CHAPTER 8: SCHOOl-BASEd MindFulnESS PROTOCOlS • 1634 weeks to 24 weeks with a median length of 8 weeks (Zenner et al., 2014). Programs were
typically offered once per week for 45 minutes. Some program split the time over several
sessions per week (Zenner et al., 2014). Most programs offered more than one component
with observation of breath noted as the essential exercise (Zenner et al., 2014). Groups also
frequently included psycho-education and group discussion (Zenner et al., 2014). The inter-
vention components were as follows (Zenner et al., 2014):
- Breath awareness (N = 24)
- Working with thoughts and emotions (N = 21)
- Psycho-education (N = 20)
- Awareness of senses and practices of daily life (N = 20)
- Group discussion (N = 18)
- Body scan (N = 14)
- Home practice (N= 12)
- Kindness practice (N = 11)
- Body practices (e.g., yoga; N = 6)
- Mindful movement (N = 5)
- Additional material (N = 10)
Zenner et al. (2014) conducted a study quality assessment. Overall, 19 of the 24 studies
used a control design and five used a pre/post design. Randomized designs were used in
10 studies in which mindfulness training was offered as an alternative to extracurricular
activities at school (Zenner et al., 2014). One study used a matched control group. Eight of
the studies used a quasi-experimental design teaching mindfulness in a classroom setting
with another parallel class serving as control, and in one study reading training took place
at the same intensity level (Zenner et al., 2014). Allocation to mindfulness or control was
mainly decided upon by department heads and classroom teachers (Zenner et al., 2014).
Four of the studies randomly assigned mindfulness interventions to classes or schools. Five
of the studies collected follow-up data (Zenner et al., 2014).
Zenner et al. (2014) reported that those studies that reported feasibility data described
how the mindfulness program was integrated into the school routine. The researchers
reported collecting these data through questionnaires, focus groups, or interviews. About
one third of the studies reported acceptability data (Zenner et al., 2014). Results yielded
from the interviews and focus groups (including both teachers and students) indicated posi-
tive experiences. Large percentages (greater than 80%) of students would recommend the
training to others, found the program extremely useful, and rated the program as satisfying.
Over three fourths of the students said they would like the program to continue and wished
it had lasted longer. The programs that included a home practice found that about one third
of students practiced at least three times a week and two thirds practiced once a week or less
(Zenner et al., 2014).
Zenner et al. (2014) found that overall effect sizes were Hedge's g = 0.40 among groups
and g = 0.41 within groups (p < .0001). The significant between-group effect sizes for domains
were: cognitive performance g = 0.80, stress g = 0.39, and resilience g = 0.36 (all p < .05). Of
note, both emotional problems (g = 0.19) and third-person ratings (g = 0.25) were found to
be not significant. The authors concluded that mindfulness-based interventions in children
and youth hold promise (Zenner et al., 2014). Further, Zenner et al. (2014) also concluded that
mindfulness interventions for children and youth might hold the most promise in relation to