Content area
This study aimed to investigate the effects of mindfulness exercises on the disruptive behaviors of young learners in EFL classes, along with gathering students’ perceptions of their experiences and the perceived change in disruptive behaviors of themselves and their peers. Thirty-nine third-grade students participated in the study and were assigned to the experimental group (EG) and the control group (CG). The EG engaged in mindfulness exercises at the beginning of English lessons for eight weeks, while the CG followed the regular EFL curriculum. Disruptive behaviors were assessed using a Video-based Observation Chart. Interviews were conducted with students to explore their perceptions of the intervention and its impact on their behavior and the behavior of their peers. The results indicated a significant decrease in overall disruptive behaviors in the EG compared to the CG. Participants reported positive experiences and enjoyment as well as perceived increase in attention skills, improvement in emotion regulation and emotional well-being. A minority of the participants stated that they did not observe any difference in the behaviors of some of their disruptive peers. The results indicated that incorporating mindfulness exercises into EFL classes can lead to a reduction in disruptive behaviors, improve students’ experiences, and create a more positive classroom climate.
1. Introduction
Mindfulness, having its roots in Buddhist teachings dating back thousands of years, has become more and more popular as a practice in a variety of settings, including the classroom (Bostic et al., 2015). Being mindful means deliberately being aware of everything one is experiencing in the current moment, including ideas, feelings, physical sensations, and surroundings (Kabat-Zinn, 1994). Research shows that people who practice mindfulness are more likely to experience reduced stress and anxiety, as well as emotional reactivity (Davis & Hayes, 2011).
On the other hand, disruptive behaviors are the behaviors that interfere with a person’s own ability to learn, impede peers’ ability to learn and participate, or make it harder for teachers to manage classrooms (Merrett & Wheldall, 1984). These behaviors are among the most important problems in educational settings, as they negatively impact the academic achievement of students, their relationships with teachers and other students, and the overall classroom climate (Martini-Scully et al., 2000; B. W. Smith & Sugai, 2000). Disruptive behaviors need to be dealt with at an early age, as studies have shown that children who demonstrated behavioral issues in early childhood were assessed by parents and educators to have a high probability of continuing to exhibit externalizing problems and lower social competence than peers in the future (Campbell, 1994). A great deal of study has been done on creating and assessing interventions for decreasing disruptive behaviors in a range of contexts (Umbreit, 1996). However, even when there are classroom interventions that have been proven effective by research, educators may be reluctant to implement these interventions, or they may cite difficulties that prevent implementation; so good implementation of classroom interventions aimed at decreasing disruptive behaviors primarily depends on their ease of implementation and efficacy (Mottram et al., 2002). Because mindfulness approaches emphasize mental visualization and meditation during real experiments, such as mindful eating or mindful walking, they are especially appropriate for young people and adolescents, and these factors also make them practical (Zack et al., 2014). Mindfulness in an educational context is also regarded as an effective way to regulate behaviors and reduce emotional impulsivity (Saltzman & Goldin, 2008; Short et al., 2016), which may have a beneficial effect on reducing disruptive behaviors, particularly in young students (Bolstad & Johnson, 1972; Koegel et al., 1992). This may especially be important in EFL classrooms with young learners, where students experience a variety of language learning challenges and intercultural challenges unique to these classrooms (Alsalihi, 2020). In this regard, Kuru Gönen (2022) proposes several mindfulness-based practices appropriate for implementing in EFL classrooms in a recent study. Some of the proposed practices in their study include breathing exercises, keeping a journal, gratitude exercises, and mindfulness exercises integrated with developing language skills.
Despite the recognition of the significance of mindfulness in the classroom and its potential benefits, as previously mentioned, an experimental study examining the direct impact of mindfulness practices on the frequency of disruptive behaviors among young learners in EFL classrooms is lacking. Disruptive behavior not only undermines the academic learning process but also prevents the creation of a positive classroom climate and damages social relationships in the classroom (Hamre et al., 2008; Mahvar et al., 2018). Therefore, understanding the direct effect of mindfulness practices on the frequency of disruptive behaviors in EFL classrooms with young learners has the potential to provide insights for both the research literature and the teachers of EFL classrooms with young learners whom the study aims to guide in the use of classroom practices. The present study focuses on how mindfulness techniques affect the frequency of young EFL learners’ disruptive behaviors and how they perceive the mindfulness experiment and tries to answer the following research questions:
RQ1. Are there any impacts of mindfulness exercises on the frequency of disruptive behaviors in EFL classes with young learners?
RQ1a. Is there a statistically significant difference between the EG and the CG in terms of the frequency of disruptive behaviors prior to the mindfulness intervention?
RQ1b. Is there a statistically significant difference between the EG and the CG in terms of the frequency of disruptive behaviors after the mindfulness intervention?
RQ1c. Is there a statistically significant difference in the frequency of disruptive behaviors of the participants in the EG prior to and after the mindfulness intervention?
RQ1d. Is there a statistically significant difference in the frequency of disruptive behaviors of the participants in the CG prior to and after the mindfulness intervention?
RQ2. What are the young learners’ perceptions and experiences of the mindfulness exercises implemented in the EFL classroom?
RQ3. How do young learners perceive the influence of mindfulness exercises on their own disruptive behaviors and their classmates’ disruptive behaviors in the EFL classroom?
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants and Setting
Throughout the research process, the researcher continued to work as an active English language teacher and taught English lessons at the school where the study was conducted. A pair of third-grade classrooms was selected as study participants using the convenience sampling method. The ages of the participants ranged from 8 to 9. After being selected as participants, those groups were assigned randomly as the EG and CG. Of the 22 students in the EG, 11 were male and 11 were female. As one of the male students was clinically diagnosed with ADHD, he was excluded from the study. Therefore, in the EG, there were 11 female (52%) and 11 male (48%) students valid for the study. In the CG, there were 18 students, 10 male (56%), and 8 female (44%). There were no students clinically diagnosed with any behavioral disorders in the CG. All 18 students in the CG were therefore eligible to participate in the study. Three students from the EG were randomly chosen to take part in the interviews. One student from the males and two students from the females were randomly selected for further qualitative analyses. In the second phase of the study, the interviews also took place in the school.
2.2. Instruments and Data Collection
2.2.1. Video-Based Observation Chart
The data collection tool used in the first phase of this study was an observation chart. The purpose of using an observation chart was to systematically record students’ disruptive behaviors. This data collection tool was developed after an extensive literature review and two months of in-class observational data collection in six second and third grade EFL classrooms to determine which behaviors should be included in the study and how to categorize them. Each behavior category in the chart corresponds to the behavior types presented in the previous literature on disruptive behaviors in classrooms. The observation chart was created with students’ code numbers in each row and a disruptive behavior in each column. After viewing the videos that were recorded during the English class, the researcher noted which disruptive behaviors and in what quantities the students engaged in those behaviors during the class on the chart. Because this chart included information on the frequency of certain behaviors, the data it collected could be subjected to quantitative analyses. Disruptive behaviors in the classroom were divided into five categories in the chart:
Non-compliant behaviors (NCB)
Distracting behaviors (DB)
Disrespectful behaviors (DrB)
Physically disruptive behaviors (PDB)
Academic disengagement behaviors (ADB)
Since they may cause problems like academic disengagement, aggressive reactions and distraction in the classroom, NCB are said to be the foundation of other disruptive behaviors (Cipani, 1993). NCB, within this study, include behaviors pertaining to disregarding classroom rules and instructions and encompass actions such as speaking out of turn, interfering with the teacher or other students, ignoring instructions, leaving the seat without permission, and refusing to finish tasks. Behaviors in this category are built on the basis of the works of Reynolds et al. (2011) and Schwab et al. (2019). DB in the chart refer to actions that divert students’ attention and distract the focus during the class, such as making loud noises, playing with toys or unrelated items, and talking about unrelated topics. The DB in the chart correspond to the off-task behaviors in the study by Godwin et al. (2013). They also correspond to the categories of noise-making and orienting behaviors in Thomas et al.’s (1968) study. DrB in the chart involve behaviors that demonstrate a lack of regard for the teacher and the other students, and this category includes behaviors such as bullying or disturbing other students and using inappropriate language or gestures. The DrB in this study were mostly inspired by the behaviors in the verbalization category in Thomas et al.’s (1968) study. In the context of this study, PDB are behaviors that students engage in with the intent to physically harm other students, or behaviors that involve damaging themselves or a classroom object. This category involves rough play/horseplay, violence/throwing objects, and other risky behaviors. The PDB in this chart were taken from gross-motor and aggression behaviors in Thomas et al.’s (1968) study. ADB in the chart refer to actions that indicate a lack of involvement in the academic aspects of the classroom. This category includes behaviors such as being unprepared for class, displaying a lack of interest in class work, being overly competitive or aggressive, and engaging in cheating. The behaviors in this category were formed based on inattentive behaviors and miscellaneous behaviors in Appleby’s (1990, as cited in Sorcinelli, 1994) study.
