Classroom Management in an Urban, Alternative School: A Comparison of Mindfulness and Behavioral Approaches [Mindfulness Skills Training]
Long, Anna C. J.; Renshaw, Tyler L.; Camarota, Devon (2018). Contemporary School Psychology, v22 n3 p233-248. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1186855
-
examining64Students, grade5
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2023
- Single Study Review (findings for Mindfulness Skills Training)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Student Subjective Wellbeing Questionnaire |
Mindfulness Skills Training vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
MST vs. Education as Usual (EAU);
|
49.13 |
50.98 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Student Internalizing Behavior Screener |
Mindfulness Skills Training vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
MST vs. Education as Usual (EAU);
|
8.95 |
8.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Student Externalizing Behavior Screener |
Mindfulness Skills Training vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
MST vs. Education as Usual (EAU);
|
11.92 |
11.31 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Student Externalizing Behavior Screener |
Mindfulness Skills Training vs. Good Behavior Game |
0 Days |
MST vs. Good Behavior Game (GBG);
|
11.92 |
11.92 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Student Internalizing Behavior Screener |
Mindfulness Skills Training vs. Good Behavior Game |
0 Days |
MST vs. Good Behavior Game (GBG);
|
8.95 |
8.50 |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 53%
Male: 47% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
South
-
Race Black 98% White 2% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in a single urban, public elementary school located in the Southeast. The school is an alternative school serving students who are behind grade level by at least 2 years and have significant disciplinary problems. The intervention was conducted during social studies lessons.
Study sample
A total of 64 students in grade 5 were included in the study. The 64 students were taught by one teacher in six classrooms. All students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Approximately 47% were male, 98% were Black, and 2% were White. No students were English language learners. The researchers randomly assigned two classrooms to each of three conditions described below.
Intervention Group
The Mindfulness Skills Training (MST) condition taught students to regulate their behavioral-emotional responses. Specifically, students were taught to use the mindful STOP procedure when engaging in inappropriate behavior: Stop, Take three deep breaths, Observe self and others, and Proceed positively. This process was intended to help students disrupt their pattern of reactive responding by first getting them to focus their attention, and then pause to identify what thoughts and feelings might prevent them from proceeding appropriately. The MST intervention was implemented twice weekly during students’ regularly scheduled, 90-minute social studies classes, over a 4-week period.
Comparison Group
This study compares MST to two different comparison groups. The primary comparison is to classrooms receiving education as usual (EAU), where the teacher did not use an intervention with students. The other, supplemental comparison is to classrooms where the teacher used the Good Behavior Game (GBG), a classroom management intervention. GBG promotes positive classroom behavior by providing reinforcers to students if their behavior, along with the behavior of the rest of the class, met a preset standard. The GBG intervention was implemented twice weekly during students’ regularly scheduled, 90-minute social studies classes, over a 4-week period.
Support for implementation
Prior to the beginning of implementation, the teacher in the study received a 60-minute training on how to implement both intervention conditions (GBG and MST). The session provided the opportunity to practice both conditions. The teacher also filled out fidelity checks after each session to enable both her and the study team to assess fidelity to each condition. Finally, the study team checked in with the teacher weekly via telephone to assess and strengthen implementation.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).