Innovations in Education and Teaching International

ISSN: 1470-3297 (Print) 1470-3300 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/riie20

Impact of mindfulness meditation intervention on

academic performance

Jian Wei Lin & Li Jung Mai

To cite this article: Jian Wei Lin & Li Jung Mai (2016): Impact of mindfulness meditation
intervention on academic performance, Innovations in Education and Teaching International,
DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2016.1231617

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2016.1231617

Published online: 08 Sep 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 23

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=riie20

Download by: [Tufts University] Date: 29 September 2016, At: 06:34

Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2016.1231617

Impact of mindfulness meditation intervention on academic

performance
Jian Wei Lina and Li Jung Maib
a
Department of International Business, Chien Hsin University, Taoyuan, Taiwan; bCollege of General Studies, Yuan Ze
University, Taoyuan, Taiwan

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Since the global research into mindfulness meditation (MM) is revealing many Mindfulness meditation;
positive effects on everyday life for those who practise it, studying its effects academic performance;
on academic performance could be worthwhile. However, the duration of empirical study
effects of MM on academic performance is still unclear. Thus, this study
first investigates the MM influence on short-term and long-term academic
performance. The relationship between the meditation depth and short-
term academic performance is further explored. The experimental group
received the MM intervention while the control group did not. Compared to
the control group, the experimental group had better short-term academic
performance but similar long-term academic performance. Within the
experimental group, students with high meditation depth achieved better
short-term academic performance than those with low meditation depth.
Finally, the questionnaire results revealed that most students enjoyed the
MM process and agreed that the intervention improves in-class learning
efficiency.

Introduction
Mindfulness meditation
Mindfulness means paying particular and deliberate attention, being present, and being non-judge-
mental. (Adams, 2011; Kabat-Zinn, 1994). Mindfulness practitioners learn how to deliberately pay
attention through regular practice of meditation that originates from Buddhist spiritual practices
(Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer, & Toney, 2006; Bishop et al., 2004). Mindfulness meditation
(MM) intervention in contemporary psychology has been adopted as an approach for increasing
awareness and responding skilfully to mental processes (Bishop et al., 2004). By consistently and
profoundly altering brain structure and function, MM improves the quality of both thought and feeling
(Davidson & Lutz, 2008). Many studies have reported positive impacts of MM intervention on mental
and physical health (Baer, Lykins, & Peters, 2012; Weare, 2012), including improvements in well-being,
reducing worry, anxiety, distress, reactivity and bad behaviour, improving sleep and self-esteem,
and boosting calmness, relaxation, self-regulation and awareness (Biegel, Brown, Shapiro, &
Schubert, 2009; Bootzin & Stevens, 2005; Burke, 2010; Semple, Reid, & Miller, 2005; Singh et al., 2010;
Weare, 2012).

CONTACT Jian Wei Lin jwlin@uch.edu.tw

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 J. W. Lin and L. J. Mai

Related works on the MM impact on academic performance

Compared to studies of the influence of MM on mental and physical health, studies of the influence of
MM on academic performance are relatively rare. However, Huppert and Johnson (2010) stated that the
impact of MM intervention on academic performance is worthy of investigation. MM can be performed
by students and teachers in widely varying contexts and has no negative effects (Burke, 2010; Kuyken
et al., 2013; Semple et al., 2005; Weare, 2012). Incorporating MM intervention into classes is an ideal way
to teach students how to pay attention while learning (Napoli, Krech, & Holley, 2005).
Notably, some works argued that the academic performance of learners is improved during and
immediately after MM practice (Beauchemin, Hutchins, & Patterson, 2008; Hall, 1999; Kember, 1985;
Mrazek, Franklin, Phillips, Baird, & Schooler, 2013). For example, Hall (1999) showed that the academic
performance of the meditation (namely experimental) group was considerably higher than that of
the no meditation (namely control) group during the practice period. Mrazek et al. (2013) found that
performance on a GRE reading comprehension test significantly improved after the participants com-
pleted an intensive 2-week MM training programme. However, some researchers questioned whether
a regular MM intervention exerts influence during the follow-up period (Hoffman, 2013; Hutcherson,
Seppala, & Gross, 2008). Hutcherson et al. (2008) stated that whether regular MM would exhibit more
long-lasting effects remains unknown.