2.2.2. Semi-Structured Interviews
Three randomly chosen students from the EG were interviewed following the eight-week mindfulness exercise intervention. As this study aims to ensure consistency in the questions directed at each participant, while at the same time allowing for the individual participants’ own perspectives and experiences, a semi-structured interview method was used (Dearnley, 2005). The questions were designed to gather information regarding the experiences of students with mindfulness practices they had engaged in throughout the past eight weeks. Additionally, the questions were designed to find out if the students believed that these exercises had changed the frequency of their own and their peers’ disruptive behaviors in the classroom.
2.3. Procedure
2.3.1. Pre-Implementation Observation
The pre-implementation data collection process began after obtaining the consent of each parent. Both the CG and the EG were videotaped for a total of two weeks and four classes before the implementation phase. Disruptive behaviors in the lessons were documented using the video-based observation chart.
2.3.2. Implementation of Mindfulness Exercises
After two weeks of observation, mindfulness exercises for a total of eight weeks started to be practiced for five minutes at the beginning of the English lessons in the EG, for 10 min in total per week. The CG continued to receive their regular English language instruction without any additional intervention. They participated in activities which were included in their regular lesson plans and in accordance with their language learning objectives. In addition to being engaged in mindfulness exercises, the EG also maintained their regular English language classes, which were identical to those of the CG. The implementation process included a total of eight different mindfulness activities for children. The exercises used were sourced from a blog article by Murphy (2022). The article titled “13 Mindfulness Activities for Kids That Are Fun and Teach Mindfulness” provided a valuable resource for incorporating mindfulness activities into the study. The exercises were selected to ensure that they were suitable for children, as well as having the potential to teach mindfulness practices in an entertaining manner. It was also ensured that the exercises selected for the study were compatible with the types of exercises recommended for EFL classes in Kuru Gönen’s (2022) study. Certain activities were carried out with small modifications based on the conditions and suitability of the classroom setting. After four weeks of practicing all the activities, the same activities were repeated once more for the next four weeks.
To ensure intervention fidelity, several measures were taken throughout the study. Adherence was monitored using a structured checklist to confirm that each session followed the intervention protocol and that all planned mindfulness activities were delivered as intended. Exposure was tracked by recording the duration of each exercise to verify the total intervention dosage. The quality of delivery was assessed through periodic observations conducted by trained raters, who rated facilitators on their competence and engagement with students. Participant responsiveness was also evaluated by noting students’ engagement levels during exercises. Finally, program differentiation was ensured by monitoring the control group to prevent contamination, confirming that no mindfulness activities were inadvertently introduced into their regular English lessons. These fidelity measures helped to maintain consistency and allowed for accurate interpretation of the intervention’s effects on disruptive behaviors.
Table 1 presents the plan for the mindfulness exercises.
The post-implementation observation was conducted in the final two weeks of the practice. The purpose of this observation was to determine whether there was any statistically significant change in the frequency of disruptive behaviors among the participants. Similar to the preceding observation procedure, both the CG and the EG were videotaped during the last two weeks of the implementation phase. In order to collect and analyze disruptive behavior data for analysis and comparison between the experimental and CGs, the video-based observation chart was utilized again.
Due to the participants’ young age, a brief process review discussion was conducted with the participants before the interview to acquaint them with the procedure and minimize any potential distractions. The interviews were conducted in a quiet, peaceful place within the school, and they were audio recorded. The interviewees were asked to relax before the interview and to answer honestly about anything they felt. Since the researcher was already a teacher that the students were familiar with, the students had a stress-free, conversational interview. The interviews provided insights into their opinions about the procedure.
2.4. Data Analysis
Pre-test and post-test differences and correlations between variables were examined using parametric tests. The decision on the use of parametric tests was made based on evaluations of normality and homogeneity of variance. Normality was tested with a series of Shapiro–Wilk tests. The statistics are presented in Table 2 below.
As can be seen in Table 2, none of the Shapiro–Wilk tests conducted yielded significance, which is an indication that the assumption of normality is met for all categories of behaviors. The assumption of homogeneity of variance was tested through Levene’s tests. The significance values for different categories of behaviors in both the pre-test and the post-test ranged between 0.212 and 0.983, which points to equality of variances for the t-tests. A set of independent samples t-tests was used to compare the pre- and post-test results for the EG and CG between groups to see if there were any statistically significant differences. Later, paired samples t-tests were conducted to evaluate pre-test and post-test changes within each group separately. These statistical tests provided information about comparisons of pre-tests and post-tests between and within the groups.
Qualitative data of the interviews were analyzed by the researcher using phenomenological data analysis approach. A simplified form of the 15 steps of Hycner’s (1985) phenomenological analysis approach was followed to analyze the data. Two teachers rated the frequency of disruptive behaviors. For inter-rater reliability, Cohen Kappa was calculated and revealed a κ of 0.79, which is a substantial reliability score.
3. Results
To determine whether statistically significant differences existed between the EG and CG prior to the application of the mindfulness intervention in terms of the frequency of disruptive behaviors (RQ1a), a series of independent samples t-tests was utilized. The results from these t-tests can be seen in Table 3 below:
Table 3 shows that there was no statistically significant difference between the EG (M = 22.52, SD = 32.9) and CG (M = 17.44, SD = 23.64) in terms of the total number of disruptive behaviors (TDB), t(37) = 0.55, p = 0.589, prior to the mindfulness intervention. Also, no significant difference was observed between the two groups with regard to the number of disruptive behaviors in each specific category: NCB for the EG (M = 7.52, SD = 11.75) and CG (M = 5.72, SD = 8.43), t(37) = 0.54, p = 0.59; DB for the EG (M = 6.76, SD = 7.83) and CG (M = 6.55, SD = 7.46), t(37) = 0.08, p = 0.93; DrB for the EG (M = 2.19, SD = 3.54) and CG (M = 2.05, SD = 3.55), t(37) = 0.12, p = 0.91; PDB for the EG (M = 3.28, SD = 6.07) and CG (M = 1.66, SD = 3.25), t(37) = 1.01, p = 0.32; and ADB for the EG (M = 2.76, SD = 5.07) and CG (M = 1.44, SD = 2.22), t(37) = 1.02, p = 0.32.
All in all, it can be stated that the two groups were almost identical in terms of the frequency of disruptive behaviors they used to engage in before the mindfulness intervention started, which is something that would contribute to the belief that any difference observed in the post-test can be attributed to the effect of the intervention.
To explore whether there was a significant difference in the frequency of disruptive behaviors between the EG and CG following the application of the mindfulness intervention (RQ1b), independent samples t-tests were used. Below, in Table 4, are the findings from these t-tests:
Table 4 demonstrates that, following the mindfulness intervention, there was no statistically significant difference between EG (M = 11.14, SD = 14.07) and CG (M = 19.88, SD = 31.25) in terms of the TDB, t(37) = −1.15, p = 0.256, after the mindfulness intervention. Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of the frequency of disruptive behaviors within any specific category: NCB for the EG (M = 3.33, SD = 4.41) and CG (M = 6.83, SD = 11.70), t(37) = −1.27, p = 0.21; DB for the EG (M = 3.57, SD = 5.51) and CG (M = 5.51, SD = 10.67), t(37) = −1.28, p = 0.21; DrB for the EG (M = 1.38, SD = 1.90) and CG (M = 1.66, SD = 3.00), t(37) = −0.35, p = 0.72; PDB for the EG (M = 1.76, SD = 4.28) and CG (M = 3.33, SD = 6.46), t(37) = −0.90, p = 0.37; and ADB for the EG (M = 1.09, SD = 1.70) and CG (M = 1.05, SD = 1.05), t(37) = 0.08, p = 0.93.
The findings in Table 4 suggest that there were no statistically significant differences in the frequency of disruptive behaviors between the EG and CG after the mindfulness intervention. However, it is important to note that further analysis was conducted to investigate differences within the EG and CG before and after the intervention.
