will!be!assisting!you!during!the!computer!game,!explain!the!rules!to!you!and!help!you!practice!the!game!first.!We!never!rush!or!criticize!anyone,!and!try!to!help!you!so!that!you!do!well.!!!If!you!or!your!parents!chose!not!to!have!you!participate!in!the!study,!the!researchers!will!collaborate!with!your!teacher!to!arrange!an!alternative!activity!for!students!who!do!not!participate!in!the!study.!Activities!can!range!from!working!on!current!assignments,!or!completing!a!fun!sheet!(word!search,!crossword!puzzle)!that!the!researchers!provide.!!Can$anything$bad$happen$to$me?$!For!the!questionnaire!portion!of!this!study,!it!is!important!for!you!to!know!that!it!is!not!a!test!and!there!are!no!right!or!wrong!answers!–!just!your!answers.!We!are!only!interested!in!finding!out!your!opinions!and!feelings.!We!think!that!if!we!are!to!learn!more!about!children!your!age!we!have!to!come!to!the!children!and!ask!them!in!person.!So,!you!can!help!teach!us!how!children!think!and!feel.!It!is!hoped!that!the!results!of!this!study!will!help!teachers!and!parents!better!understand!the!way!that!students!think!and!improve!education!for!all.!For!the!portion!of!this!research!in!which!we!collect!your!saliva!(spit),!you!should!know!that!helping!with!this!project!will!not!hurt!you!or!make!you!sick.!The!dental!rolls!used!to!collect!saliva!will!taste!like!paper.!!Who$will$know$that$I$am$taking$part?$!We!will!not!show!your!name!to!anyone.!We!will!use!a!secret!code!on!all!the!information!(including!the!questionnaires)!that!you!give!to!us.!When!we!write!a!report!of!this!project,!we!will!not!use!your!name!or!initials.!!Who$can$I$talk$to$if$I$have$any$questions?$!If!you!have!any!questions!at!any!time!during!this!project,!you!may!ask!the!researcher!who!will!be!with!you.!Your!mother!or!father!can!also!contact!us!with!your!question.!If!you!have!any!questions!about!this!project!or!about!the!way!you!are!feeling!after!the!project,!you!should!phone!Dr.!Kimberly!SchonertUReichl!at!(604)!822U2215!or!Ms.!Eva!Oberle!at!(604)!822U3420.!!If!you!are!worried!about!how!you!were!treated!during!the!project,!you!should!contact!the!Research!Subject’s!Information!Line!at!the!UBC!Office!of!Research!Services.!!!_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________!My$Assent$to:$!! 134!"Effectiveness!of!Mindfulness!Education!Programs!on!Children's!Social!and!emotional!Competence,!Psychological!WellUBeing,!Cognitive!Control,!and!Stress!Reactivity.”!!!I!am!taking!part!in!this!project!because!I!want!to.!!If!I!want!to!stop!being!in!this!project,!it!is!okay!and!no!one!will!get!angry.!I!just!need!to!tell!my!teacher!or!the!research!person!that!I!do!not!want!to!do!it!anymore.!!I!have!had!enough!time!to!read!this!form,!to!ask!questions!about!this!project!and!to!talk!to!my!parents/!guardians.!All!my!questions!have!been!answered!and!I!have!received!a!copy!of!this!form!to!keep.!!!___________________________! ! _________________________! ! ___________________________!Your!Printed!Name!! ! ! !Your!Signature!! ! ! ! Date!!!!!!! 135!APPENDIX C: PARTICIPANT SATISFACTION SURVEY !1. Are!you!a!boy!or!a!girl?**(Circle!One)! ! !Boy* * Girl!2. What!grade!are!you!in!this!year?!(Circle!One)! 4! 5! 6! 7!3. What!is!your!birth!date?** ****_____________****________****___________** * * * ********* Month***************Day** *************Year*4. Which!of!these!adults!do!you!live!with!most!of!the!time?!(Check!all!adults!you!live!with.)*□**Mother* □**Grandmother* *□**Part*time*with*each*parent*□**Father* * □**Grandfather! *□**Foster*parent(s)*or*caregiver(s)*□**Stepfather* □**Second*mother*□**Stepmother** □**Second*father*□**Other*adults*(write*in*the*space*below,*for*example,*aunt,*uncle,*mom's*boyfriend*or*girlfriend,*dad’s*boyfriend*or*girlfriend):*________________________________*5. How!many!brothers!or!sisters!do!you!have?!!