mindfulness – Education & Teacher Conferences Skip to main content
When Experience Contradicts Research: The Problem with Certainty
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

A friend recently told me about his classroom experience using mindfulness to promote thoughtful and effective writing.

Young girl at school practicing yoga on a mat

He started the year by explaining the benefits of mindfulness to his students. After that introduction, he began each class period with five minutes of mindful silence.

Although he wasn’t running a research study, he kept two kinds of “data.”

First: his own impression is that students got appreciably better at adding insight, depth, and detail to their writing.

For instance, instead of saying “the mood was optimistic,” they might write “the sun came out” or “I could hear lively music in the background.”

They also “got stuck” less often during the writing process.

Second, he surveyed his students at the end of the year.

He got LOTS of positive responses. One wrote:

I was surprised by how much I looked forward to meditation as the weeks went on, it helped calm me down before big assignments (like practice exams or actual tests) or just gave me a breather during stressful moments.

Another:

I thought meditation was very helpful in class this year because it helped me focus on my clarity of mind. I especially liked it before writing essays because it relaxed me and helped my thoughts flow clearer I think.

A third:

I would start the year by doing it everyday. I’ve started implementing it in my home life and have felt more present and conscious not only my daily interactions but also my thought process and decision making.

I could go on quoting like this for a few pages.

Based on this experience, my friend asked me what research shows about the effects of mindfulness in the classroom…

What Research Shows…

Alas, research into the classroom benefits of mindfulness doesn’t obviously align with my friend’s experience.

Yes, we do have some encouraging research about the ways that mindfulness can reduce stress.

Yes, we do have some correlational research showing a relationship between mindfulness and academic accomplishment.

But my honest opinion is that — so far — we don’t have a strong enough research pool to make inclusion of mindfulness programs a “research-supported” practice in schools.

In particular, we have an ENORMOUS recent study (over 8000 students!) showing that mindfulness training provided students with NO BENEFITS AT ALL, and perhaps (very small) increases in the likelihood of a few problems.

I’m game for the idea that mindfulness training might help students and teachers. But I don’t see enough consistent, high-quality research findings to champion the practice myself.

A Friend’s Quandry

So, a quandry:

My friend’s EXPERIENCE suggests that “brief mindfulness exercises help.”

But RESEARCH suggests that “mindfulness training doesn’t necessarily do anything.”

What should he do?

Equally important: what should YOU do if research suggests that one of your teaching practices a) doesn’t help, or b) might actually hurt?

Let me suggest a few steps.

STEP ZERO: even before we begin answering this question, I think it’s essential to admit that it’s both a challenging and an essential question. (So challenging and important that I wrote a book about it.)

Someone might say to you, “there’s an obviously easy answer to that question.” I think that person is wrong.

STEP ONE: recognize that both kinds of knowledge have their own benefits and weaknesses.

For instance, research helps us see long-term effects that we teachers most often miss.

We know that “short-term performance is an unreliable indicator of long-term learning.” (Thanks, Dr. Nick Soderstrom (on Twitter @NickSoderstrom).)

So, research can help us see when things that feel really good in the classroom right now don’t actually produce the long-term benefits we’re hoping for.

Likewise, research helps us overcome our biases. My friend works REALLY HARD to make his mindfulness intervention work. He devotes LOTS of time to it. (So do his students!)

NO WONDER he sees all the benefits! Well…research can help us see past that motivated reasoning.

Not So Fast…

At the same time, a teacher’s classroom experience provides insights that research just can’t spot.

Teachers combine variables. Researchers isolate variables. That is: we see combinations that researchers rarely explore — combinations like “daily mindfulness + writing.”

Also: research always exists within “boundary conditions.”

A research study done with 3rd grade Montessori students learning long division might — but might not! — apply to dyslexic 11th graders studying history at a military academy.

Unless we have SO MUCH research on a particular topic, a research-only perspective might miss the places that a technique DOES work because we’ve seen that it DOESN’T help in all these other places.

Teachers — however — might discover those places.

Don’t Stop Now

Okay, so we know that this quandry is an important question and requires complex answers (step 0); and we know that research and experience provide separate and useful kinds of knowledge (step 1).

What’s next?

STEP TWO: Get specific.

In that 8000+ person study: what exactly did they do? And: how well does “what they did” align with “what my friend did”?

In the 8000+ person study, they had students practice mindfulness for 10 weeks. They wanted to know if a) the students would keep doing mindfulness on their own after the 10 weeks, and b) if their mindfulness practice would help them — or not — according to 28 different criteria.

The answers were a) “nope, not really” and b) “nope, not at all.”

But: OF COURSE the students didn’t get the benefits of mindfulness (that’s b) because they didn’t continue the mindfulness exercises at home (that’s a).

Notice, however, that this research doesn’t align with my friend’s strategy. His students DID continue the mindfulness because he started every class with time for mindfulness.

True: students who don’t practice mindfulness don’t benefit from it; but my friend’s students might benefit because they had time to practice it.

