Abstract
Background
School readiness depends not only on early academic skills but also on the development of attention, emotional regulation, and self-regulatory competencies in early childhood. However, empirical evidence for theoretically grounded mindfulness programs and their implementation by both researchers and teachers in preschool settings remains limited. This study examined the effectiveness and feasibility of a flow theory–aligned School-Based Mindfulness Program (SBMP).
Methods
A quasi-experimental embedded mixed-methods design was employed with 71 preschool children assigned to Researcher-Led (n = 23), Teacher-Led (n = 26), and Control (n = 22) groups to enable comparison across implementation conditions. The School Readiness Assessment Tool (SRAT) Child Form was administered at pretest, posttest, and follow-up, and the Parent Form at pretest and posttest. The eight-week SBMP included 24 structured sessions targeting attention, emotion regulation, self-awareness, and self-compassion. The program was aligned with flow theory principles; however, flow states were not directly measured. Quantitative data were analyzed using mixed-design ANOVA and ANCOVA, and qualitative data were analyzed thematically.
Results
A significant Group × Time interaction was found (ηp2 = .342), indicating greater improvements in both intervention groups compared to the control group, with sustained effects at follow-up. Parent-reported outcomes also favored the intervention groups (ηp2 = .791), although this finding should be interpreted with caution. Qualitative findings supported improvements in attention, emotion regulation, and home transfer. Implementation fidelity was high across conditions.
Conclusions
The SBMP appears to support school readiness and can be implemented by teachers with high fidelity under structured training and monitoring conditions. Findings are consistent with flow theory principles; however, interpretations regarding underlying mechanisms should be made with caution.
Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT07501091. Retrospectively registered on March 27, 2026.
Keywords: School readiness, Mindfulness, Early childhood, Flow theory, Teacher implementation, Mixed methods
Introduction
Early childhood is a critical developmental period during which cognitive, emotional, and social competencies rapidly emerge [4, 16]. During this stage, self-regulation, attentional control, and emotional balance are key predictors of later academic achievement and social adjustment [14, 27]. These findings highlight the importance of supporting children’s regulatory capacities in early childhood.
However, contemporary developmental environments increasingly challenge children’s regulatory capacities. Environmental demands and heightened stimulation have been associated with difficulties in attentional control and emotional stability among young children [20, 22, 23]. These difficulties are linked to lower levels of school readiness, underscoring the importance of supporting regulatory processes in early childhood [11, 36].
School readiness is widely conceptualized as a multidimensional construct encompassing cognitive competence, emotional maturity, social adjustment, and adaptive behavioral skills [4, 19]. Within this framework, attention control and emotion regulation are central determinants of successful school transition [24, 27]. Therefore, interventions targeting these regulatory processes are considered essential for supporting children’s readiness for formal schooling.
School-based mindfulness programs have emerged as promising approaches for supporting attentional stability, emotional regulation, and self-awareness in educational contexts [13, 32, 36]. Mindfulness involves intentionally directing attention to present-moment experiences while observing thoughts and emotions in a non-judgmental manner [7, 25]. Such practices have been associated with improvements in core regulatory capacities that support learning engagement and social-emotional functioning [1, 2, 5]. These features also suggest potential alignment with broader engagement-related processes emphasized in educational research.
Despite growing evidence regarding mindfulness-based interventions in educational settings, several important gaps remain in the literature. First, relatively few experimental studies have examined mindfulness programs specifically designed for preschool children, particularly those aged 48–72 months. Second, existing research frequently evaluates isolated cognitive or emotional outcomes rather than examining school readiness as a multidimensional construct. Third, the feasibility of teacher-implemented mindfulness programs remains insufficiently investigated. Finally, limited research has explicitly integrated a coherent theoretical framework to guide the design of mindfulness-based interventions in relation to school readiness outcomes [8, 31].
To address these gaps, the present study draws on flow theory as a conceptual framework to inform the design of the intervention. Flow theory describes a psychological state characterized by focused attention, intrinsic motivation, and optimal engagement, occurring when there is a balance between task demands and individual skills under conditions of clear goals and immediate feedback [10, 30]. In educational settings, these conditions have been associated with sustained attention, cognitive engagement, and self-regulation processes that are relevant to school readiness. However, in the present study, flow theory is used as a design-oriented framework rather than a directly tested mechanism, and flow states were not directly measured.
Mindfulness practices share several structural features with conditions that facilitate engagement. Focused attention activities support attentional stability, sensory awareness exercises provide immediate experiential feedback, and reflective exercises promote awareness of internal experiences. This conceptual alignment informed the design of the School-Based Mindfulness Program, which was structured to support attentional control, emotion regulation, self-awareness, and self-compassion as components of school readiness (see Fig. 1).
Fig. 1.