Research aims
Extensive and regular meditation training have shown improvements on cognitive performance (Cahn
& Polich, 2006) and altered brain structure (Davidson & Lutz, 2008; Kang et al., 2013). In contrast, Zeidan,
Johnson, Diamond, David, and Goolkasian (2010) reported that even brief mindfulness training (4 days
of meditation training) can significantly enhance the ability to sustain attention. Thus, moderate MM
training should affect cognition and learning for an extended period. Furthermore, Hoffman (2013)
stated that how long the effects of a regular MM training programme would last is still blurred and
deserves further investigation. However, few published studies to date have simultaneously examined
the impact of MM intervention on both short-term and long-term academic performance.
This study explores how long the effects of MM intervention would last on cognition and academic
performance. In a 12-week experiment, students in the experimental group received MM training before
teaching every week. The short-term and long-term effects of the MM intervention on academic per-
formance were identified by individually analysing the learning outcomes of formative assessment
(FA) (i.e. in-class quizzes or immediate test) and summative assessment (SA) (i.e. deferred test). FAs are
continuously embedded in the teaching and learning process of a curriculum while SAs are used to
check learning achievements at the end of the curriculum (Lin & Lai, 2013). This study also explored
the relationship between the meditation depth level and the result of FAs within the experimental
group. An experimental group (with MM intervention) was compared with a control group (without
MM intervention) to answer the following research questions.

• Q1. Does the FA outcome significantly differ between the experimental and control groups?
• Q2. Does the SA outcome significantly differ between the experimental and control groups?
• Q3. In the experimental group, do FAs significantly differ between the students with high-level
MM and the students with low-level MM?

Method
Participants
The experiment was administered to first-year university students. The students were randomly assigned
to a control group (class) and an experimental group (class). As described in Tsai (2011), students in
 Innovations in Education and Teaching International  3

Figure 1. The procedure of the experiment.

both classes were informed before the experiment that their class section would be partially provided
with some instructional methods as an intervention. Students were free to change their class section
to a section with a teacher they preferred. Additionally, neither class was informed whether they were
the experimental group or the control group to avoid the Hawthorne effect, John Henry effect, or Halo
Effect. The experimental group was exposed to MM intervention while the control group was not. All
students in the experimental group lacked previous MM experience. The two groups were taught by
the same teacher, who was a long-standing MM practitioner.

Materials
Students in the control and experimental groups studied the same subject, which was a computer
science course called ‘Database Theory and Application’. The course comprised eight chapters, each of
which was followed by a quiz. The content of each quiz primarily originated from the teaching materials.
All students in both groups were taking the course for the first time.

Experiment design and procedure

The experiment was performed 2 h per week for 3 months. Basically, one chapter was taught within two
hours of one week. Each two-hour lesson followed the five-step procedure. That is, for the experimental
group, the five steps of one two-hour lesson were as follows: (1) students practised MM for 10–20 min
before teaching (referring to Hall, 1999); (2) the teacher taught a chapter; (3) the teacher reviewed the
chapter with the students for 5 min; (4) students then took an online FA on the chapter; (5) students
received and reviewed the results. For the control group, the procedure was identical to that in the
experimental group except for step 1. That is, the control group in step 1 was asked to self-review the
chapter from the previous week for 10–20 min rather than engage in MM practice.
Figure 1 shows the two stages of the experimental procedure. Stage 1 contained the teaching of
chapters one to four and SA #1. After the completion of chapters one to four (i.e. from the 1st week to
4 J. W. Lin and L. J. Mai

the 4th week), the SA #1 was conducted in week six. Similarly, Stage 2 contained the teaching of chapter
five to eight and SA #2. Chapters 5–8 were completed during weeks 6–10, and SA #2 was conducted
in week 12. The postponement of SA #1 and 2 for two weeks was intended to investigate whether the
MM has any effect in the follow-up period.
Whereas quizzes were used to measure short-term academic performance, SA was used to measure
long-term academic performance. These two repeated cycles (i.e. stages) were used to verify whether
these two results on short-term and long-term academic performance are identical.