In other words: that big study shouldn’t necessarily discourage my friend, because his strategy differs from their strategy in meaningful ways.

STEP THREE: Combine humility with determination.

Here’s the trickiest part.

As I’ve just argued, this big study might not apply to my friend’s approach.

AND: my friend’s “biased” perspective (we ALL have “biased” perspectives) might make it difficult for him to recognize the shortcomings in his approach.

For this reason, I think we have to push ourselves relentlessly to balance humility (“I should really focus on and respect research guidance!”) with determination (“My classroom experience is valuable and I should give it weight in my decision making!”).

But, gosh, that’s a difficult balancing act.

It’s tempting to pick one side or the other:

I shall do what research tells me!

or

My training and instincts matter most!

Instead, we should strive to give both sources of knowledge their due…and always doubt our own certainties.

An Excellent Example

Note, by the way, that my friend was doing just that.

After all, his own classroom experience — and his students’ enthusiastic feedback! — gave him all sorts of reasons to be entirely confident.

He might easily have said “research, schmeesearch” and gone ahead with his mindfulness routine.

Instead, he looked for a reason to doubt his own certainty; that is, he asked me what research has to say … knowing that it might not support his experience. (He had, after all, just finished reading my book on evaluating research-based teaching claims.)

He now has to decide the best way to procede. And: in my view, he will do so all the more effectively because he allowed himself to doubt.

In this field, certainty is the enemy of improvement and excellence.

Research Advice That’s New + Useful: Improve Learning by Reappraising Emotions?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Research benefits teachers if it gives us new, useful ideas.

We can feel relief and gratitude if research simply confirms our prior beliefs — that is, if it doesn’t give us “new” ideas — but we don’t necessarily reap substantial benefit from such confirmations.

A happy student wearing a vest, bow tie, and an upside-down colander on his head, holding a finger up in the air as lightbulbs glow around him

Likewise, research that offers a new perspective but doesn’t inform our teaching feels disappointing. If I can’t do something with the research-based perspective, I’m not sure why I should dwell on it very long. (Most teachers just don’t have time for pointless dwelling…)

So: our sweet spot is, “research that gives new, useful advice.”

Strangely, research into emotions and learning can struggle to fit both those criteria.

For instance, we’ve got lots of research saying—in effect—“don’t be mean to your students.”

That advice sounds useful (criterion #2), but not particularly new (criterion #1). How many people come to Learning and the Brain conferences thinking: “I wonder if research encourages me to taunt my nine-year-olds…”?

So too, I’m glad to see research saying that “the teacher’s sense of humor can lift students’ spirits.” At the same time, that research doesn’t offer much new information; does anyone seriously think that humor is a bad thing?

And I’m not sure how useful such research is. If a teacher isn’t especially funny, the advice “You, be funny!” doesn’t sound very practical. (It’s hard to learn to be taller; it’s also hard to learn to be funnier.)

Because I don’t often find emotion research in this “new + useful” sweet spot, I don’t often write on this topic.

Today’s News

One researcher who does work in the “new + useful” zone is Dr. Sarah Rose Cavanagh, currently at Simmons University.

In a recent study, she and colleagues explored this sensible logical chain:

First: if students feel better during class, they just might learn more.

Second: we’ve got strategies to help students feel better.

Third: so, let’s see if those “feel better” strategies work in class, and do help students learn more!

This plan sounds so sensible. In fact, depending on the study’s findings, it might give us advice that is “new + useful”!

To check out this possibility, Team Cavanagh used two different “feel better” strategies.

The first included “cognitive reappraisal.” Students got brief training in deliberately rethinking their negative experiences. For instance, they were shown this prompt:

“IF I find myself becoming irritated and frustrated with my progress, my professor, or my peers, or find myself feeling lost and confused, THEN I will instead think that the best rewards in learning occur by working through initial confusion.”

You can feel the deliberate reappraisal process here: “instead of thinking THIS, I’ll choose to think THAT.”

The second strategy to help students manage negative emotions is the (more familiar) mindful meditation perspective. As part of their training, students got this prompt:

“IF I find myself becoming nervous about my performance in answering questions in class or on quizzes or tests, or about my grade in the class, THEN I will instead let this nervousness be, accepting it as it is, not trying to change it or make it go away.”

Cavanagh also had a control group as well.

So, here are some of the key questions:

Did these “feel better strategies” work? Did the students rate their emotional state more positively after receiving them?

Did they help students learn more in the short term — that is, at the end of class?

How about the long term — that is, on the final exam?

What did Cavanagh’s team find?

So Many Envelopes

As you can see, Cavanagh’s study produced LOTS of data, and requires careful parsing.

To focus on a simple summary, Cavanagh found that most of those questions get the clear answer “NO.”

As in:

No, neither cognitive reappraisal nor mindful meditation improved the students’ ratings of their mood (compared to the control condition);

No, students didn’t think they learned any more — and (based on quiz results at the end of class) they didn’t learn any more.

