156 • ii: MindFulnESS in EduCATing FOR SElF-REgulATiOn And EngAgEMEnT
provide an intentionally subjective view of the experiences of the participants within the
frame of reference of the researchers.
As seen, there are many nuances that can deeply affect the way that researcher outcomes
are determined and how they are framed for dissemination. Often when research is shared
in popular culture, little attention is paid to the quality of the evidence being shared. As
school personnel, it is important that you attend both to the outcomes and to the quality of
the study providing the outcomes. There are many issues to which you should attend; I offer
a few critical ones here.
Feasibility and Acceptability
Typically, research begins with looking at the feasibility and acceptability of an intervention
(Zenner, Herrnleben-Kurz, & Walach, 2014). That is, researchers study if a program can prac-
tically, or feasibly, be carried out within a school (Zenner et al., 2014). Implementation is an
important aspect of feasibility (Zenner et al., 2014). As educators know all too well, it will not
matter if the intervention is highly effective in a lab or during a trial. If it cannot be carried out
easily during the school day or as part of the school schedule (e.g., after school program, aca-
demic intervention services), teachers and school administrators won’t use it (Lawlor, 2014).
Another critical aspect is acceptability (Zenner et al., 2014). Researchers also need to make
sure that school personnel and students will accept the program, find it suitable, satisfying,
and interesting (Zenner et al., 2014). A program may be very feasible and effective, but if the
students, teachers, or administrators do not like it or do not find it acceptable it won’t work
(Lawlor, 2014). Only after feasibility and acceptability, do educators look at effectiveness.
understanding the Range in the Quality of Research
The quality of research studies ranges substantially from weak to strong. Studies that are
empirically rigorous tend to be associated with less bias from influences outside of the inter-
vention. Analyses that aggregate the work of many rigorous studies are believed to reduce
bias even more and be at the highest level of evidence (e.g., systematic literature reviews,
meta-analyses). Research of lower quality is more vulnerable to bias and we can be less
sure that the outcomes are strictly associated with the intervention (e.g., anecdotal evidence,
expert opinions, studies using surveys and questionnaires collected at one point in time;
Figure 8.1).
Researchers exploring effectiveness have many challenges when working in schools.
Ideally, researchers conduct a randomized controlled trial (RCT; Greenberg & Harris, 2012).
This means that the students are assigned randomly to the intervention group, an active
control group, or a passive control group. The intervention group takes part in the mindful-
ness program. The active intervention group receives a program that involves some action;
yet they are not engaged in the activities that are essentially active ingredients for the inter-
vention. Active ingredients are the aspects of the practice that are believed to help students
improve. For example, an active control group might sit quietly or engage in silent reading.
Last, a passive control group engages in life as usual and does not take part in the interven-
tion or the active control group activities.
Each of these groups takes a pre-test or baseline measure of the variables the research-
ers are looking to study. Some researchers are very interested in academic engagement