Flow theory–based conceptual model of the School-Based Mindfulness Program
As illustrated in Fig. 1, the School-Based Mindfulness Program is conceptually informed by principles derived from flow theory, linking attention-focused activities, emotion regulation practices, and reflective routines to the multidimensional components of school readiness. In addition, prior research suggests that family engagement may contribute to the effectiveness of early childhood interventions by supporting the transfer of regulatory strategies from classroom contexts to daily routines [15, 18, 35]. Accordingly, integrating school-based activities with simple home practices may support the sustainability of intervention effects.
Against this background, the present study examines the effectiveness of a School-Based Mindfulness Program (SBMP) designed for preschool children. Specifically, the study investigates whether the program improves multidimensional school readiness outcomes and compares its effectiveness under researcher-led and teacher-led implementation conditions. The present study contributes to the literature in several important ways. By integrating a theoretically informed intervention with experimental evaluation, it provides evidence on mindfulness-based interventions in preschool populations. It also examines school readiness as a multidimensional construct and compares researcher-led and teacher-led implementations, offering insight into the feasibility of teacher-delivered interventions. In this context, flow theory is used as a design-oriented framework rather than a directly tested mechanism. To our knowledge, no prior study has simultaneously examined a mindfulness-based intervention in preschool settings using a mixed-methods design, compared researcher-led and teacher-led implementations, and evaluated school readiness as a multidimensional outcome within a theoretically informed framework.
Method
This study employed an embedded mixed-methods design in which quantitative data constituted the primary component and qualitative data were used to support and explain the quantitative findings. The quantitative component followed a quasi-experimental pretest–posttest–follow-up control group design to examine the effects of the School-Based Mindfulness Program (SBMP).
Three intact preschool classes were included while preserving their natural classroom structure. These classes were randomly assigned at the cluster level to one of three conditions: researcher-led intervention, teacher-led intervention, or control. Individual-level random assignment was not conducted due to the use of existing classroom groups. To reduce contamination risk, classes attending different daily sessions within the same school were assigned to different conditions.
The quantitative design included two experimental conditions (researcher-led implementation and teacher-led implementation) and a control group. School readiness was assessed at three time points: before the intervention (T1), immediately after the intervention (T2), and four weeks after the intervention (T3).
Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured teacher interviews, parent interviews, and researcher field notes and were analyzed to support and interpret the quantitative findings.
Participants
Participants consisted of 71 children aged 48–72 months attending a public kindergarten in Gaziantep, Turkey. The study included three intact classroom groups assigned at the cluster level: (1) researcher-led intervention (n = 23), (2) teacher-led intervention (n = 26), and (3) control group (n = 22).
Classes were included while preserving their natural structure. To reduce the risk of contamination, classes attending morning and afternoon sessions within the same school were assigned to different conditions. No children with diagnosed special needs were included in the classes. All children demonstrated regular school attendance, with at least 90% attendance during the intervention period. No participants were excluded after group assignment. An a priori power analysis was not conducted, as the study was carried out with intact classroom groups in a natural educational setting, where sample size was determined by existing class structures.
In addition, 41 parents voluntarily participated and completed the parent-report measures. Participation was based on voluntary consent; therefore, not all parents in the sample contributed data. Parent responses were used to examine how observed changes in children were reflected in family perceptions. No direct intervention was implemented with parents.
Qualitative data included one teacher interview, 26 parent interviews, and researcher field notes recorded throughout the intervention process. Weekly home-practice feedback was collected separately from the pretest–posttest parent-report measures.
Measures
Data were collected using quantitative and qualitative instruments. School readiness was assessed using the School Readiness Assessment Tool (SRAT), which includes Child and Parent Forms. Qualitative data were obtained through semi-structured interviews and researcher field notes.
Quantitative measures
Quantitative data were collected using standardized instruments designed to assess children’s school readiness. In line with the multidimensional conceptualization of school readiness, both performance-based and parent-report measures were employed. The School Readiness Assessment Tool (SRAT) includes two complementary forms: a Child Form and a Parent Form.
SRAT child form
The School Readiness Assessment Tool–Child Form (SRAT-C) is a 37-item performance-based assessment designed to evaluate preschool children’s school readiness. Items are scored as 0 (incorrect), 1 (partially correct), or 2 (correct). The SRAT is a newly developed instrument, and selected sample items are provided in Appendix X to illustrate the content and structure of the instrument. The scale was developed and initially validated in a separate psychometric study including 803 children. Exploratory factor analysis conducted with 444 children and confirmatory factor analysis with an independent sample of 359 children supported a single-factor structure explaining 33% of the total variance. Factor loadings ranged between 0.30 and 0.65, indicating acceptable item–factor relationships. Confirmatory factor analysis results demonstrated acceptable model fit (RMSEA = 0.072; χ2/df = 2.55; SRMR = 0.096; CFI = 0.942; TLI = 0.939). Internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s α = 0.91), and test–retest reliability was 0.92 [3]. In the current sample, reliability coefficients ranged between α = 0.74 and α = 0.90 across groups. Further validation studies of the instrument are currently in progress.