To investigate whether there was a statistically significant difference in the frequency of disruptive behaviors in the EG before and after the mindfulness intervention (RQ1c), a set of paired samples t-tests was employed. Table 5 displays the findings from these t-tests:
As seen in Table 5, the TDB statistically significantly decreased after the mindfulness intervention, t(20) = 2.24, p = 0.04. Moreover, the analysis demonstrates a statistically significant decrease in NCB between the pre-test (M = 7.52, SD = 11.75) and post-test (M = 3.33, SD = 4.41), t(20) = 2.25, p = 0.04. Similarly, a significant decrease is observed in DB between the pre-test (M = 6.76, SD = 7.83) and post-test (M = 3.57, SD = 5.51), t(20) = 2.76, p = 0.01. Additionally, results from Table 4 indicate that there is no significant difference within the other categories. Specifically, there is no significant difference in DrB between the pre-test (M = 2.19, SD = 3.54) and post-test (M = 1.38, SD = 1.90), t(20) = 1.04, p = 0.31. Similarly, there is no significant difference in PDB between the pre-test (M = 3.28, SD = 6.07) and post-test (M = 1.76, SD = 4.28), t(20) = 1.55, p = 0.14. Additionally, there is no significant difference in ADB between the pre-test (M = 2.76, SD = 5.07) and post-test (M = 1.09, SD = 1.70), t(20) = 1.52, p = 0.14. However, it should be noted that, due to the utilization of multiple comparisons, a Bonferroni correction may be considered necessary. In that case, the Bonferroni corrected significance threshold (0.05/5 = 0.01) will make the decrease in the two categories (NCB and DB) after the intervention insignificant. Yet, the decrease is still marginal and noteworthy.
The findings suggest that the mindfulness intervention had a positive impact on reducing overall disruptive behaviors among the participants. Also, the findings indicate that mindfulness intervention contributed to a reduction in both NCB and DB among the participants in the EG. The mindfulness intervention did not have a significant impact on reducing disrespectful behaviors, physically disruptive behaviors, or academic disengagement behaviors within the EG.
To examine if there was a statistically significant difference in the frequency of disruptive behaviors of the participants in the CG prior to and after the mindfulness intervention (RQ1d), paired samples t-tests were utilized. The results of these t-tests are shown in Table 6:
The findings from Table 6 reveal that there was no statistically significant difference in the CG’s TDB between the pre-test (M = 17.44, SD = 23.64) and post-test scores (M = 19.88, SD = 31.25) after the mindfulness intervention. The t-test analysis showed a t value of −0.66 and a p value of 0.52, indicating that the mindfulness intervention did not result in a significant change in the number of disruptive behaviors in the CG.
Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences between the pre-test and post-test results of the CG across the sub-categories of disruptive behaviors. Specifically, there were no significant differences in the frequency of NCB before (M = 5.72, SD = 8.43) and after the mindfulness intervention (M = 6.83, SD = 11.70), t(17) = −0.64, p = 0.53; DB before (M = 6.55, SD = 7.46) and after the intervention (M = 7.00, SD = 10.67), t(17) = −0.29, p = 0.78; DrB before and after the intervention (M = 2.19, SD = 1.90) and after (M = 2.05, SD = 3.55), t(17) = 0.78, p = 0.45; PDB before (M = 1.66, SD = 3.25) and after the intervention (M = 3.33, SD = 6.46), t(17) = −2.04, p = 0.06; and ADB before (M = 1.44, SD = 2.22) and after the intervention (M = 1.05, SD = 1.05), t(17) = 0.88, p = 0.39.
In summary, the results show that the CG’s frequency of disruptive behaviors did not significantly change before or after the intervention process. Given that the CG did not receive any mindfulness intervention and proceeded with their usual English classes, it is not unexpected that there were no significant differences in the number of disruptive behaviors in total or within any particular category.
In order to gain insights into the perceptions of the participants regarding their experience with the mindfulness intervention (RQ2), the researcher adopted a phenomenological analysis approach. Table 7, displaying the frequency of specific themes emerged after the coding process, was created to convey the results of this phenomenological analysis. A quantitative display of these themes’ frequency throughout the interviews is presented in Table 7:
According to the frequency of the themes derived from participants’ viewpoints during the extensive reading process and displayed in Table 7, incorporating mindfulness exercises into EFL classrooms with young learners has the potential to generate positive outcomes. During the interviews, no negative comments were articulated by the participants, and the transcriptions revealed no such remarks either. Therefore, no negative codes were generated from their perspectives in the coding process. The themes that emerged after the process of reading and coding were positive experiences and enjoyment (f = 14), improved emotion regulation and emotional well-being (f = 9), improved attention skills (f = 6), and improved classroom climate and learning experience (f = 9). The results suggest that incorporating mindfulness exercises into EFL classes is generally perceived positively. To provide a more comprehensive representation of the findings of the qualitative analyses, each code will be handled individually. Excerpts from the participants’ interviews will be provided as examples to gain a deeper understanding.
As seen in Table 7, the most frequently reported theme in the findings of the content analysis was positive experiences (f = 14). During the interviews, students consistently expressed positive outcomes from implementing mindfulness exercises in English classes.
When asked about her mindfulness experiences, Student 1 responded, “I think they were great.” When the participant was asked if she wanted to continue with the exercises in English lessons, she responded, “Of course, I would love to. They were great.” Student 2 also expressed his positive experiences by saying, “It was nice, teacher. I liked the exercises. They were very good.” and “They were good, all of them. They are also very good for different topics.” Student 3 also shared his positive experiences and expressed his desire to continue implementing the exercises. He described the mindfulness exercises as “wonderful” experiences while expressing his enjoyment and excitement in his speech: “Teacher, it was wonderful. We had a lot of fun, and I’m very curious and excited to do even better,” and stating, “It was nice, teacher. I liked the exercises. They were very good.” These responses emphasize the students’ positive perceptions of the mindfulness experiences and their willingness to continue engaging in them.
All three participants in the interviews showed signs of improved emotional well-being and emotion regulation (f = 9). Emotion regulation is “extrinsic and intrinsic processes responsible for monitoring, evaluating, and modifying emotional reactions, especially their intensive and temporal features, to accomplish one’s goals.’’ (Thompson, 1994, pp. 27–28) When some of the incidents experienced by the students and their reactions to those events were analyzed, the need to create an emotion regulation code arose. One example is below:
“I hit a friend the other day. I threw my pencil case at her…The tip of my pencil touched my friend’s eye. Then, after I let go of my anger, I said to myself, “I wish I hadn’t done this to my friend” because my anger came out.”
Student 2, after mentioning the incident where she overreacted to her friend, described the technique she used to calm herself down. She stated, “I counted from 1 to 10 for myself. I took a breath in and out.” When asked if she had applied the breathing exercises to her daily life, she affirmed that she had. In the example above, Student 2 showed a good example of emotion regulation. Student 1 reported a shift from being an angry person to becoming calmer in her speech and continued by exemplifying her statement with these lines:
“I used to be an angry person, but I became calmer…For example, when my friends do something, I treat them better and calmly warn them. I don’t get angry at their mischievousness; I calmly say, “Please sit down” or something like that.”
Student 1’s ability to regulate her emotions and communicate effectively could be seen in the excerpt above. It reflects her personal growth and a positive change in her approach to relationships and interactions. Student 3 also confirmed that practicing mindfulness exercises improved their ability to regulate their emotions, although he provided no particular example. In her speech, Student 2 mentioned her previous stage, where there were negative thoughts and nightmares that had a negative effect on her emotional well-being, and how she overcame that situation:
“There used to be things bothering me because I had a lot of feelings inside. There were very bad things, terrifying things. They were all in my dreams. They used to bother me. Now that I let go of those feelings, they do not bother me anymore.”
The excerpt from Student 2’s speech highlights a significant transformation from experiencing negative thoughts, nightmares, and intense emotions to better emotional well-being by letting go of those feelings. In other parts of the interview, Student 2 mentioned her positive emotional well-being several times, using phrases like “I feel good” and “I’m happy.” Student 3 also emphasizes his emotional well-being, saying, “I feel really good about myself.”
Another frequently mentioned theme in the interviews was improved attention skills (f = 6). All the participants in the interviews agreed that mindfulness exercises implemented in English lessons improved their attention. To the question “Do you think you have been able to focus better in class since doing these exercises?” all three participants gave positive answers. In one of her answers, Student 1 expressed her opinions about her enhanced focus and attributed this to her not hurting her friends anymore: “I feel very good. I can focus very well on the lessons, and thanks to not hurting my friends, I can focus well.” Her statement highlights how she views the relationship between positive behavior and improved attention skills. While discussing the positive changes she observed in her classmates, Student 2 made the following statement: “They paid more attention in class. They started making more effort.”. This statement suggests that the participant not only noticed improved attention skills in herself, but she also observed her classmates’ enhanced attention.