The guide for MM for the experimental group

The experimental group practised MM by using a basic sitting meditation technique, which stabilises
the mind according to studies by Bishop et al. (2004) and Beauchemin et al. (2008). In MM training,
the breath was used as a reference point for mindfulness in the present moment. Rhythmic breathing
was also instructed to students which can help them to focus their mind and increases self-awareness
(Napoli et al., 2005). Specifically, students were first asked to sit and were given the option of keeping
their eyes open or closed. Students were then instructed to focus attention at the nostrils where one
feels the faint pressure of the ebb and flow of the breath by following their breath to develop calmness
and stability. Inevitably, their attention wandered from the breath to other thoughts and feelings. The
students were instructed to let these other thoughts go and allow attention to return to the breath.
This process is repeated each time attention wanders. The students were further encouraged to apply
the same general approach outside the class or before taking a test, using the breath as an anchor.

Measures
Formative assessment
After being taught each chapter, students immediately took the corresponding quiz. Eight chapters
had eight corresponding quizzes. To assure validity and reliability, two experts reviewed the content
of each quiz, which was then tested by 26 students. Inappropriate questions were removed according
to the corresponding difficulty and discrimination levels. Subsequently, each quiz individually had 9,
11, 12, 13, 10, 12, 14 and 13 multiple-choice questions and the Cronbach’s α values were .81, .79, .76,
.80, .90, .82, .79 and .82, respectively. This study compared every quiz administered to the two groups
to identify whether they differed significantly in FAs.

Summative assessment
To investigate whether the two groups differ significantly in long-term academic performance, this
study compared the SAs of the two groups. The content of SA #1 came from teaching materials ranging
from chapters one to four, while that of the SA #2 came from chapters five to eight. To assure validity
and reliability of the two SAs, two experts reviewed the content, which was then tested by 26 students.
Subsequently, inappropriate questions were removed according to the corresponding difficulty and
discrimination levels, resulting in 40 and 33 multiple-choice questions and Cronbach’s α of .76 and
.81, respectively.

Questionnaire to measure meditation depth

The questionnaire was a modified version of the ‘Cognitive and Affective mindfulness Scale-Revised
(CAMS-R)’ (Feldman, Hayes, Kumar, Greeson, & Laurenceau, 2007), which has demonstrated good inter-
nal reliability in Greeson et al. (2011) with a Cronbach α of .81. The revised questionnaire included
nine questions based on a four-point Likert scale with the following options: 1 (Rarely/Not at all), 2
(Sometimes), 3 (Often), or 4 (Almost always). The scores for the questionnaire ranged from 9 to 36.
Three subscales were ‘Attention’ (three items), ‘Present Focus’ (three items), and ‘Awareness’ (three items).
Questions 1–3 dealt with ‘Attention’. For example, consider Q1: It is easy for me to concentrate on what
I am doing. Questions 4–6 were related to ‘Present Focus’. For example, consider Q6: I am able to focus
 Innovations in Education and Teaching International  5

Table 1. The independent samples t-test on each quiz.

FA # (conducted in week #) Group N Mean SD t
FA 1 (week 1) Experimental 31 51.61 24.64 −1.89
Control 19 64.21 19.52
FA 2 (week 2) Experimental 34 44.62 19.13 −1.66
Control 19 54.58 23.67
FA 3 (week 3) Experimental 34 53.18 17.44 −2.05*
Control 26 41.06 23.22
FA 4 (week 4) Experimental 28 63.18 26.62 2.02*
Control 27 48.93 25.62
SA #1 (The end of Stage 1) (week 6)
FA 5 (week 7) Experimental 32 48.13 22.63 .17
Control 20 48.00 31.38
FA 6 (week 8) Experimental 26 49.62 24.89 −2.07*
Control 29 36.32 23.05
FA 7 (week 9) Experimental 34 51.48 20.88 2.45*
Control 21 36.19 22.01
FA 8 (week 10) Experimental 36 68.23 24.92 2.05*
Control 27 54.19 29.08
SA #2 (The end of Stage 2) (week 12)
Note: N: the number of students; notably, not all students attend the class regularly.
*p < .05.

