Search

Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) in schools have positive effects on cognitive and socio-emotional processes, but do not improve behavior and academic achievement. The use of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) in schools has been on the rise. Schools are using MBI's to reduce student stress and anxiety and improve socio-emotional competencies, student behavior and academic achievement. MBIs have small, positive effects on cognitive and socio-emotional processes but these effects were not seen for behavioral or academic outcomes. The studies are mostly of moderate to low quality. Therefore, further evidence from independent evaluators is needed to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of this type of intervention. With the diverse application and findings of positive effects of mindfulness practices with adults, as well as the growing popularity with the public, MBIs are increasingly being used with youth. Over the past several years, MBIs have received growing interest for use in schools to support socioemotional development and improve behavior and academic achievement. This review examines the effects of school-based MBIs on cognitive, behavioral, socio-emotional and academic achievement outcomes with youth in a primary or secondary school setting. MBIs are interventions that use a mindfulness component, broadly defined as "paying attention in a particularly way: on purpose, in the present moment, non-judgmentally," often with other components, such as yoga, cognitive-behavioral strategies, or relaxation skills training. Included studies used a randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental, single group pre-post test or single subject design and reported at least one of these outcomes: cognition, academic performance, behavior, socio-emotional, and physiological. Study populations include preschool, primary and secondary school students. A total of 61 studies are included in the review, but only the 35 randomized or quasi-experimental studies are used in the meta-analysis. Most of the studies were carried out in North America, and others in Asia, Europe and Canada. All interventions were conducted in a group format. Interventions ranged in duration (4-28 weeks) and number of sessions (6-125 sessions) and frequency of meetings (once every two weeks to five times a week). MBIs have a small, statistically significant positive effect on cognitive and socio-emotional outcomes. But there is not a significant effect on behavioral and academic outcomes. There was little heterogeneity for all outcomes, besides behavioral outcomes, suggesting that the interventions produced similar results across studies on cognitive, socio-emotional and academic outcomes despite the interventions being quite diverse. Findings from this review indicate mixed effects of MBIs in schools. There is some indication that MBIs can improve cognitive and socio-emotional outcomes, but no support for improvement in behavior or academic achievement. Despite the growing support of MBIs for adults, youth may not benefit in the same ways or to the same extent as adults. While not well studied, anecdotal evidence indicates costs and adverse effects of these types of interventions that should be better studied and weighed against the small to no effects on different types of outcomes when considering adoption of MBIs in schools. These findings should be read with caution given the weakness of the evidence produced by the studies. The high risk of bias present in the studies means that further evidence is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of this type of intervention. The evidence from this review urges caution in the widespread adoption of MBIs and encourages rigorous evaluation of the practice should schools choose to implement it. The following are appended: (1) Documentation of search strategies in electronic databases; (2) Data extraction form; (3) Characteristics of included studies: RCT and QED studies; (4) Characteristics of single group pre-post test studies; (5) Characteristics of single subject design studies; (6) Excluded studies; (7) Risk of bias table; (8) Cognitive outcomes by study included in meta-analysis; (9) Academic outcomes by study included in meta-analysis; (10) Behavioral outcomes by study included in meta-analysis; (11) Socioemotional outcomes by study included in meta-analysis; (12) Risk of bias by study; and (13) Funnel plots. [The Campbell Collaboration Education Coordinating Group provided financial support for this report.]

Over the past two decades, the number and types of after-school programs (ASPs) have increased substantially as a result of increased federal and private spending and because ASPs are perceived to provide wide-ranging and far-reaching benefits to students, families, schools and the public. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to synthesize the available evidence on the effects of after-school programs with at-risk primary and secondary students on school attendance and externalizing behavior outcomes. The specific questions guiding this review were: (1) What are the effects of ASPs on school attendance with at-risk students who attend an ASP compared to at-risk students who do not attend an ASP?; (2) What are the effects of ASPs on externalizing behavioral outcomes with at-risk students who attend an ASP compared to at-risk students who do not attend an ASP?; and (3) Are there study, participant or program characteristics that moderate effects of ASPs? Studies included in this review were conducted in any setting that housed an ASP (e.g., school, community organization, church). Due to significant differences in educational systems around the world, this review was limited to studies conducted in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Ireland, and Australia. Systematic review methodology, following the Campbell Collaboration procedures and guidelines (Campbell Collaboration, 2014), was used for all aspects of the search, retrieval, selection, and coding of published and unpublished studies meeting study inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was used to quantitatively synthesize results across studies. Twenty-four studies reported in 31 reports were included in the review. ASPs receive overwhelming positive support and significant resources; however, the overall lack of rigorous studies assessing effects of ASPs and the lack of significant effects of ASPs on attendance and externalizing behaviors found in this review, along with discrepant findings of prior reviews, provide some impetus for us to reconsider the purpose of ASPs and the way ASPs are designed and implemented. For school attendance, the evidence from this review converges with prior quantitative and narrative reviews. Simply, ASPs have not demonstrated significant effects on school attendance. Tables and figures are appended.