Amidst all this “no” news, Cavanagh did get one “YES”:

Yes, students who used cognitive reappraisal (but not mindful meditation) remembered more information on the final exam.

In this one sentence, it seems to me, we’ve found research-based advice that’s both new + useful.

NEW: Although I’ve read about cognitive reappraisal in the past, I’ve never thought to train my students in doing so.

USEFUL: This intervention sounds quite simple to do…and produced the results I care about: long-term learning!

That’s a powerfully tempting combination.

Now I’m A Believer?

I don’t typically make strong recommendations based on one study. In this case, I’ve checked out my usual sources (scite.ai, connectedpapers.com, elicit.org), and found…not much. We just don’t have lots of research on the benefits of cognitive reappraisal in typical classrooms.

I am, however, drawn to this study for a few reasons.

First: the modesty of its conclusions inspires trust. Cavanagh’s own research disconfirmed most of her hypotheses — so I’m likelier to trust her and her team for the one that came through.

Second: it rhymes with other research I trust.

Specifically, mindful meditation has many enthusiastic proponents; I know lots of people who believe it will cure all sorts of school-based ills. However, as I wrote in 2022, an ENORMOUS study (8000+ participants!) showed essentially no benefit to mindfulness practices in schools.

I understand why this study included mindfulness as an option, and I don’t doubt there was real enthusiasm for this strategy. But Cavanagh got the same results as that 8000 person study. This congruence — in the face of such potential pressures — increases my confidence.

 

For all these reasons, I will keep an eye out for more research on cognitive reappraisal and its classroom benefits. If you try this strategy in your classroom, I hope you’ll let me know how it goes.


Cavanagh, S. R., Lang, J. M., Birk, J. L., Fulwiler, C. E., & Urry, H. L. (2021). A multicourse, multisemester investigation of the impact of cognitive reappraisal and mindfulness instruction on short-and long-term learning in the college classroom. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology7(1), 14.

Does Mindfulness Help? A Blockbuster New Study
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Few ideas in education sound better than mindfulness.

If mindfulness programs work as intended, teachers and schools can help students center their attention and lower their stress.

We’ve got suggestive research indicating that, when done properly, such programs can improve wellbeing.

Perhaps they can even helps students learn more. (We school people really like research that helps students learn more.)

What’s not to love?

Not Feeling the Love; Really Feeling the Love

Although I’ve linked to suggestive research above, this field does have a research problem.

Most mindfulness studies include relatively few people.

And, their study designs aren’t often persuasive. (The topic of “study design” gets technical quickly. The simplest version is: to say that “research shows this” convincingly, a study needs to check A LOT of boxes. Not many mindfulness studies do.)

So, we’d love a study with LOTS of people. And, we’d like a really good study design.

So, how about:

A study with 8,000 students.

In 85 schools.

Lasting over two years.

With a pre-registered study design.

In this study, researchers paired similar schools: for example, two large schools, located in Wales, with similar socio-economic makeup, and so forth.

One school in that pair got a 10-week curriculum in School Based Mindfulness Training. School teachers ran these sessions, which included mindfulness exercises and home practice and so forth.

The other school in the pair continued the SEL work that they were doing. (Researchers evaluated the extant SEL programs to ensure they were good quality.)

So: did the Mindfulness training benefit students more that ongoing SEL work?

What Researchers Measured; What They Found

This research team measured three primary outcomes: risk for depression, social-emotional functioning (with a “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire”), and well-being.

And, believe it or not, they measure twenty-eight secondary outcomes: executive function, drug and alcohol use, anxiety, and so forth.

Did the students who got the mindfulness training show statistically significant differences compared to those who got the “teaching as usual” SEL training?

The researchers themselves had been optimistic. In the reserved language of research, they write:

Our premise was that skills in attention and social-emotional-behavioral self-regulation underpin mental health and well-being across the full spectrum of well being.

“Skills in attention and social-emotional-behavioral self-regulation” sounds A LOT like mindfulness, doesn’t it?

Their review of earlier research, and their own pilot study, showed a “promise of effectiveness.” But, they designed and ran this 2-year-8000-student study to be sure.

What did they find?

Basically, nothing.

They write that they “found no evidence that [school based mindfulness training] was superior to [teaching as usual]” one year after the training was over.

In the primary outcomes, they found no differences for depression, well-being, and social-emotional function.

In the secondary outcomes, in fact, they found students in the mindfulness group had slightly worse results in five categories:

… higher levels of self-reported hyperactivity and inattention,

… higher panic disorder and obsessive-compulsive scores,

… lower levels of mindfulness skills.

And so forth.

These differences weren’t large, but they certainly don’t suggest that mindfulness training is better that other SEL programs.

Remaining Questions

Any study including 8000+ people, and measuring 30+ variables (!), will result in LOTS of details, and lots of questions about methodology.

These points jump out at me:

First: these researchers have done an impressively thorough job.

Reasonable people will push back on their findings. But this research team has obviously taken extraordinary care, and provided an immense amount of information for others to examine. (Check out their website.)