on the present moment. Questions 7–9 were related to ‘Awareness’. For example, consider Q7: I can
usually describe how I currently feel in detail. The Cronbach’s α of the whole revised questionnaire was
.73, and the Cronbach’s α values for each subscale were as follows: attention (.76), present focus (.72),
and awareness (.69).
To further investigate whether different levels of meditation depth significantly impacted the FA
within the experimental group, the experimental group was further split into two groups according to
meditation depth. That is, before each FA, every student in the experimental group was asked to fill the
questionnaire measuring the meditation depth. The questionnaire yields a single total score, whereby
learners scoring high in the questionnaire have high meditation depth during practice. Student scoring
above average were allocated to the high level (HL) meditation depth group while those scoring below
average were allocated to the low level (LL) meditation depth group.

Questionnaire to understand student satisfaction

To understand student satisfaction, a questionnaire with a Likert scale ranging from 3 (agree) to 1
(disagree) was given to the experimental group at the end of SA #1 and #2, respectively. This simple
questionnaire was based on Lin and Lai (2013) and further modified to evaluate student feelings about
the MM intervention. Additionally, four students in the experimental group, including two students
with HL meditation depth and two with LL meditation depth were randomly selected for interview to
elicit the subjective perspectives.

Results
Comparison of formative assessment
The investigation between the two groups
The upper part of Table 1 shows the results of the t-test for FA 1 to 4 in Stage 1. The mean scores for FA 1
and 2 did not significantly differ between the experimental group and the control group. However, the
score means of FA 3 and 4 of the experimental group are significantly higher than those of the control
group. After spending longer practising MM, students gradually received MM benefits and reflected
on their FA scores. The lower part of Table 1 shows the results of the t-test for FA 5 to 8 in Stage 2. The
mean score for FA 5 did not significantly differ between the experimental group and the control group.
However, the score means of FA 6, 7 and 8 of the experimental group are significantly higher than
6 J. W. Lin and L. J. Mai

Table 2. The independent samples t-test on quiz score.

Quiz # Group N Mean SD t
FA 1 LL 15 36.00 17.23 −4.29*
HL 16 66.25 21.56
FA 2 LL 17 35.12 18.01 −3.30*
HL 17 54.12 15.45
FA 3 LL 17 43.41 13.43 −3.90*
HL 17 62.94 15.63
FA 4 LL 14 47.71 17.38 −3.73*
HL 14 78.64 25.60
SA #1
FA 5 LL 16 33.75 18.93 −4.62*
HL 16 62.50 16.12
FA 6 LL 13 33.08 14.36 −4.51*
HL 13 66.15 22.18
FA 7 LL 17 42.47 20.34 −2.58*
HL 17 61.47 22.45
FA 8 LL 18 61.78 20.88 −1.12
HL 18 71.56 30.60
SA #2
*p < .05.

Table 3. The independent samples t-test on the two SAs.

SA Group N Mean SD t
SA #1 Experimental 42 62.98 21.14 .16
Control 35 56.57 17.46
SA #2 Experimental 42 72.93 15.71 .02
Control 35 72.85 17.57
*p < .05.

those of the control group. Repeated tests and quizzes consistently showed that the MM intervention
significantly improved FA performance.

Analysis of experimental group

The experimental group was further divided into two groups, HL and LL, to identify the relationship
between different levels of meditation depth and FA. The upper part of Table 2 shows the results of the
t-test for FAs 1 to 4. The mean scores for FA 1 to 4 were all significantly higher in the HL group compared
to the LL group. The lower part of Table 2 shows the results of the t-test for FAs 5 to 8. Except for FA 8,
the score means of FAs 5 to 7 of the HL group are all significantly higher than those of the LL group.
Although the repeated FAs were very similar, the HL group had better FA scores (i.e. short-term academic
performance) compared to the LL group.

Comparison of summative assessment

Table 3 lists the results of the t-test for the two SAs. Mean scores on the two SAs did not significantly
differ between the experimental group and the control group. These two identical results unveil that the
experiment and control groups do not differ significantly on SA (i.e. long-term academic performance).