As classroom climate encompasses “students’ perceptions of the rigor of the class, their interactions with their instructor and class peers, and their involvement in the class” (Barr, 2016, p. 1), the theme was generated out of the perceived challenge degree of the English class, their interaction with their classmates and teacher, and their engagement in English class. In this context, a perception of a positive classroom climate and an improved learning experience were defined as an inseparable whole and handled together. Also, some excerpts where the participants highlighted the fixed behaviors of themselves and their friends were coded as improved classroom climate and learning experience, in addition to other categories.
When Student 1 was asked about the effects of mindfulness exercises on the classroom climate, she answered the question with the following statement: “It used to be a little tense and mischievous, but I noticed that they [the other students] were getting more well-behaved as time went by.”. The excerpts in which Student 1 and Student 2 discussed how their interactions with their classmates had improved may also be a good example of the interaction aspect of the classroom climate. To the question where the researcher asked the opinion of Student 3 on how mindfulness exercises had affected classroom climate, he replied, “Positively.” The other two participants also provided positive replies to this question.
As for the learning experience, Student 2 expressed herself with the following statement: “It helped a little bit. I mean, I studied more for my lessons… Yes, I could focus better.” Even though she considered it to have a moderate effect, Student 2 expressed that mindfulness exercises had a positive effect on her studying by improving her focus. Also, to the question examining their perceptions of the effects of mindfulness exercises on learning experiences, Student 1 answered, “Yes, they were very helpful, teacher. Thank you. They helped improve my English and regular conversation skills.” To the same question, Student 3 gave this answer: “They helped a lot, yes.” Those responses highlight the perceived positive effects of mindfulness exercises on the participants’ learning experiences.
The participants’ opinions on how the mindfulness intervention affected their own disruptive behaviors in the EFL classroom and how they observed changes in peers’ disruptive behaviors (RQ3) are presented in Table 8:
As seen in Table 8, the participants’ perceptions of the effect of mindfulness exercises on their own and their classmates’ behaviors did not include any purely negative viewpoints. Therefore, ‘negative impact’ code was not generated during the reading and coding process.
While there was an absence of any perceived negative or neutral effects of mindfulness on the participants’ own behaviors, Student 1 and Student 2 reported experiencing positive changes in their own behaviors (f = 6) after practicing mindfulness exercises. In contrast to the other participants, Student 3 chose not to provide feedback on the effects of mindfulness on his own behavior. Instead, the participant focused on and discussed the observed behavior of his classmates.
As both Student 1 and Student 2 reported experiencing a decrease in their own behaviors because they could regulate their emotions better, the excerpts discussed in the improved emotion regulation and emotional well-being session could be a relevant context to address this issue. Below is an example:
“I used to be a very angry person, but through the activities we did together, all my nerves disappeared. I became very calm and peaceful…For example, when my friends do something, I treat them better and calmly warn them. I don’t get angry at their mischievousness; I calmly say, “Please sit down” or something like that.”
In the excerpt, Student 1 highlighted the significant change in her own behavior, particularly when something unwanted happened in the classroom. The participant reported a shift from showing aggressive reactions towards her classmates to reacting to the incident in a more calm and non-aggressive manner. This excerpt also emphasizes improved interaction between classmates. Throughout the interview, Student 1 consistently mentioned how she had become a calmer person. Some of her statements were: “I feel very good. I can focus very well on the lessons, and thanks to not hurting my friends, I can focus well. I also focus a lot on being calm.” and “I used to be an angry person, but I became calmer.”
Student 2 answered the question of how mindfulness exercises had affected her own behaviors as: “For example, we became even better.” In her terms, becoming even better implies a decrease in their disruptive behaviors in the classroom.
As shown in Table 8, there is a significant number of perceived positive impacts of mindfulness exercises on classmates’ behaviors (f = 9). In one of her answers, Student 1 stated, “Some of my friends used to be mischievous, but they became better-behaved. However, some of them are still mischievous.” In this statement, the participant emphasized the reducing effect of mindfulness exercises on the disruptive behaviors of her classmates. However, the participant also noted that some of her classmates continued to engage in disruptive behaviors. Therefore, both ‘positive impact on classmates’ behaviors’ and ‘no observed behavior on classmates’ behaviors’ codes were assigned to this statement. In another remark, Student 1 expressed a similar observation: “I haven’t noticed any changes. They’re still the same: mischievous. But most of them have become better-behaved.” Starting her remark, Student 1 noted that she did not observe any changes in some of her classmates. However, the participant also stated that most of her classmates had become better-behaved. These words could be interpreted in both ways. Thus, this statement was also assigned to both ‘positive impact on classmates’ behaviors’ and ‘no observed impact on classmates’ behaviors’ codes. Although these remarks may seem like the words of a confused child, it should be considered that the perspectives of the interviewees may be influenced by individual differences between the students.
Student 2 explained her observations of reduced disruptive behaviors in English class using these words: “Teacher, some people used to tease each other a lot. Now they have stopped teasing. I think they used to annoy each other. They let go of those feelings. They started behaving well now.” and “Some people seem to have changed. They still do the same things occasionally, but not as much. They behave better towards some people.” According to Student 2, teasing behavior between the students decreased significantly after the implication. Furthermore, Student 2 emphasized that although the classmates still occasionally engaged in disruptive behaviors, it was not as frequent as it had been.
When asked about the observed changes in his classmates’ behaviors, Student 3 answered, “My classmates became a bit well-behaved.” and “They also changed a bit…They became a bit calmer.” Student 3’s responses, suggesting that his classmates became “a bit well-behaved” and “a bit calmer” imply that he perceived a moderate effect of mindfulness exercises on his classmates’ behaviors. By using the phrase “a bit” consistently, Student 3 indicated that the changes observed in his classmates’ behavior were noticeable but subtle.
4. Discussion
In the EG, the results showed that the frequency of disruptive behaviors exhibited by students in the EFL class decreased significantly overall, whereas the CG did not show a significant difference in pre-test and post-test results. These results are in line with Mortimore’s (2017) study, where students and teachers observed a calmer and less disruptive classroom environment, although the mindfulness intervention did not result in significant changes in anxiety. It can be noted that the results of this study are in accordance with many other studies that conclude that mindfulness has an impact on reducing disruptive behavior of young learners and helping to create a calmer and more positive classroom climate (Black & Fernando, 2013; Minkos, 2016; Renshaw, 2020).
The results showed a decrease within the EG following the mindfulness exercises, especially for NCB and DB. This indicates that the intervention had a reducing effect on disruptive behaviors related to following rules and instructions, such as speaking out of turn, interfering with teacher/students, ignoring instructions, leaving seat without permission, or refusing to finish tasks. The results of this study are in line with earlier research by Berti and Cigala (2022), which looked at how a mindfulness intervention affected the social-emotional development of preschoolers. Berti and Cigala (2022) observed and graded the children’s “compliance” after the mindfulness sessions, even though they did not explicitly measure NCB.
The findings also show that DrB like bullying/disturbing students, using inappropriate language/gestures, and refusing collaboration were not significantly affected by the mindfulness intervention. Even if a decline was observed, it was not statistically significant. These results are consistent with the results of Sarabia’s (2015) research examining the effect of an 8-week mindfulness program with fifth grade students on certain disruptive behaviors. The anger component in Sarabia’s (2015) study may be related to PDB in this study, as these two groups of actions are related to issues controlling impulses and external expressions of anger or emotion. However, the results contradict the findings of Parker et al.’s (2014) study. Parker et al. (2014) observed a significant decrease in the participant students’ externalizing behaviors, such as bullying, using inappropriate language, physical aggression, etc. The difference in the results of the two studies may be due to differences in the specific mindfulness interventions used, including the duration and frequency.
No statistically significant decrease in academic engagement behaviors was reported after the mindfulness intervention. There was a small decrease in academic engagement behavior, but it was not statistically significant. The findings of the study largely agree with those reported by Axelrod and Santagata (2022), indicating that mindfulness-based therapies had either no significant effect or only moderate effects on academic engagement. The findings of Kurnaedi et al. (2020), Minkos et al. (2018), and Taheri et al. (2019) contradict the conclusions of the current study on the impact of mindfulness on academic engagement. These studies found that mindfulness therapies had a beneficial influence on academic engagement, implying that such interventions can effectively improve student engagement in educational contexts.
According to the participants’ perceptions, the mindfulness exercises used in the EFL classroom were highly enjoyable and offered positive experiences. While the quantitative measurement results were partially distinct from Parker et al.’s (2014) study, participants’ perceptions of their experiences and thoughts were largely similar. In particular, students in both studies found Mindfulness-based Interventions (MBIs) to be enjoyable, and some students reported using counting and relaxing exercises outside of the classroom. More studies have reported high levels of satisfaction with mindfulness interventions in various contexts, similar findings to the results of this study (D’Alessandro et al., 2022; Fayerberger, 2023; O’Driscoll et al., 2019; Picena, 2023).