Second: I’ve traditionally been skeptical of “teaching as usual” control groups. Here’s why:

Some teachers got a shiny new thing: mindfulness training! Other teachers got nothing: the SEL curriculum they’ve been doing all along.

I’m rarely surprised when the new thing produces better results — it’s new!

However, in this case, the new thing DIDN’T produce better results. The results, basically, were identical.

So, my typical objection doesn’t really apply here.

Third: although 43 schools added mindfulness programs, more than half of them continued with the SEL training they were already doing.

That is, we’re not exactly comparing mindfulness to other SEL approaches. Some schools did only mindfulness; others did only SEL; others offered a blend of both.

Would the mindfulness programs produce better results if they replaced the SEL programs rather than combined with them? We don’t know.

Fourth: Why didn’t the mindfulness programs help?

On reason might be: most students just didn’t do the mindfulness exercises consistently.

On a 0-5 scale, students on average rated their mindfulness practice as 0.83. As in, less than 1. As in, they simply didn’t practice much mindfulness.

If I don’t take my migraine medication, it won’t help reduce my migraines. If I don’t do my mindfulness exercises, I’m unlikely to get the benefits of mindfulness.

Would these programs work if they took place in school, so students practiced more mindfulness? We don’t know.

TL;DR

This well designed study — including more than 8000 participants — strongly suggests that mindfulness training doesn’t produce more (or fewer) benefits than other SEL approaches.

This research doesn’t suggest we must cancel the programs we have. However, it pushes back against the argument that mindfulness provides distinct advantages, and that all responsible schools must adopt such programs immediately.

As long a schools tend responsibly to their students’ social-emotional needs, a variety of approaches can work equally well.


Kuyken, W., Ball, S., Crane, C., Ganguli, P., Jones, B., Montero-Marin, J., … & MYRIAD Team. (2022). Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of universal school-based mindfulness training compared with normal school provision in reducing risk of mental health problems and promoting well-being in adolescence: the MYRIAD cluster randomised controlled trial. Evidence-based mental health25(3), 99-109.

An Exciting Event In Mindfulness Research [Repost]
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

I’ve been reviewing old posts, looking for information that might be particularly helpful in today’s strange times.

This post — from September — gives us greater confidence that mindfulness helps reduce stress.

It’s particularly persuasive research because it studies both mental behavior (psychology) and neural behavior (neuroscience) at the same time.

And, we could all use a little stress reduction today…


Let’s imagine a GREAT study on the benefits of mindfulness.

As school people, we’re happy that mindfulness might be helpful at home or at work, but we really want it to be helpful to students. So, we’d love for this study to take place at school.

We’d like the study to show that mindfulness changes mental processes. For instance, we’d love to know that it helps students feel less stress.

And, we’d like the research to look at brains as well as minds. That is: we’d like to have some fMRI data showing relevant changes in brain regions.

At the same time that students report they feel less stress (that’s the mind), we might see neural modulation typical of less stress (that’s the brain).

Finally, the study’s methodology would hold up to scrutiny. It would, for instance, include a plausible control group. (I’ve written about problems with control groups, including this study about mindfulness.)

Lo and Behold

Sure enough, this study exists!

Working with 6th graders at a school outside Boston, Clemens Bauer randomly assigned half to a mindfulness program and half to a coding training program.

Both groups devoted 45 minutes, four times a week to this effort, for 8 weeks. And, by the way, students in both groups enjoyed this time equally. (So: AT LAST we’ve got a plausible and active control group.)

Bauer’s team had students fill out a stress survey before and after this 8-week stretch. (Sample question: “In the last month, how often have you been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly?”)

And, he performed fMRI scans on them before and after as well.

When looking at those scans, Bauer’s team had a specific prediction. High stress responses typically includes elevated amygdala activation. Often, we can manage that stress response by using the prefrontal cortex–the part of the brain right behind your forehead.

If mindfulness helps manage stress, we would expect to see…

…greater connectivity between the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala, and

…concomitantly reduced activity in the amygdala.

That is, we’d be able to see that mindfulness strengthened connections between self-control systems in the prefrontal cortex. In turn, this increase in self-control would help mitigate stress responses in the amygdala.

Of course, I’m offering a very simplified version of a fantastically complex neural story. Books have been written on these connections, and it’s not blog-friendly kind of information.

Results, Please

If you’re a fan of mindfulness, you’re going to LOVE these results.

Students who practiced mindfulness reported less stress than those in the control group.

They showed higher levels of prefrontal cortex connectivity with the amygdala.

They showed lower levels of amygdala activity when they looked at angry faces.

So: both in their mental activity (reported stress level) and in the neural activity (in the amygdala, between the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex), eight weeks of mindfulness led to beneficial results for these students.

Technically speaking, that’s a home run.

What’s Next

First: to repeat, this study is powerful and persuasive. We can simply revel in its conclusions for a while.

Second: as teachers, we’re glad that student stress levels are lower. The next question is: do students learn more? We can assume they do, but we should measure as well. (To be clear: I think lower stress is an important goal on its own, whether or not it leads to more learning.)