Questionnaire to understand student satisfaction within the experimental group

Among the 42 students in the experimental group, 38 and 42 valid questionnaires were collected
before SA #1 and #2, respectively. Table 4 shows that the questionnaire results for SA #1 and #2 were
very similar, revealing positive feedback for all the evaluated aspects.
 Innovations in Education and Teaching International  7

Table 4. Questionnaire results.

Before SA #1 Before SA #2
NO Question M SD M SD
1 Do you feel it is easy to practise MM? 2.3 .6 2.4 .6
2 Do you enjoy the process when practising MM? 2.3 .5 2.3 .6
3 Do you feel that MM intervention can help in-class learning 2.5 .5 2.4 .5
4 Would you like to continue to practise MM in future? 2.5 .5 2.3 .5

Discussion and implication

Comparison of formative assessment
In stage 1, the two groups did not significantly differ in mean scores for the first two FAs. However, MM
intervention gradually showed efficiency on the score means of FAs 3 and 4. Students needed time to
adapt to the MM training and gradually obtain the associated benefits. In stage 2, the MM intervention
improved efficiency in FAs 6, 7 and 8, but not in FA 5. Before receiving chapter 5 (or FA 5), the students
had received no MM intervention for three weeks. Discontinuity in the MM may explain why mean
scores for FA 5 did not significantly differ between the two groups.
In an actual class, students tend to be inattentive at the beginning of class (e.g. chit-chat with class-
mates, play mobile APP, or surf the internet) because students might just finish meals or come from
another classroom. Although the control group had more time for self-review of previous learning
material at the beginning of class, most students were too inattentive to review effectively.
In contrast, the experimental group who received MM training at the beginning of class were able
to focus on the moment (Napoli et al., 2005). Hallaham and Kauffman (1991) stated that learning dis-
turbances usually result from inability to concentrate, especially when learning process is lengthy. Even
brief MM training can significantly enhance the ability to sustain attention (Zeidan et al., 2010). Students
who can concentrate are better able to use existing knowledge effectively, better able to pay attention,
and exhibit improved recall of teaching content (Hall, 1999). Weare (2012) also reported that students
who are focused and ‘present’ are able to pay attention and can learn efficiently, contributing directly
to the development of cognitive and academic performance. Improvements in academic performance
are mediated by reduced mind wandering (Mrazek et al., 2013). Studies indicate that MM training is also
useful for managing stress and improving concentration, which are support skills of learning strategy
(Weinstein & Underwood, 1985), and thus MM can be deemed as one of effective learning strategies.
Through repeated experimentation, this study confirms that MM intervention directly helps improve
short-term academic performance.

Comparison of summative assessment

None of the mean scores for the two SAs significantly differed between the experimental group and
the control group. This result can be explained by the following. First, after the end of an intensive MM
intervention programme (i.e. one practised over just a couple of weeks), the MM effect would not be
long-lasting (Hoffman, 2013). Second, students were highly motivated to study for the SAs in order to
pass this course. Thus, regardless of whether auxiliary instruction was provided, students would be
expected to study harder for both SA #1 and #2. The stress of passing the SAs may dominate students’
achievements (Su, Yang, Hwang, & Zhang, 2010). The two main reasons for this phenomenon may
explain why the two SAs to not differ significantly between the two groups.
The experimental results of this study contradict Nidich et al. (2011), who reported that meditating
students who practised meditation programme at school for 12 min at the start and end of the school
day for three months, had significantly better SA (i.e. posttest) on English and math subjects than
students with no meditation practice. Notably, although the overall duration of meditation practice
8 J. W. Lin and L. J. Mai

in Nidich et al. (2011) was identical to that in our experiment (12 weeks), the meditation practice in
Nidich et al. (2011) (twice a school day) was more intensive (once a week), which may explain the
contradictory results.