After receiving the mindfulness training, the students reported feeling happier and more positive about themselves overall. The students also talked about how they used mindfulness practices to help them relax in stressful times, such as breathing exercises and letting go of negative thoughts. These results mirror the results of a previous study by Mahfouz et al. (2018) that examined the effects of mindfulness practices on college students, as participants in both studies reported improved emotion regulation and improved emotional well-being. Particularly, students in both studies reported using mindfulness techniques like breathing to calm intense negative feelings. Beyond the study mentioned, there is an array of additional studies that corroborate similar results and in which individuals reported the beneficial effects of mindfulness practice on emotion regulation and emotional wellness (Andreu et al., 2021; Bannirchelvam et al., 2017; D’Alessandro et al., 2022; Á. I. Langer et al., 2020; Mortimore, 2017; Nardi et al., 2022; Santos Alves Peixoto et al., 2021).
After practicing mindfulness exercises, students in the current study reported feeling more focused in EFL class. The findings of this study regarding students’ perceptions of the effect of mindfulness intervention on their attention skills are in line with the findings of Ager et al.’s (2015) study indicating that participant students reported improved focus and attention following mindfulness practice. Similar findings to the current study were found in other studies by Birnbaum (2008), Coholic (2011); Fearon (2024), Reindl et al. (2020), and Wisner (2013), which also found a perceived effect of mindfulness on improving focus.
Participants agreed that practicing mindfulness enhanced their learning experiences and helped create a more positive climate in the classroom. Similar findings were detected in D’Alessandro et al.’s (2022) study, which aims to gain insights into elementary school students’ perspectives about the effects of mindfulness practices. According to the findings of both studies, students who participated in mindfulness exercises felt that the environment had quieted down and that the class had become less argumentative and calmer. These results are consistent with more studies (Ingram et al., 2019; Luong et al., 2019; Meyer & Eklund, 2020).
The results of the interviews go beyond statistical analysis concluding that these practices also result in perceived reduced disruptive behaviors in the classroom. These results are in line with the great body of research that shows how mindfulness interventions are regarded as useful instruments for reducing disruptive behaviors and fostering a more peaceful learning environment (Bögels et al., 2008; Siebelink et al., 2020). While one student noted that it had a moderate effect on their peers and the other two students reported that some students showed no change in their disruptive behaviors, the majority of their comments during the interview focused on the observed reduction in disruptive behaviors. The cause of their observations that they did not see any effect in some students and only a moderate effect in others may be the fact that different students could benefit from mindfulness activities to varying degrees. The results of this study are in line with L. Smith’s (2023) study, in which most of the students in a language classroom perceived mindfulness practices as an effective way to overcome anger, anxiety or behavioral problems, while a minority of students reported ambivalence and concerns about the effectiveness of mindfulness in the classroom.
5. Conclusions
Mindfulness practices have gained significant popularity, particularly for stress management and reducing negative opinions, and they are spreading to greater populations (Arthington, 2016). They have also begun to expand in the field of education recently (Ergas, 2019). Several studies have focused on the integration of mindfulness interventions into the EFL context (Moghadam et al., 2020; Sheikhzadeh & Khatami, 2017; Skelly & Estrada-Chichon, 2021; Xue, 2023). Apart from most studies primarily focusing on the effect of mindfulness on engagement or anxiety in EFL classrooms (Ersanlı & Ünal, 2022; Kim, 2021; Wu & Zhao, 2023), the primary objective of this study was to find out how integrating mindfulness exercises into EFL lessons for young learners influences the frequency of the students’ disruptive behaviors. The findings from the quantitative analyses showed a statistically significant reduction in students’ overall disruptive behaviors in EFL classrooms with young learners. Disruptive behaviors result in difficulties in classroom management and create barriers to the teaching learning process (Nanyele et al., 2018). Therefore, these findings may suggest that interventions involving the practice of mindfulness can contribute to classroom management and support the language learning of young EFL learners. The results correspond with studies that relate mindfulness to enhanced self-regulation and executive functioning in young learners (Gallant, 2016; Short et al., 2016). It also strengthens the evidence for the benefits of mindfulness on disruptive behaviors (Anderson, 2017; Perry-Parrish et al., 2016). In particular, a significant reduction in the frequency of NCB and DB was observed. Students may follow rules and directions from teachers more closely as a result of the decline in non-compliant behavior, and English teaching and learning techniques may be more effectively used in the classroom. Moreover, a lower frequency of DB means that learners talk less about irrelevant topics during the lesson, make fewer distracting noises, and are less interested in objects outside the lesson, which may mean that learners are more engaged and pay attention to the lesson rather than irrelevant things. Additionally, the fact that there was an overall reduction in disruptive behaviors rather than a reduction in all behavioral categories separately means that mindfulness practices may have the potential to be effective when used to improve overall behavioral issues rather than targeting particular behavioral issues.
The second aim of the study was to gain the perspectives of young EFL learners regarding their experiences and emotions with mindfulness practices. Following the mindfulness intervention performed in the EFL classroom, these practices were perceived by the participants as very positive and enjoyable. The fact that students reported positive experiences with the mindfulness practices and that they found them enjoyable suggests that it may be useful to continue conducting such interventions in EFL classrooms with young learners. In addition, Carreira (2011) states that enjoying English lessons increases intrinsic motivation and interest in other countries in English classes. Although the practices were not fully integrated into the English lesson plans, the positive experiences students have with mindfulness practices and the fact that they find them enjoyable can be a good preliminary step for them to look forward to English lessons and increase their intrinsic motivation. Qualitative interviews also revealed that all three individuals perceived mindfulness practices as improving emotion regulation and emotional well-being. It can be concluded from these results that mindfulness exercises may indirectly benefit the development of SEL competencies by providing improved emotional well-being and improved emotion regulation. This supports Gueldner and Feuerborn’s (2015) suggestion that the inclusion of mindfulness-based interactions in SEL programs would benefit students’ well-being and would be a good step towards eliminating the risk factors. Improved emotion regulation skills may also lead to fewer disruptive behaviors in classrooms (Njardvik et al., 2022). Additionally, after practicing mindfulness, the participant students reported being more focused and attentive, which are important factors in the learning of young learners (Asprilia et al., 2020). The participants also agreed that engaging in mindfulness practices improved their learning experiences and contributed to a positive climate in the classroom. As for the improved learning experience, E. Langer et al. (1989) drew a similar conclusion, reporting that mindfulness enabled students to participate more creatively in the learning process and to use what they had already learned in this innovative context. Perceived classroom climate is also an important factor for good learning in EFL classrooms (Gedamu & Siyawik, 2015). Therefore, it can be concluded that mindfulness practices have the potential to improve perceived classroom climate and have an indirect positive impact on English language learning outcomes. As Hanh and Hoa (1976, p. 25, as cited in Napoli et al., 2005) stated, “If in one class, one student lives in mindfulness, the entire class is influenced.”
Obtaining participant perceptions on the influence of mindfulness interventions on disruptive behaviors in the classroom was another goal of the current study. In this regard, the quantitative analysis results, which show that mindfulness techniques are useful in reducing disruptive behaviors in EFL classrooms with younger learners, are corroborated by the results of the interviews. The findings conclude that these practices also lead to perceived reductions in disruptive behaviors by the students. The students also reported an improvement in their self-control behaviors in moments of anger, implying an improvement in self-regulation and inhibition, which is one of the executive functions (St Clair-Thompson & Gathercole, 2006).
5.1. Suggestions for Further Research
It may be useful for future studies to use longer and more intensive programs in the use of MBIs, as this would help to obtain more comprehensive data on the effects of mindfulness interventions and to draw conclusions that are longer lasting and more tangible. Also, future studies might look into which mindfulness exercises—of varying durations and types—have a greater decreasing effect on disruptive behaviors while also addressing this issue. In addition, based on the results of this study, which found varying results on different behaviors, future research could more comprehensively examine the impact of mindfulness exercises in classrooms on particular disruptive behaviors. Moreover, future studies can make inferences about the long-term outcomes of these interventions by conducting follow-up measurements and analyses to examine whether mindfulness practices have a long-term impact on the behavior of young EFL learners. A final suggestion for future research would be that researchers include the measurement of individual differences among students so that the potential effects of individual differences on the impact of mindfulness practices on disruptive behavior can be better explored.