Third: as the study’s authors acknowledge, the sample size here is relatively small. I hope they get funding to repeat it on a much larger scale.

As noted in this study, there’s a disappointing history in the world of mindfulness research. Small studies–often lacking random assignment or a control group–come to promising conclusions. But, the bigger the study–and the better the methodology–the smaller the results.

So: now that we’ve gotten strong effects with a randomized study and a plausible control group, I hope to see these same results at a much larger scale.

I might go sit quietly for a while, and try to clear my mind of extraneous thoughts.

Good Morning, I love You: Mindfulness and Self-Compassion Practice to Rewire Your Brain for Calm, Clarity, and Joy by Shauna Shapiro
Rebecca Gotlieb
Rebecca Gotlieb

Shauna Shapiro, expert in mindfulness and compassion, recently authored Good Morning, I love You: Mindfulness and Self-Compassion Practice to Rewire Your Brain for Calm, Clarity, and Joy. In this book she draws on both scientific evidence and ancient wisdom to offer practices and thoughts to support readers’ well-being. Mindfulness is a way of living that allows us to pause and observe situations calmly. It has been associated with a host of psychological, physical, and cognitive benefits. Shapiro reports that only one-third of Americans are truly happy. As such, this book is relevant to a wide audience seeking to increase its happiness and well-being. Shapiro ends each chapter with mindfulness practices readers can try and with pearls of wisdom that inspire. Daniel Siegel, author of Aware, contributed the forward to this book.

One of the most inspiring insights from neuroscience, according to Shapiro, is that our brains change throughout life. By engaging in mindful practice, we can increase our psychological resources and change our brains. She emphasizes that change occurs in small increments, and continual practice matters most. Even just twelve minutes of daily mindfulness practice has been linked to improved outcomes. Specifically, mindfulness has been shown to increase or improve empathy, compassion, social relations, ethical decision-making, happiness, attention, memory, creativity, immune function, sleep, and cardiovascular functioning. It also reduces depression, anxiety, stress, pain, and mind wandering.

Shapiro contends that intention, attention, and attitude are the three pillars of mindfulness. Intention involves building a connection to and being guided by one’s aspirations and motivation. What we attend to is what becomes the basis of our mental life. People experience tremendous temptation to multitask. Doing so, however, decreases productivity and happiness. Shapiro emphasizes that we should have a kind and curious attitude about that to which we attend. For example, when we consider our own painful emotions with kindness and curiosit;, when we understand that pain, but not suffering, is inevitable; and when we label our emotions and appreciate that they serve a purpose, we can then develop self-compassion, learn from our failures, and engage in better behaviors for our physical health and the health of our relationships. Too many people today feel lost and lonely. Meditation can help us appreciate that we all belong to one another and that everything and everyone is connected.

Shapiro suggests a host of practices for meditating and living mindfully. These include: bringing attention to one’s breath, writing compassionate letters to oneself, forgiving oneself and others, smiling more, writing letters of gratitude, doing daily random acts of kindness, looking for the good in others, celebrating others’ happiness, and experiencing awe and wonder.  Because mindfulness is a way of living and not just a set of practices or a type of meditation, Shapiro describes how to introduce mindfulness into sex, eating, decision-making, the workplace, and parenting. Doing so can help us savor experiences, connect to our bodily intuitions, and move through life with less urgency and fear.

Shapiro concludes with the story of an especially important mindfulness practice for her. Amid a painful divorce, she began starting each day by saying “Good Morning, Shauna” and eventually “Good Morning, Shauna. I love you.” Shapiro spoke about this practice in a TEDx talk. She has seen in her own experience healing from her divorce and, with many other individuals whom she has supported, how this simple practice can transform lives. Good Morning, I Love You can help anyone begin a personal mindfulness journey to improved well-being.

Shapiro, S. (2020). Good Morning, I Love You: Mindfulness and Self-compassion Practices to Rewire Your Brain for Calm, Clarity, and Joy.

Aware: The Science and Practice of Presence–The Groundbreaking Meditation Practice by Daniel J. Siegel, MD
Rebecca Gotlieb
Rebecca Gotlieb

Aware: The Science and Practice of Presence guides readers through a meditative practice based on focused attention, open awareness, and kind intentions to strengthen the mind and improve mental and physical well-being. Daniel J. Siegel, the author, is a NYT bestselling writer, clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine, founder of the Mindful Awareness Research Center, and the executive director of the Mindsight Institute. Aware will be of interest to individuals seeking to promote well-being and build resilient minds by understanding consciousness and training their mind.

Siegel begins with the stories of five people at different life stages and in different and challenging circumstances. These individuals’ lives were greatly improved by committing to Siegel’s “Wheel of Awareness” practice. The practice is premised on the idea that, “where attention goes, neural firing flows, and neural connection grows” (P.19)—i.e., that what our mind does changes how our brain behaves and this can have enduring effects on how we act and who we are. He argues that human experience is shaped by interactions among our bodies, brains, minds, and social relationships.  Each of these forces contributes to our continually emerging sense of self (i.e., self as a verb rather than a noun).