Experimental group
According to the questionnaire results, most students found it easy to practise MM, enjoyed the pro-
cess, agreed that MM intervention can help in-class learning, and were willing to continue practising
in future. These results agree with those of Huppert and Johnson (2010), namely, that most students
reported enjoying and benefiting from the MM intervention and that most of them wished to continue
to do so in future. Additionally, One interviewee with LL expressed that ‘mediation makes me sleepy’
while the other with LL said ‘My mind often wandered during MM, spinning out thoughts about the
past and future. MM duration is too short for me to reach calmness’. One interviewee with HL expressed
that ‘After MM practice, I felt calm, equanimous, and peaceful’ while the other with HL stated that ‘I
felt I can be more focused and conscious on today’s lesson’. These phenomena may explain why the
FA of students with HL was significantly better than the FA of those with LL. The depth of medita-
tive experiences can be determined by the amount of meditation practice (Hölzel & Ott, 2006). That
is, students who practised MM frequently in their spare time might have the deep meditation depth
(i.e. felt more focused) during in-class MM practice, while others might have shallow meditation depth
(i.e. felt sleepy).

Conclusion
The literature agrees that MM positively affects academic performance. However, the persistence
of the effect of MM on academic performance remains unclear. This study aims to understand the effect
of MM intervention on short-term and long-term academic performance. Within the experimental
group, the effect of meditation depth level on the result of short-term academic performance is also
explored.
The experimental results showed that MM significantly improves short-term academic performance
(i.e. in-class quiz score) but does not significantly improve long-term academic performance (i.e. the
SAs). Additionally, students with high meditation depth have better short-term academic performance
than those with low meditation depth. The questionnaire results reveal that most students enjoyed the
MM process and agreed that MM intervention can help in-class learning.
Although the measured outcome data obtained by the FA are quite objective, a limitation of this
study was the use of a questionnaire to measure meditation depth. Specifically the self-report ques-
tionnaires might be prone to certain response biases, e.g. social desirability bias, leading to an overes-
timation of the effects of one variable (i.e. meditation depth) on another (i.e. the result of FA).
Finally, this study only focused on the quantitative analysis of MM effect on academic performance.
Future research can extend the research scope and explore the influence of MM on learning behaviours
and activities using quantitative or alternatively qualitative analysis.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Jian Wei Lin is a faculty member of the Department of International Business at Chien Hsin University, Taiwan. His research
interests include instructional design and e-learning. He has recently published an article entitled ‘The impact of an online
project-based learning environment with group awareness support on students with different self-regulation levels: An
extended-period experiment’ in the journal of Computers & Education.
 Innovations in Education and Teaching International  9

Li Jung Mai is a faculty member of the College of General Studies at Yuan Ze University, Taiwan. Her research interests are
on counselling psychology, counsellor training, and college mental hygiene.