5.2. Implications for Practice
As there was an overall reduction in disruptive behaviors after the mindfulness intervention, educators of EFL can incorporate mindfulness practices into their classes, particularly with young learners. Educators can specifically target NCB and DB when integrating mindfulness activities into the EFL lessons since these types of behaviors were the ones that improved the most. From a whole-school perspective, it might be suggested that school administrators support the implementation of short mindfulness exercise sessions to encourage positive classroom behaviors.
The findings also implied perceived improvement in positive experiences and enjoyment, attention skills, emotion regulation and emotional well-being, enhanced classroom climate and learning experience, as well as a perceived reduction in disruptive behaviors conducted by the self and classmates. These findings suggest that teachers can benefit from mindfulness exercises briefly at the beginning of the lessons to help students enhance their emotional well-being, attention, and learning experience, as well as create a calm and focused learning atmosphere. As the results also showed that the learners may gain different levels of benefit from mindfulness exercises, another implementation may be that the teachers provide individualized support in practicing mindfulness.
5.3. Limitations of the Study
The fact that only two third-grade classes participated in this study, one CG and one EG, selected by convenience sampling, adds a limitation to the generalizability of the study. Due to the insufficient number of participants for multiple analyses, some statistical power issues may have arisen, which is another limitation of the study. This issue is caused by the absence of more groups to be taken as participants.
The mindfulness intervention was only implemented once a week for eight weeks, in two courses lasting five minutes each, for a total of ten minutes. 10 min weekly for eight weeks (80 total minutes) may be considered minimal for behavioral change, which is another limitation of the study. Longer and more intensive MBIs may lead to different and more tangible results. Also, the effects of the mindfulness intervention were measured immediately after the intervention. Therefore, whether mindfulness practices have a long-term impact on the behavior of young EFL learners was not reported in the study.
Furthermore, the study did not control for the participants’ individual differences in personality traits, lifestyle, significant life events, or teacher-student dynamics, all of which could have an impact on the study’s findings regarding the effects of mindfulness practices (Tang et al., 2015).
Finally, the subjectivity of using interviews is a limitation of this study, as rather than being objective facts that exist regardless of how and where they were acquired, interview data may vary according to context, and they are subjectively generated through the interaction between the parties of interview (Fontana & Frey, 1998).
Conceptualization, S.A. and M.K.; methodology, S.A. and M.K.; validation, S.A. and M.K.; formal analysis, S.A. and M.K.; investigation, S.A. and M.K.; resources S.A.; data curation, S.A.; writing—original draft preparation, S.A.; writing—review and editing, S.A.; visualization, S.A.; supervision, M.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by Gaziantep University Social and Human Sciences Ethical Committee (the report numbered 12 and date of approval 6 November 2023).
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Due to the ethics committee decision and ethical principles, the data storage period has expired and therefore cannot be shared.
There are no financial or non-financial conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Mindfulness Exercise Plan.
| Week # | The Exercise Conducted |
|---|---|
| Week 1 | Lesson 1: Blow Some Bubbles |
| Week 2 | Lesson 1: Draw It Out |
| Week 3 | Lesson 1: Simple and Fun Body Scan |
| Week 4 | Lesson 1: Gratitude Exercise |
| Week 5 | Lesson 1: Blow Some Bubbles |
| Week 6 | Lesson 1: Draw It Out |
| Week 7 | Lesson 1: Simple and Fun Body Scan |
| Week 8 | Lesson 1: Gratitude Exercise |
Shapiro–Wilk Statistics.
| EG | CG | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statistic | df | Sig. | Statistic | df | Sig. | |
| Non-compliant behaviors (Pretest) | 0.935 | 21 | 0.815 | 0.915 | 18 | 0.824 |
| Distracting behaviors (Pretest) | 0.964 | 21 | 0.876 | 0.963 | 18 | 0.874 |
| Disrespectful behaviors (Pretest) | 0.921 | 21 | 0.865 | 0.925 | 18 | 0.866 |
| Physically disruptive behaviors (Pretest) | 0.913 | 21 | 0.826 | 0.975 | 18 | 0.868 |
| Academic disengagement behaviors (Pretest) | 0.987 | 21 | 0.897 | 0.986 | 18 | 0.893 |
| Total disruptive behaviors (Pretest) | 0.939 | 21 | 0.867 | 0.962 | 18 | 0.871 |
| Non-compliant behaviors (Posttest) | 0.922 | 21 | 0.825 | 0.966 | 18 | 0.874 |
| Distracting behaviors (Posttest) | 0.897 | 21 | 0.805 | 0.917 | 18 | 0.828 |
| Disrespectful behaviors (Posttest) | 0.963 | 21 | 0.856 | 0.923 | 18 | 0.861 |
| Physically disruptive behaviors (Posttest) | 0.991 | 21 | 0.899 | 0.988 | 18 | 0.897 |
| Academic disengagement behaviors (Posttest) | 0.965 | 21 | 0.859 | 0.912 | 18 | 0.821 |
| Total disruptive behaviors (Posttest) | 0.946 | 21 | 0.845 | 0.948 | 18 | 0.849 |
t-test Results of Pre-Intervention Differences in Disruptive Behavior Frequency.
| Types of the Disruptive Behaviors | EG | CG | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | df | t | p | d | |
| Non-compliant behaviors (NCB) | 7.52 | 11.75 | 5.72 | 8.43 | 37 | 0.54 | 0.592 | 0.18 |
| Distracting behaviors (DB) | 6.76 | 7.83 | 6.55 | 7.46 | 37 | 0.08 | 0.934 | 0.03 |
| Disrespectful behaviors (DrB) | 2.19 | 3.54 | 2.05 | 3.55 | 37 | 0.12 | 0.906 | 0.04 |
| Physically disruptive behaviors (PDB) | 3.28 | 6.00 | 1.66 | 3.25 | 37 | 1.01 | 0.318 | 0.34 |
| Academic disengagement behaviors (ADB) | 2.76 | 5.07 | 1.44 | 2.22 | 37 | 1.02 | 0.315 | 0.34 |
| Total # of disruptive behaviors (TDB) | 22.52 | 32.90 | 17.44 | 23.64 | 37 | 0.55 | 0.589 | 0.18 |
t-test Results of Post-Intervention Differences in Disruptive Behavior Frequency.
| Types of the Disruptive Behaviors | EG | CG | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | df | t | p | d | |
| Non-compliant behaviors (NCB) | 3.33 | 4.41 | 6.83 | 11.70 | 37 | −1.27 | 0.212 | −0.39 |
| Distracting behaviors (DB) | 3.57 | 5.51 | 7.00 | 10.67 | 37 | −1.28 | 0.206 | −0.41 |
| Disrespectful behaviors (DrB) | 1.38 | 1.90 | 1.66 | 3.00 | 37 | −0.35 | 0.722 | −0.11 |
| Physically disruptive behaviors (PDB) | 1.76 | 4.28 | 3.33 | 6.46 | 37 | −0.90 | 0.371 | −0.29 |
| Academic disengagement behaviors (ADB) | 1.09 | 1.70 | 1.05 | 1.05 | 37 | 0.08 | 0.932 | 0.03 |
| Total # of disruptive behaviors (TDB) | 11.14 | 14.07 | 19.88 | 31.25 | 37 | −1.15 | 0.256 | −0.36 |
t-test Results for Frequency of Disruptive Behaviors in the EG Before and After the Intervention.
| Types of the Disruptive Behaviors | EG | CG | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | df | t | p | d | |
| Non-compliant behaviors (NCB) | 7.52 | 11.75 | 3.33 | 4.41 | 20 | 2.25 | 0.036 | 0.47 |
| Distracting behaviors (DB) | 6.76 | 7.83 | 3.57 | 5.51 | 20 | 2.76 | 0.012 | 0.47 |
| Disrespectful behaviors (DrB) | 2.19 | 3.54 | 1.38 | 1.90 | 20 | 1.04 | 0.308 | 0.29 |
| Physically disruptive behaviors (PDB) | 3.28 | 6.07 | 1.76 | 4.28 | 20 | 1.55 | 0.137 | 0.29 |
| Academic disengagement behaviors (ADB) | 2.76 | 5.07 | 1.09 | 1.70 | 20 | 1.52 | 0.143 | 0.44 |
| Total # of disruptive behaviors (TDB) | 22.52 | 32.90 | 11.14 | 14.07 | 20 | 2.24 | 0.036 | 0.45 |
t-test Results for Frequency of Disruptive Behaviors in the CG Before and After Intervention.