________!6. What!is!the!first!language!you!learned!at!home?!!(You!can!check!more!than!one!if!you!need!to.)!□*English*********** * * □*Hindi*** ** * □*Punjabi*□*Cantonese* * * □*Japanese* * * □*Spanish*□*Filipino/Tagalog* * □*Korean** * * □*Vietnamese* * * **********□ French* * * □*Mandarin** ********* * □*Other*_____________________** ! !7. Which!language(s)!do!you!speak!at!home?**(You!can!check!more!than!one!if!you!need!to.)!□*English*********** * * □*Hindi*** ** * □*Punjabi*□*Cantonese* * * □*Japanese* * * □*Spanish*□*Filipino/Tagalog* * □*Korean** * * □*Vietnamese* * * **********□ French* * * □*Mandarin** ********* * □*Other*_____________________**8. %Which%language%do%you%prefer%to%speak?%______________________!9. How!difficult!is!it!for!you!to!read!in!English?*□**Very*hard* * □**Hard***** *** □**Easy* *** ******* *□**Very*easy***  Instructions:*We*want*to*know*how*you*feel*about*the*MindUP*program.**To*complete*this*questionnaire,*simply*read*the*question*and*circle*the*number*that*best*describes*you.**SECTION!ONE:!!Circle!the!number!that!best!describes!how!you!feel.!! 136!! ! Not!at!all!true!!!! A!little!bit!!true! True!most!of!the!time! True!all!of!the!time!1. The*MindUP*program*helped*me*learn*about*my!brain.* 1! 2! 3! 4!2. The*MindUP*program*helped*me*learn*about*mindfulness.* 1! 2! 3! 4!3. The*MindUP*program*helped*me*learn*more*about*being*mindful!of!my!senses!(listening,!smelling,!seeing,!tasting).* 1! 2! 3! 4!4. The*MindUP*program*helped*me*learn*more*about*perspective\taking,*and*to*be*mindful*of*others* 1! 2! 3! 4!5. The*MindUP*program*helped*me*learn*how*to*be*optimistic,*and*think*more*positively.** 1! 2! 3! 4!6. The*MindUP*program*helped*me*learn*more*about*how*I!can!help!myself!be!happy.* 1! 2! 3! 4!7. The*MindUP*program*helped*me*learn*how*to*make!a!happy!movie!in!my!mind!(savoring).* 1! 2! 3! 4!8. The*MindUP*program*helped*me*learn*more*about*gratitude.** 1! 2! 3! 4!9. The*MindUP*program*helped*me*learn*more*about*acts!of!kindness.* 1! 2! 3! 4!10. Since*the*MindUP*program*I*try*to*help!others!more!often.* 1! 2! 3! 4!11. The*MindUP*program*has*helped*me*learn*how*to*focus!my!attention*and!calm!down.* 1! 2! 3! 4!!!!!1.*How*much*did*you*like*the*MindUP*program?*1*I*did*not*like*it*at*all!*2*I*did*not*like*most*of*it.*3*It*was*okay.* 4*I*liked*it.* 5*I*liked*it*a*lot!*! 137!2.*How*much*did*you*learn*in*the*MindUP*program?*1*nothing* 2*a*little* 3*more*than*a*little* 4*quite*a*few*things* 5*a*lot*3.*How*many*of*the*things*that*you*learned*about*in*the*MindUP*program*can*you*use*in*your*life*at*school*or*at*home?*1*none* 2*slightly*more*than*none*3*a*few*things* 4*quite*a*few*things* 5*a*lot*!4.!Have*you*taught*anyone*else*any*of*the*things*that*you*learned*about*in*“MindUP”?*Please*circle*one:** YES* * NO*************If*yes,*who*did*you*teach?*Circle*all*that*apply:** **Mother* * Father* * Sister* * Brother* Friend* * Other* ** ** Describe*what*you*taught*them:*________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________**5.**Is*there*anything*else*that*you*learned*about*in*the*MindUP*Program?*_________________________________________________________________________________________________________*__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________*6.**What*did*you*like*best*about*the*MindUP*program?*_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________**7.*Was*there*anything*that*you*did*not*like?**❏*Yes* ** ❏*No*Please*explain:**_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________**8.*Would*you*recommend*the*MindUP*program*to*a*friend?*****❏*Yes* ** ❏*No** Why?__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items