The main objective of this systematic review was to examine the effects of interventions on school attendance to inform policy, practice, and research. The questions guiding this study were: (1) Do truancy programs with a goal of increasing student attendance for truant youth affect school attendance behaviors of elementary and secondary students with chronic attendance problems?; (2) Are there differences in the effects of school-based, clinic/community-based, and court-based programs?; and (3) Are some modalities (i.e., family, group, multimodal) more effective than others in increasing student attendance? A systematic and comprehensive search process was employed to locate all possible studies between 1990 and 2009, with every effort made to include both published and unpublished studies to minimize publication bias. A wide range of electronic bibliographic databases and research registers was searched, websites of relevant research centers and groups were mined for possible reports, over 200 e-mails and letters were sent to programs listed in large databases of truancy programs compiled by the National Center for School Engagement and the National Dropout Prevention Center, and contact with researchers in the field of truancy and absenteeism was attempted. In addition, the authors examined reference lists of all previous reviews as well as citations in research reports for potential studies. Overall, the findings from this study suggest that chronic truant students benefit from interventions targeting attendance behaviors; thus it is important and worthwhile to intervene with chronic truant youth. Given the minimal differences in effects across program types and modalities, no one program type or modality stands out as being more effective than any other. Although no statistically significant differences in effects were found between types and modalities of interventions included in this review, there was a lack of available evidence to support the general belief (and popular "best-practice" recommendations) that collaborative and multimodal interventions are more effective than programs that are not collaborative and single modal interventions. Due to the small sample size and large heterogeneity between studies and within groups of studies, caution must be used when interpreting and applying the findings from this meta-analysis. Overall, the studies included in the review improved attendance by an average of 4.69 days, almost a full school week. However, although the interventions included in this study were, overall, found to be effective, the mean rates of absenteeism at posttest in most studies remained above acceptable levels. This finding indicates the need for additional work and research. Developing more effective interventions and policies as well as studying outcomes of interventions, particularly with vulnerable and at-risk populations, is crucial to combating absenteeism. The gaps and deficiencies identified in this study also affirm the need for increasing and strengthening the evidence base on which current policies and practices rest. Although additional outcome research is necessary, more of the same is not sufficient. Significant improvements in the quality of truancy intervention research are required and identified gaps need to be addressed. Recommendations to improve the quality and fill gaps in truancy intervention research are discussed here. In addition, given the significant and pervasive deficiencies in the extant research, a critical analysis of the practices, assumptions, and sociopolitical contexts underlying truancy intervention research seems warranted. Appended are: (1) Included Studies; (2) Excluded Studies; (3) Summary of Included Randomized and Quasi-Experimental Studies; (4) Bivariate Correlation Matrix of Study Characteristics: RCT/QED Studies; (5) Summary of Included Single-Group Pre-Post Studies; and (6) Bivariate Correlation Matrix of Study Characteristics: SGPP Studies. (Contains 14 tables and 3 figures.) [Additional funding for this paper was provided by the Arthur J. Schmitt Foundation.]

Comparisons were made of the contexts and incidence of child- and teacher-initiated behavior in kindergarten through third-grade classrooms in Japan and the United States. The "Child/Teacher Initiation Behaviors Checklist" was developed and used to obtain data on nine general initiation categories, such as: gains attention; initiates classroom control; and makes decision without teacher direction. Observations were made in 20 U.S. kindergarten classrooms and in 10 classrooms at each of the primary grade levels. In Japan, 12 classrooms at each grade level were observed. Kindergartens in both countries were designated as either child-directed or teacher-directed. Findings demonstrated that teacher-directed environments have significantly fewer child initiations in the classroom. The greatest cross-cultural difference in teacher initiations was in the child-directed kindergartens. In the United States, initiation frequency of children making unsolicited comments decreased through third grade, while in Japan unsolicited comments increasd from first through third grade. During primary years, frequency of initiations was consistently higher in Japan. While affection was not initiated very often by teachers in either country, children initiated more affection in child-directed environments. U.S. teachers gave more praise to students than did Japanese teachers. It is concluded that findings do not support formalizing education for young children to improve their learning. Among other recommendations, it is suggested that teachers should encourage child initiations in their classrooms. (Author/RH)