| Types of the Disruptive Behaviors | EG | CG | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | df | t | p | d | |
| Non-compliant behaviors (NCB) | 5.72 | 8.43 | 6.83 | 11.70 | 17 | −0.64 | 0.531 | −0.11 |
| Distracting behaviors (DB) | 6.55 | 7.46 | 7.00 | 10.67 | 17 | −0.29 | 0.779 | −0.05 |
| Disrespectful behaviors (DrB) | 2.05 | 3.55 | 1.66 | 3.00 | 17 | 0.78 | 0.447 | 0.12 |
| Physically disruptive behaviors (PDB) | 1.66 | 3.25 | 3.33 | 6.46 | 17 | −2.04 | 0.057 | −0.32 |
| Academic disengagement behaviors (ADB) | 1.44 | 2.22 | 1.05 | 1.05 | 17 | 0.88 | 0.393 | 0.23 |
| Total # of disruptive behaviors (TDB) | 17.44 | 23.64 | 19.88 | 31.25 | 17 | −0.66 | 0.519 | −0.09 |
Participants’ Perceptions of the Mindfulness Intervention.
| Themes | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive experiences and enjoyment | 3 | 6 | 5 | 14 |
| Improved emotion regulation and emotional well-being | 6 | 2 | 1 | 9 |
| Improved attention skills | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 |
| Improved classroom climate and learning experience | 4 | 3 | 2 | 9 |
Participants’ Perceptions of the Impacts of Mindfulness Interventions on Disruptive Behaviors.
| Codes | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive impact on own behavior | 5 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Positive impact on classmates’ behaviors | 3 | 6 | 0 | 9 |
| Moderate impact on classmates’ behaviors | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| No observed impact on classmates’ behaviors | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
Ager, K.; Albrecht, N.; Cohen, M. Mindfulness in schools research project: Exploring students’ perspectives of mindfulness—What are students’ perspectives of learning mindfulness practices at school?. Psychology; 2015; 6,
Alsalihi, H. D. Main difficulties faced by EFL students in language learning. Journal of the College of Education for Women; 2020; 31,
Anderson, N. The impact of mindfulness exercises on the verbal reactive behaviors of students identified with significant behavioral and emotional difficulties. Unpublished Master’s thesis; Rowan University: 2017.
Andreu, C. I.; Araya-Véliz, C.; García-Rubio, C. Benefits of a mindfulness-based intervention at school from the perspective of at-risk children. Mindfulness; 2021; 12,
Appleby, D. C. Faculty and student perceptions of irritating behaviors in the college classroom. Journal of Staff, Program, and Organization Development; 1990; 8, pp. 41-46.
Arthington, P. Mindfulness: A critical perspective. Community Psychology in Global Perspective; 2016; 2,
Asprilia, M. T.; Qodariah, L.; Purba, F. D. First grader’s attention span during in-class activity. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, Psikologi, Bimbingan dan Konseling; 2020; 10,
Axelrod, M. I.; Santagata, M. L. Evaluating a mindfulness-based intervention to improve academic engagement. Journal of Applied School Psychology; 2022; 38,
Bannirchelvam, B.; Bell, K. L.; Costello, S. A qualitative exploration of primary school students’ experience and utilisation of mindfulness. Contemporary School Psychology; 2017; 21,
Barr, J. J. Developing a positive classroom climate; IDEA Paper# 61 IDEA Center, Inc.: 2016.
Berti, S.; Cigala, A. Mindfulness for preschoolers: Effects on prosocial behavior, self-regulation and perspective taking. Early Education and Development; 2022; 33,
Birnbaum, L. The use of mindfulness training to create an ‘accompanying place’ for social work students. Social Work Education; 2008; 27,
Black, D. S.; Fernando, R. Mindfulness training and classroom behavior among lower-income and ethnic minority elementary school children. Journal of Child and Family Studies; 2013; 23,
Bolstad, O. D.; Johnson, S. M. Self-regulation in the modification of disruptive classroom behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis; 1972; 5,
Bostic, J. Q.; Nevarez, M. D.; Potter, M. P.; Prince, J. B.; Benningfield, M. M.; Aguirre, B. A. Being present at school: Implementing mindfulness in schools. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics; 2015; 24,
Bögels, S.; Hoogstad, B.; van Dun, L.; de Schutter, S.; Restifo, K. Mindfulness training for adolescents with externalizing disorders and their parents. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy; 2008; 36,
Campbell, S. B. Hard-to-manage preschool boys: Externalizing behavior, social competence, and family context at two-year follow up. Journal of abnormal child psychology; 1994; 22,
Carreira, J. M. Relationship between motivation for learning EFL and intrinsic motivation for learning in general among Japanese elementary school students. System; 2011; 39,
Cipani, E. Non-compliance: Four strategies that work. CEC mini-library: Classroom management; Council for Exceptional Children: 1993.
Coholic, D. A. Exploring the feasibility and benefits of arts-based mindfulness-based practices with young people in need: Aiming to improve aspects of self-awareness and resilience. Child & Youth Care Forum; 2011; 40,
D’Alessandro, A. M.; Butterfield, K. M.; Hanceroglu, L.; Roberts, K. P. Listen to the children: Elementary school students’ perspectives on a mindfulness intervention. Journal of Child and Family Studies; 2022; 31,
Davis, D. M.; Hayes, J. A. What are the benefits of mindfulness? A practice review of psychotherapy-related research. Psychotherapy; 2011; 48,
Dearnley, C. A reflection on the use of semi-structured interviews. Nurse Researcher; 2005; 13,
Ergas, O. Mindfulness in, as and of education: Three roles of mindfulness in education. Journal of Philosophy of Education; 2019; 53,
Ersanlı, C. Y.; Ünal, T. Impact of Mindfulness training on EFL learners’ willingness to speak, speaking anxiety levels and mindfulness awareness levels. Education Quarterly Reviews; 2022; 5,
Fayerberger, S. Enhancing foreign language enjoyment and well-being through a mindfulness based intervention program in the EFL high school classroom—Teacher’s insights. Educatia; 2023; 21,
Fearon, R. The use of mindfulness activities to improve student focus in a high school classroom. Unpublished Master’s thesis; Caldwell University: 2024.
Fontana, A.; Frey, J. H. Denzin, N. K.; Lincoln, Y. S. The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. The sage handbook of qualitative research; 2nd ed. Sage Publications: 1998; pp. 645-672.
Gallant, S. N. Mindfulness meditation practice and executive functioning: Breaking down the benefit. Consciousness and Cognition; 2016; 40, pp. 116-130. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.01.005] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26784917]
Gedamu, A.; Siyawik, Y. The relationship between students’ perceived EFL classroom climate and their achievement in English language. Science, Technology and Arts Research Journal; 2015; 3,
Godwin, K.; Almeda, V.; Petroccia, M.; Baker, R.; Fisher, A. Classroom activities and off-task behavior in elementary school children. Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society; (Vol. 35, No. 35) Berlin, German, July 31–August 3; 2013.
Gueldner, B. A.; Feuerborn, L. L. Integrating mindfulness-based practices into social and emotional learning: A case application. Mindfulness; 2015; 7,
Hamre, B. K.; Pianta, R. C.; Downer, J. T.; Mashburn, A. J. Teachers’ perceptions of conflict with young students: Looking beyond problem behaviors. Social Development; 2008; 17,
Hanh, T. N.; Hoa, M. Q. The miracle of being awake; Buddhist Publication Society: 1976.
Hycner, R. H. Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data. Human Studies; 1985; 8,
Ingram, C. M.; Breen, A. V.; van Rhijn, T. Teaching for well-being? Introducing mindfulness in an undergraduate course. Journal of Further and Higher Education; 2019; 43,
Kabat-Zinn, J. Wherever you go, there you are: Mindfulness meditation in everyday life; Hyperion Books: 1994.
Kim, S.-H. Mindfulness, reading anxiety, and self-efficacy of Korean EFL College students. The Journal of Mirae English Language and Literature; 2021; 26,
Koegel, L. K.; Koegel, R. L.; Hurley, C.; Frea, W. D. Improving social skills and disruptive behavior in children with autism through self-management. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis; 1992; 25,
Kurnaedi, N.; Sugiharto, D. Y. P.; Sunawan, S. The effectiveness of mindfulness deep breathing in classical format to increase students’ academic engagement. Jurnal Bimbingan Konseling; 2020; 9,
Kuru Gönen, S. İ. Mindfulness-based practices for EFL teachers: Sample tasks and insights to cultivate mindfulness. Focus on ELT Journal; 2022; pp. 78-93.