Siegel offers tips for how to prepare one’s mind to meditate and how to focus on one’s breath. He then explains that the wheel practice involves guided shifts in attention. The first step is to attend to one’s breath, then to each of the five senses, then to internal bodily signals (e.g., signals from the heart).  Next, the practice involves attending to one’s active thoughts, feelings and memories, and generally to the content of one’s awareness. The final steps involve opening oneself to connections with others, and focusing on wishes of happiness, health, safety, and flourishing for others.

We are often led to believe that we are each alone. Siegel argues that this not only causes suffering, but also is inaccurate. We are inherently social creatures and are deeply connected to one another. Our compassionate connections with others powerfully shape our mind and identity. When we share ourselves with others we all benefit. Laughter among friends, for example, helps us be in the present moment, be open to learning, and mitigates suffering.

Although many people believe the brain gives rise to the mind, Siegel offers compelling neuroscientific evidence that the body also contributes meaningfully to the construction of the mind. Further, the mind can change the body and brain. For example, experiences of trauma, especially in early life, can shape how people behave and the ways in which regions of their brain communicate.  Working to heal the effects of trauma and finding meaning in life gives the individual renewed personal strength and also can move the brain to become more integrated.

Drawing parallels from quantum physics theories about energy flow, probability, and the malleability of space and time, Siegel offers intriguing novel suggestions about the mind, consciousness, and the way we experience reality. He argues that mental illness or anguish is often characterized by rigid or chaotic thinking. Releasing the brain from its typical conscious experiences, thinking more freely, and striving for integration within ourselves and with other people can be therapeutic and helpful for making sense of an unpredictable world.

Aware and the related materials freely available on Siegel’s website offer readers an accessible, scientifically-informed meditative practice that can relieve suffering, increase mental strength, and improve health.

 

Siegel, D. (2018). Aware: The Science and Practice of Presence–The Groundbreaking Meditation Practice. New York, NY: Penguin Publishing Group.

 

What if a Research-Supported Educational Idea is Unconstitutional?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

As a reader of this blog, you know we’ve got lots (and LOTS) of research showing that sleep benefits learning.

A good night’s sleep consolidates memories. Naps improve learning. Heck: sleep even helps us forget things we want to forget.

What if it turned out that—for some reason—giving students time to nap were unconstitutional? What if lawyers argued we can’t delay high-school start times to allow for more sleep, because the constitution requires school to begin before 8:00 am?

Although this hypothetical example is obviously silly—why would naps be unconstitutional?—the deeper question matters. We are, after all, a country of laws. If a particular educational practice—like, say, “separate but equal”—is unconstitutional, we don’t do it.

Obviously.

A Current Example

The Tricycle is a magazine that promotes Buddhism, and for that reason takes real interest in mindfulness. You can, for instance, read about “The Buddha’s Original Teachings on Mindfulness” here.

Back in May, Tricycle editor James Shaheen posted a surprising interview on their website.

In this conversation, Shaheen talks with Dr. Candy Gunther Brown: a religious studies professor who argues that mindfulness can’t be separated from its religious origins.

For that reason, requiring mindfulness is—in fact—requiring a kind of religious activity: a requirement that, in Brown’s view, violates the US Constitution.

Digging Deeper

Shaheen’s conversation with Brown lasts almost an hour, and so can’t be summarized in a brief blog post. I encourage you to listen to the whole thing.

To give a flavor of her argument, I’ll briefly mention a few of her points.

First: mindfulness often encourages participants to adopt a detached view of the events around them, and their emotional responses to those events. Rather than respond, we should “take a mental step back” and simply notice our bodily response to our feelings.

Brown notes that this seemingly “neutral stance” might well spill over into a religious perspective. After all, many religions ask their adherents not to notice their internal responses, but to go into the world and do something about those events.

For that reason, mindfulness isn’t a religiously neutral practice.

Second: Brown quotes research suggesting that people who practice mindfulness have religious experiences at a higher rate than those who don’t. And, people who have those often end up moving away from a monotheistic perspective.

Which is to say, mindfulness might in fact change the religious views of the people participating in it.

If we know that to be true (and, to be clear, I haven’t reviewed the research Brown cites), then requiring students to practice mindfulness might both have all the school and health benefits we like and indirectly encourage a particular religious framework within schools.

Of course, Brown discusses other concerns as well. Some are explicitly legal. Others focus on the motives of (some) people and organizations that promote mindfulness: phrases like “stealth Buddhism” make her suspicions amply clear.

You can read her own summary of her argument here.

What Should We Do?

Brown doesn’t want to banish or forbid mindful practices from schools. Instead, she wants schools that have them ensure such programs are voluntary.

They should not even be “opt-out” programs that students must decline—risking their relationships with peers and teachers.

Instead, they should be “opt-in” programs that students sign up for and attend when they choose to.

