Effectiveness of mindfulness-based colouring for test anxiety in adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a mindfulness art activity (mandala) with a free draw/colouring activity on test anxiety in adolescents with an examination of gender differences, and to assess the effect of dispositional mindfulness on students’ experience of mindfulness and test anxiety states. Participants were 193 Grade 8 students (56.6% female; M age = 13.49 years, SD = 0.50) randomly assigned to a mandala ( n = 97) or free draw/colouring condition ( n = 96). Students completed standardized measures to assess test anxiety and state mindfulness pre- post-colouring intervention, immediately prior to completing a test, in addition to a measure of dispositional mindfulness. Results showed a significant decrease in test anxiety and a significant increase in state mindfulness following both activities; however, a gender by group by time interaction was found such that females reported a greater decrease in test anxiety in the free condition compared to males. Furthermore, the baseline measures (pre-intervention state mindfulness and test anxiety) were found to fully mediate relations between dispositional mindfulness and the outcome measures (post-intervention state mindfulness and test anxiety). Implications for educators and future research and practice regarding the use of mindfulness activities in the classroom are discussed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".