Langer, Á. I.; Medeiros, S.; Valdés-Sánchez, N.; Brito, R.; Steinebach, C.; Cid-Parra, C.; Magni, A.; Krause, M. A qualitative study of a mindfulness-based intervention in educational contexts in Chile: An approach based on adolescents’ voices. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health; 2020; 17,
Langer, E.; Hatem, M.; Joss, J.; Howell, M. Conditional teaching and mindful learning: The role of uncertainty in education. Creativity Research Journal; 1989; 2,
Luong, M. T.; Gouda, S.; Bauer, J.; Schmidt, S. Exploring mindfulness benefits for students and teachers in three German high schools. Mindfulness; 2019; 10,
Mahfouz, J.; Levitan, J.; Schussler, D.; Broderick, T.; Dvorakova, K.; Argusti, M.; Greenberg, M. Ensuring College student success through mindfulness-based classes: Just breathe. College Student Affairs Journal; 2018; 36,
Mahvar, T.; Farahani, M. A.; Aryankhesal, A. Conflict management strategies in coping with students’ disruptive behaviors in the classroom: Systematized review. Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism; 2018; 6,
Martini-Scully, D. D.; Bray, M. A.; Kehle, T. J. A packaged intervention to reduce disruptive behaviors in general education students. Psychology in the Schools; 2000; 37,
Merrett, F.; Wheldall, K. Classroom behaviour problems which junior school teachers find most troublesome. Educational Studies; 1984; 10,
Meyer, L.; Eklund, K. The impact of a mindfulness intervention on elementary classroom climate and student and teacher mindfulness: A pilot study. Mindfulness; 2020; 11,
Minkos, M. L. Efficacy of a daily mindful breathing intervention to increase academic engagement. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation; University of Connecticut: 2016.
Minkos, M. L.; Chafouleas, S. M.; Bray, M. A.; LaSalle, T. P. Brief report: A preliminary investigation of a mindful breathing intervention to increase academic engagement in an alternative educational setting. Behavioral Disorders; 2018; 43,
Moghadam, H.; Ghanizadeh, A.; Ghonsooly, B. Differences in EFL learners’ burnout levels and receptive language skills with regard to the mindfulness-based instruction. Explorations in English Language and Linguistics; 2020; 8,
Mortimore, L. Mindfulness and foreign language anxiety in the bilingual primary classroom. Educación y Futuro: Revista de Investigación Aplicada y Experiencias Educativas; 2017; 37, pp. 15-43.
Mottram, A. M.; Bray, M. A.; Kehle, T. J.; Broudy, M.; Jenson, W. R. A classroom-based intervention to reduce disruptive behaviors. Journal of Applied School Psychology; 2002; 19,
Murphy, A. 13 Mindfulness activities for kids that are fun and teach mindfulness; Declutter the Mind: 2022.
Nanyele, S.; Kuranchie, A.; Owusu-Addo, A. Classroom management practices and student disruptive behavior. Integrity Journal of Education and Training; 2018; 2,
Napoli, M.; Krech, P. R.; Holley, L. C. Mindfulness training for elementary school students: The attention academy. Journal of Applied School Psychology; 2005; 21,
Nardi, W. R.; Elshabassi, N.; Spas, J.; Zima, A.; Saadeh, F.; Loucks, E. B. Students experiences of an 8-week mindfulness-based intervention at a College of Opportunity: A qualitative investigation of the Mindfulness-Based College Program. BMC Public Health; 2022; 22,
Njardvik, U.; Smaradottir, H.; Öst, L.-G. The effects of emotion regulation treatment on disruptive behavior problems in children: A randomized controlled trial. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology; 2022; 50,
O’Driscoll, M.; Byrne, S.; Byrne, H.; Lambert, S.; Sahm, L. J. An online mindfulness-based intervention for undergraduate pharmacy students: Results of a mixed-methods feasibility study. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning; 2019; 11,
Parker, A.; Kupersmidt, J.; Mathis, E.; Scull, T.; Sims, C. The impact of mindfulness education on elementary school students: Evaluation of the Master Mind program. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion; 2014; 7,
Perry-Parrish, C.; Copeland-Linder, N.; Webb, L.; Sibinga, E. M. S. Mindfulness-based approaches for children and youth. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care; 2016; 46,
Picena, L. Mindfulness practices in a first-grade classroom: Impact on student behavior and student and teacher perceptions. Unpublished Master’s thesis; Abilene Christan University: 2023.
Reindl, D.; Hamm, A.; Lewis, R.; Gellar, L. Elementary student and teacher perceptions of a mindfulness and yoga-based program in school: A qualitative evaluation. Explore; 2020; 16,
Renshaw, T. L. Maykel, C.; Bray, M. A. Mindfulness-based intervention in schools. Promoting mind–body health in schools: Interventions for mental health professionals; American Psychological Association: 2020; pp. 145-160.
Reynolds, K.; Stephenson, J.; Beaman, R. Teacher perceptions of non-compliance in rural primary schools in New South Wales. Education in Rural Australia; 2011; 21,
Saltzman, A.; Goldin, P. Greco, L. A.; Hayes, S. C. Mindfulness-based stress reduction for school-age children. Acceptance and mindfulness treatments for children and adolescents: A practitioner’s guide; New Harbinger Publications: 2008; pp. 139-161.
Santos Alves Peixoto, L.; Guedes Gondim, S. M.; Pereira, C. R. Emotion regulation, stress, and well-being in academic education: Analyzing the effect of mindfulness-based intervention. Trends in Psychology; 2021; 30,
Sarabia, G. M. Awareness intervention for students with behavioral challenges-mindfulness in the classroom. Unpublished Master’s thesis; California State University: 2015.
Schwab, S.; Eckstein, B.; Reusser, K. Predictors of non-compliant classroom behaviour of secondary school students. Identifying the influence of sex, learning problems, behaviour problems, social behaviour, peer relations and student–teacher relations. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs; 2019; 19,
Sheikhzadeh, E.; Khatami, M. Critical thinking, mindfulness and academic achievement among Iranian EFL learners. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods; 2017; 7,
Short, M. M.; Mazmanian, D.; Oinonen, K.; Mushquash, C. J. Executive function and self-regulation mediate dispositional mindfulness and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences; 2016; 93, pp. 97-103. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.007]
Siebelink, N. M.; Kaijadoe, S. P.; van Horssen, F. M.; Holtland, J. N.; Bögels, S. M.; Buitelaar, J. K.; Speckens, A. E.; Greven, C. U. Mindfulness for children with ADHD and mindful parenting (MindChamp): A qualitative study on feasibility and effects. Journal of Attention Disorders; 2020; 25,
Skelly, K. J.; Estrada-Chichon, J. L. Mindfulness as a coping strategy for EFL learning in education. International Journal of Instruction; 2021; 14,
Smith, B. W.; Sugai, G. A self-management functional assessment-based behavior support plan for a middle school student with EBD. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions; 2000; 2,
Smith, L. Student perceptions of the effectiveness of mindfulness interventions in the ESL classroom. Undergraduate Bachelor’s thesis; Brigham Young University: 2023.
Sorcinelli, M. D. Dealing with troublesome behaviors in the classroom. Handbook of college teaching: Theory and applications; Greenwood: 1994; pp. 365-373.
St Clair-Thompson, H. L.; Gathercole, S. E. Executive functions and achievements in school: Shifting, updating, inhibition, and working memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology; 2006; 59,
Taheri, F.; Dortaj, F.; Delavar, A.; Seadatee Shamir, A. The effectiveness of mindfulness program on academic engagement: The mediating roles of academic stress and academic burnout. Journal of Psychological Studies; 2019; 14,
Tang, Y. Y.; Hölzel, B. K.; Posner, M. I. The neuroscience of mindfulness meditation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience; 2015; 16,
Thomas, D. R.; Becker, W. C.; Armstrong, M. Production and elimination of disruptive classroom behavior by systematically varying teacher’s behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis; 1968; 1,
Thompson, R. A. Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. Monographs of the society for research in child development; Wiley: 1994; pp. 25-52.
Umbreit, J. Functional analysis of disruptive behavior in an inclusive classroom. Journal of Early Intervention; 1996; 20,
Wisner, B. L. An exploratory study of mindfulness meditation for alternative school students: Perceived benefits for improving school climate and student functioning. Mindfulness; 2013; 5,
Wu, J.; Zhao, Q. The contribution of mindfulness in the association between L2 learners’ engagement and burnout. Heliyon; 2023; 9, e21769. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21769]
Xue, C. Mitigating EFL students’ academic disengagement: The role of teachers’ compassion and mindfulness in China. Heliyon; 2023; 9,
Zack, S.; Saekow, J.; Kelly, M.; Radke, A. Mindfulness based interventions for youth. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy; 2014; 32, pp. 44-56. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10942-014-0179-2]
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.