Engagement in Mindfulness Exercises during Large Lectures and Students’ Writing Self-Efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the association between greater engagement (i.e., number of times participated) in mindfulness exercises administered in large university lectures and students’ writing self-efficacy. For eight weeks, a breathing exercise was administered to students in one lecture section, and a progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) exercise was administered to students in another lecture section of the same course. Participants (n = 147) completed measures of writing self-efficacy before (T1) and after (T2) the eight-week exercise period. Engagement was greater in the breathing exercise than in the PMR exercise (p < .05). Writing self-efficacy was marginally greater (p = .08) at T2 for those administered the breathing exercise than for those administered the PMR exercise. Correlational analyses further showed that engagement in the breathing exercise was associated with writing self-efficacy at T2 (p < .01), but engagement in the PMR exercise was not (p = .21). We conclude with implications for course instructors using mindfulness exercises to enhance desirable writing outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".