In her view, this framework—especially if it offers appropriate alternatives—would both provide the good stuff that mindfulness allows and pass constitutional muster.

Another important point stands out in this debate.

Note the source of this anti-mindfulness interview: a magazine and website devoted to Buddhism and mindfulness. (Okay, it’s not exactly an anti-mindfulness interview, but I suspect some people will see it that way.)

You might think that this magazine would be hostile to Brown’s position. You might think it would try to ignore her work, or shout it down.

Instead, editor Shaheen interviews Brown sympathetically and politely and knowledgeably. (He’s clearly read her book.)

So, the second thing we should do is emulate Shaheen’s example. As I’ve written elsewhere: when we hear about evidence that contradicts our beliefs, we should not ignore it or decry it.

We should, instead, learn as much as we can from it.

Whatever you think about the constitutionality of mindfulness, I hope you admire, and follow, Shaheen’s example.

Even More Good News about Mindfulness
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Last week, I described a small but persuasive study about the benefits of mindfulness.

This study combined techniques from both psychology and neuroscience to show that mindfulness really can help students manage stress.

And, it even had an active control group. Just what a research wonk would desire.

As I noted at the time, however, this study focused on stress and not on grades. 

Of course, stress is important. (Let me say that again. Stress is important.) But, as teachers, we probably care about grades too.

We’d love to see another study: one that includes information on topics other than stress. Like, say, learning.

We’d also be delighted it were larger. 40 people is nice…but several hundred would be even more persuasive.

Today’s News

Sure enough, a just-published study focused on mindfulness and several academic measures:

Grades

Attendance

Standardized math and literacy tests

Number of suspensions

Yup: mindfulness correlated with more of the good stuff (higher grades and test scores) and less of the bad stuff (suspensions).

And, this study included 2000 students in grades 5-8.

This study is, in fact, the first to show strong connections between mindfulness and these academic measures.

A Reminder

We might be tempted to jump to a strong conclusion. If

Study #1: mindfulness interventions reduce stress, and

Study #2: higher mindfulness correlates with better academic outcomes,

We’re tempted to conclude that

Mindfulness interventions lead to better academic outcomes.

But, as we remind ourselves daily

Correlation is not causation.

Until we run a large study (with active controls and random assignment) which shows that students who practiced mindfulness ended up with more learning, we can’t be sure of that conclusion.

However, that’s an increasingly plausible possibility, given these two studies.

A Final Note

Both these studies were supervised by John Gabrieli, at MIT. He’ll be speaking at this fall’s Learning and the Brain conference. If you’d like to learn more about the connection between mindfulness and school, come join us (and Dr. Gabrieli) in Boston.

 

 

An Exciting Event in Mindfulness Research
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Let’s imagine a GREAT study on the benefits of mindfulness.

As school people, we’re happy that mindfulness might be helpful at home or at work, but we really want it to be helpful to students. So, we’d love for this study to take place at school.

We’d like the study to show that mindfulness changes mental processes. For instance, we’d love to know that it helps students feel less stress.

And, we’d like the research to look at brains as well as minds. That is: we’d like to have some fMRI data showing relevant changes in brain regions.

At the same time that students report they feel less stress (that’s the mind), we might see neural modulation typical of less stress (that’s the brain).*

Finally, the study’s methodology would hold up to scrutiny. It would, for instance, include a plausible control group. (I’ve written about problems with control groups, including this study about mindfulness.)

Lo and Behold

Sure enough, this study exists!

Working with 6th graders at a school outside Boston, Clemens Bauer randomly assigned half to a mindfulness program and half to a coding training program.

Both groups devoted 45 minutes, four times a week to this effort, for 8 weeks. And, by the way, students in both groups enjoyed this time equally. (So: AT LAST we’ve got a plausible and active control group.)

Bauer’s team had students fill out a stress survey before and after this 8-week stretch. (Sample question: “In the last month, how often have you been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly?”)

And, he performed fMRI scans on them before and after as well.

When looking at those scans, Bauer’s team had a specific prediction. High stress responses typically includes elevated amygdala activation. Often, we can manage that stress response by using the prefrontal cortex–the part of the brain right behind your forehead.

If mindfulness helps manage stress, we would expect to see…

…greater connectivity between the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala, and

…concomitantly reduced activity in the amygdala.

That is, we’d be able to see that mindfulness strengthened connections between self-control systems in the prefrontal cortex. In turn, this increase in self-control would help mitigate stress responses in the amygdala.

Of course, I’m offering a very simplified version of a fantastically complex neural story. Books have been written on these connections, and it’s not blog-friendly kind of information.

Results, Please

If you’re a fan of mindfulness, you’re going to LOVE these results.

Students who practiced mindfulness reported less stress than those in the control group.

They showed higher levels of prefrontal cortex connectivity with the amygdala.

They showed lower levels of amygdala activity when they looked at angry faces.

So: both in their mental activity (reported stress level) and in the neural activity (in the amygdala, between the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex), eight weeks of mindfulness led to beneficial results for these students.

