Mindful practices in higher education classrooms: Impact on student experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasingly, research reveals that higher education students identify perceived stress and anxiety as negatively impacting their personal wellbeing, academic success, and future professional lives. Introduction of mindful practices into higher education settings has been shown to mitigate such stressors, and when practiced regularly, can enhance students’ sense of peace and calm. However, little is known about how students experience the introduction of faculty-led mindful practices in the classroom. As part of a larger mixed-methods study, university students were introduced to mindful activities by faculty, who incorporated these activities in their classrooms. Students were then invited to complete an online survey about their experiences. Student responses (n=45) reflected an overall positive experience of engaging in mindful practices in the classroom. Specifically, students identified benefits to self-care, sense of personal wellbeing, as well as reduction in perceived stress and anxiety. They also felt mindfulness increased their self-awareness and reflexivity and was transferable to personal and professional life-contexts. Students’ written comments about faculty-led mindful practices highlighted perceived benefits, such as improving focus and ability to absorb information, as well as challenges resulting from disruptive behaviours by classmates. Qualitative data collected from faculty suggest reduced student anxiety and increased self-care, as well as enhanced quality of faculty-student relationships and faculty teaching practices. Given the potential benefits of mindful practices for students, faculty may wish to explore strategies for introducing mindful activities into their classrooms in ways that support students who wish to participate, while allowing others to opt out in a respectful, non-disruptive manner.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".