The Effects of Implementing Mindfulness Into Teacher Pedagogy, and the Effects of Implementation on Stress, Student-Teacher Relationships and Classroom Climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative research study investigates the effects of mindfulness implementation in Ontario elementary classrooms, and the effects of such practices on the overall stress levels of teachers in their practice, the student-teacher relationships within the classroom, and the overall classroom climate. To collect data, I conducted three semi-structured interviews with elementary educators who have a personal practice of mindfulness outside of their classrooms, and who implement mindfulness into their teaching pedagogy. Through analyzing my data alongside existing literature, three themes emerged: 1) mindful elementary educators recognize that successful implementation of mindfulness stems from a personal connection to mindfulness, gathering information from a variety of sources (ie. text, online), and practicing mindfulness daily in their classrooms, 2) mindful elementary educators recognize the benefits of practicing mindfulness in their classrooms, including reduced stress levels, positive student-teacher relations and overall classroom climate, and 3) mindful elementary educators recognize the various academic, behavioural, and attitudinal challenges that come with implementing mindfulness practices in their classrooms and with their students. Implications for the educational community and myself as a teacher-researcher are then discussed based on the effects of mindful integration in classrooms. Recommendations are then made for how teachers and school boards can introduce and implement feasible mindfulness programs into their classrooms and schools. Recommendations are also made for how teacher education programs can integrate mindfulness practices and studies into their programs, to inform teacher candidates of the benefits and outcomes of introducing mindfulness into their own teaching practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".