A Conceptual Framework for Whole‐School Implementation of Mindfulness Programs and Practices: Wisdom From the Field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Despite the growing prevalence of mindfulness in schools, the empirical landscape describing best practices for implementation is incomplete. The purpose of this project was to develop a framework that explicated the steps and considerations for implementing mindfulness at the whole‐school level, rather than just considering individual classroom programs or practices. The Whole School Mindfulness (WSM) conceptual framework was developed using a consensus‐building approach with 39 expert educators, researchers, program developers, and practitioners with unique perspectives on what is needed to implement and sustain mindfulness successfully in schools. Information was gathered across three initial meetings and a 2.5‐day conference using a process inspired by Appreciative Inquiry; notes were used to create a consensus document that was reviewed and augmented by attendees. Expert contributions were aligned and expanded upon using existing organizational change and implementation science frameworks across various disciplines. The WSM framework, with four phases of development, is structurally similar to other frameworks, but accounts for unique needs related to mindfulness including professional development of personal mindfulness for leaders and school staff, the importance of voluntary engagement in practices, and consideration of contextual and cultural issues.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".