References
Adams, J. (2011). To what extent does the practice of mindfulness help us control our emotions? Retrieved from http://www.
mindfulnet.org/mindfulness%20and%20emotions.pdf
Baer, R. A., Lykins, E., & Peters, J. R. (2012). Mindfulness and self-compassion as predictors of psychological wellbeing in
long-term meditators and matched nonmeditators. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7, 230–238.
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore
facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13, 27–45.
Beauchemin, J., Hutchins, T. L., & Patterson, F. (2008). Mindfulness meditation may lessen anxiety, promote social skills, and
improve academic performance among adolescents with learning difficulties. Complementary Health Practice Review,
13, 34–45.
Biegel, G. M., Brown, K. W., Shapiro, S. L., & Schubert, C. (2009). Mindfulness-based stress reduction for the treatment of
adolescent psychiatric outpatients: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 855–866.
Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., & Carmody, J. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational
definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11, 230–241.
Bootzin, R. R., & Stevens, S. J. (2005). Adolescents, substance abuse, and the treatment of insomnia and daytime sleepiness.
Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 629–644.
Burke, C. A. (2010). Mindfulness-based approaches with children and adolescents: A preliminary review of current research
in an emergent field. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19, 133–144.
Cahn, B. R., & Polich, J. (2006). Meditation states and traits: EEG, ERP, and neuroimaging studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132,
180–211.
Davidson, R., & Lutz, A. (2008). Buddha’s brain: Neuroplasticity and meditation. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 25, 174–176.
Feldman, G., Hayes, A., Kumar, S., Greeson, J., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2007). Mindfulness and emotion regulation: The
development and initial validation of the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R). Journal of
Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29, 177–190.
Greeson, J. M., Webber, D. M., Smoski, M. J., Brantley, J. G., Ekblad, A. G., Suarez, E. C., & Wolever, R. Q. (2011). Changes in
spirituality partly explain health-related quality of life outcomes after mindfulness-based stress reduction. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 34, 508–518.
Hall, P. D. (1999). The effect of meditation on the academic performance of African American college students. Journal of
Black Studies, 29, 408–415.
Hallaham, D. P., & Kauffman, J. M. (1991). Exceptional children: Introduction to special education (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.
Hoffman, J. (2013). How meditation might boost your test scores. Retrieved from http://www.bodhimeditationsociety.org/
wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Meditation-Inspiration-Vol-3-Issue-18.pdf
Hölzel, B., & Ott, U. (2006). Relationships between meditation depth, absorption, meditation practice, and mindfulness: A
latent variable approach. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 38, 179–199.
Huppert, F. A., & Johnson, D. M. (2010). A controlled trial of mindfulness training in schools: The importance of practice for
an impact on well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 264–274.
Hutcherson, C. A., Seppala, E. M., & Gross, J. J. (2008). Loving-kindness meditation increases social connectedness. Emotion,
8, 720–724.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever you go there you are. New York, NY: Hyperion.
Kang, D. H., Jo, H. J., Jung, W. H., Kim, S. H., Jung, Y. H., Choi, C. H., … Kwon, J. S. (2013). The effect of meditation on brain
structure: Cortical thickness mapping and diffusion tensor imaging. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8, 27–33.
Kember, P. (1985). The transcendental meditation technique and postgraduate academic performance. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 55, 164–166.
Kuyken, W., Weare, K., Ukoumunne, O. C., Vicary, R., Motton, N., Burnett, R., … Huppert, F. (2013). Effectiveness of the
mindfulness in schools programme: Non-randomised controlled feasibility study. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 203,
126–131.
Lin, J. W., & Lai, Y. C. (2013). Harnessing collaborative annotations on online formative assessments. Educational Technology
& Society, 16, 263–274.
Mrazek, M. D., Franklin, M. S., Phillips, D. T., Baird, B., & Schooler, J. W. (2013). Mindfulness training improves working memory
capacity and GRE performance while reducing mind wandering. Psychological Science, 24, 776–781.
Napoli, M., Krech, P. R., & Holley, L. C. (2005). Mindfulness training for elementary school students: The attention academy.
Journal of Applied School Psychology, 21, 99–125.
Nidich, S., Mjasiri, S., Nidich, R., Rainforth, M., Grant, J., Valosek, L., … Zigler, R. L. (2011). Academic achievement and
transcendental meditation: A study with at-risk urban middle school students. Education, 131, 556–564.
10 J. W. Lin and L. J. Mai

Semple, R. J., Reid, E. F. G., & Miller, L. (2005). Treating anxiety with mindfulness: An open trial of mindfulness training for
anxious children. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 19, 379–392.
Singh, N. N., Singh, A. N., Lancioni, G. E., Singh, J., Winton, A. S. W., & Adkins, A. D. (2010). Mindfulness training for parents
and their children with ADHD increases children’s compliance. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19, 157–166.
Su, A. Y. S., Yang, S. J. H., Hwang, W. Y., & Zhang, J. (2010). A Web 2.0-based collaborative annotation system for enhancing
knowledge sharing in collaborative learning environment. Computers & Education, 55, 752–766.
Tsai, C. W. (2011). How much can computers and internet help? A long-term study of web-mediated problem-based learning
and self-regulated learning. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 7, 67–81.
Weare, K. (2012). Evidence for the impact of mindfulness on children and young people. Retrieved from http://www.
enhancementthemes.ac.uk/docs/documents/impact-of-mindfulness–katherine-weare.pdf
Weinstein, C. E., & Underwood, V. L. (1985). Learning strategies: The how of learning. Thinking and Learning Skills, 1, 241–258.
Zeidan, F., Johnson, S. K., Diamond, B. J., David, Z., & Goolkasian, P. (2010). Mindfulness meditation improves cognition:
Evidence of brief mental training. Consciousness and Cognition, 19, 597–605.