Technically speaking, that’s a home run.

What’s Next

First: to repeat, this study is powerful and persuasive. We can simply revel in its conclusions for a while.

Second: as teachers, we’re glad that student stress levels are lower. The next question is: do students learn more? We can assume they do, but we should measure as well. (To be clear: I think lower stress is an important goal on its own, whether or not it leads to more learning.)

Third: as the study’s authors acknowledge, the sample size here is relatively small. I hope they get funding to repeat it on a much larger scale.

As noted in this study, there’s a disappointing history in the world of mindfulness research. Small studies–often lacking random assignment or a control group–come to promising conclusions. But, the bigger the study–and the better the methodology–the smaller the results.

So: now that we’ve gotten strong effects with a randomized study and a plausible control group, I hope to see these same results at a much larger scale.

I might go sit quietly for a while, and try to clear my mind of extraneous thoughts.


* This sentence has been revised to read “neural modulation” rather than “neural behavior.” (9/18/19)

What Helps After a Stressful Day? Mindfulness Apps or Digital Games?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

In education research, TECHNOLOGY and MINDFULNESS exist in dramatically different realms.

The stereotypical technophile wants the very latest gizmo to connect with countless others as quickly as possible.

The stereotypical mindful-phile wants ancient traditions to help slow life down and disconnect from most everything.

The Venn diagram overlap between these two fields just isn’t very large.

So, what happens when we run a competition between them?

If we want to “recover” after a stressful day, is a mindfulness app more helpful than a digital game?

First Things First

As I’ve written before, we’re tempted to approach such questions as partisans.

That is:

If I’m on Team Mindfulness, I’m sure that the mindfulness app will be better (or that the study was badly designed).

If I’m on Team Tech, I’m sure that the digital game will promote recovery more effectively (if the research isn’t hideously biased).

Although those thoughts are entirely predictable, they’re probably not terribly helpful. If we really want to know the answer to the question, we should be aware of the biases we bring to this study.

My suggestion–as always–is to shift deliberately to a stance of curiosity. “What an intriguing question,” I push myself to say. “I wonder what the researchers will find. It could go either way, I suppose…”

An equally important point: the answer to the question will depend substantially on our definitions.

In this case: what exactly does “recovery” mean? (That’s why I keep putting it in quotation marks.)

For this study, researchers used two measurements.

First, they had participants fill out a survey of how tired or energetic they felt. So: “recovery” means “more energetic and less tired.”

Second, participants filled out a second survey covering four “aspects of recovery”:

Detachment–spending time not thinking about work

Relaxation

Mastery–the sense of gaining skills in something other than work

Control–the experience of having control within or over activities”

In this study, then, participants “recover” better if they are energetic, detached from work, relaxed, and experiencing mastery and control.

That seems like a plausible definition–although, as I’ll note below, I’m not sure both teams are equally interested in all those outcomes.

The Studies, The “Answers”

Researchers did what you’d want them to do in order to answer these questions effectively.

In the first study, college students spent 15 minutes doing challenging arithmetic problems. Some of the students used a mindfulness app after this stressor, while others played the game Block! Hexa Puzzle. (A third group sat quietly, and had a fidget spinner handy if they wanted something to do.)

In the second study, researchers followed professionals coming home from a long/stressful day at work. For five days, these adults either used the mindfulness app or played the digital game. (No fidget spinners this time.)

What results did the researchers find?

Speaking precisely, they did get statistically significant results.

For the college students, the digital game led to higher energy levels on the first survey. However, there were no significant differences for the “recovery” survey of detachment, relaxation, and so forth.

For the adult professionals, there were no statistically significant results to report. The researchers argue that the digital game helped on the recovery survey increasingly as the week went along, whereas the meditation app helped less. (I’m sure that’s mathematically true, but the graph isn’t very compelling.)

Interpretations

How do we interpret these results?

If I’m on Team Tech, I’d read this study and say: Look! The digital game helped more! Take that!

If I’m on Team Mindfulness, I’d read this study and say: The differences were barely meaningful! And–they measured things our team doesn’t even care about! Bah!

But, I’m not on those teams. I’m on Team Curious. Here’s what I say:

In this research paradigm, both a mindfulness app and a digital game were (more or less) equally effective in helping adults recover after mental stress.

I mean, yes, there were minor differences. But there were A LOT more similarities.

For that reason, we don’t really need to push people one way or another. If a college students wants to recover though mindfulness–that’s great! If they want to recover by playing a digital game–that’s great! Either path should be helpful.

By switching from partisanship (“I’m sure THIS is correct”) to curiosity (“I wonder what we’ll learn here–so many possibilities are plausible!”), we can discover more useful and more honest interpretations of the research we discover.

A Final Note

Because this study works with college students and adults, I myself wouldn’t extrapolate to draw conclusions about younger students–especially much younger students.

It’s possible that “both work equally well” applies to–say–3rd graders. But, at this point, I don’t know of a research answer to that question.

My guess is: as is so often true, it will depend on the 3rd grader in question.