SRAT parent form
The School Readiness Assessment Tool–Parent Form (SRAT-P) consists of 34 items rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = never to 5 = always). The SRAT is a newly developed instrument designed to capture parents’ observations of children’s school readiness behaviors in daily life contexts. Psychometric analyses conducted with 597 parents supported a single-factor structure explaining 39% of the total variance. Factor loadings ranged between 0.50 and 0.76, indicating strong item–factor relationships. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s α = 0.92), and test–retest reliability was 0.92 [3]. In the current study, reliability coefficients ranged between α = 0.85 and α = 0.87 across groups.
Qualitative measures
Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews and researcher field notes. Interview questions focused on children's attention, emotion regulation, self-awareness, and self-compassion in relation to their classroom experiences. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Field notes documented classroom interactions, children’s attention patterns, emotional responses, and peer interactions throughout the intervention.
School-Based Mindfulness Program (SBMP)
The School-Based Mindfulness Program (SBMP) was designed to support four domains associated with school readiness: attention and focus, emotion regulation, self-awareness, and self-compassion. The intervention was implemented over eight weeks and included 24 structured sessions delivered three times per week. Each session followed a consistent structure consisting of a brief attention-focusing exercise, a core activity, and a short reflective closure. The structure of the program was informed by principles associated with flow theory, such as the use of clear goals, immediate feedback, and developmentally appropriate challenge levels to support children’s engagement. Activities were organized across four domains: emotion regulation, attention and focus, self-awareness, and self-compassion. Table 1 presents a summary of the intervention domains, representative activities, and targeted school readiness components.
Table 1.
Summary of the School-Based Mindfulness Program (SBMP) activities
| Domain | Example Activities | Instructional Focus | Targeted School Readiness Component |
|---|---|---|---|
| Emotion Regulation | Silent Journey of Emotions, Emotional Heat Map, Color of Emotions | Sensory awareness and emotion recognition | Emotional regulation |
| Emotion Regulation | Breathing Balance, Circle of Mental Balance | Breathing-based self-regulation | Self-regulation |
| Attention and Focus | Walking in the Here and Now, Attention Rhythm | Sustained attention through movement and rhythm | Attentional control |
| Attention and Focus | Silent Focus, Staying Within Colors | Short-duration focused attention | Attention continuity |
| Attention and Focus | Curiosity Pursuit, Mental Matching | Goal-oriented attention and cognitive challenge | Cognitive flexibility |
| Self-Awareness | Listening to My Body, Noticing the Moment | Present-moment awareness | Emotional awareness |
| Self-Awareness | Learning Journey, Mapping My Thoughts | Reflection and self-monitoring | Self-regulated learning |
| Self-Compassion | My Inner Safe Space, Being Kind to Myself | Self-acceptance and emotional balance | Emotional resilience |
| Self-Compassion | Mindfulness with Gratitude | Positive emotional awareness | Social competence |
| Integration | Completing the Moment, Mindful Closure | Reflection and experiential consolidation | Metacognition |
| Integration | Mindfulness Box (weekly ritual) | Weekly reflective internalization | Self-regulation and metacognition |
Across the intervention period, activities were implemented in a developmentally sequenced manner. Early sessions focused primarily on short attention-focusing exercises and emotional awareness, while later sessions incorporated reflective practices that encouraged children to recognize and express their emotional experiences. In addition, a brief weekly reflective activity called the “Mindfulness Box” was used to support children’s expression of their experiences through drawing or verbal sharing. The program was reviewed by six academic experts and five preschool teachers in terms of content relevance, developmental appropriateness, and clarity. Revisions were made based on their feedback.
Intervention procedure
The implementation process was carried out in three stages: (1) preparation, (2) intervention delivery, and (3) monitoring.
Preparation process
Before the intervention, pre-test measurements (T1) were conducted in all groups. The School Readiness Assessment Tool–Child Form was administered individually to each child by a researcher who was not involved in the intervention implementation under standardized conditions. During the same period, the School Readiness Assessment Tool–Parent Form was completed by parents. In the researcher-led condition, the intervention was conducted by the researcher. A brief adaptation period was implemented prior to the intervention to establish rapport with the children. In the teacher-led condition, the program was implemented by the classroom teacher. The teacher received five days of structured training covering program principles, materials, implementation procedures, and ethical considerations. Structured activity guides were provided to support implementation. Following the training, a supervised practice session was conducted to ensure procedural standardization and consistency between the researcher-led and teacher-led implementations.
Intervention process
In experimental group 1, the intervention was conducted by the researcher; in experimental group 2, it was conducted by the classroom teacher. The control group continued with the standard preschool curriculum without exposure to the intervention. At the end of each week, the "Mindfulness Box" activity was implemented; children were encouraged to express their feelings and thoughts about that week through drawing and verbal expression. A designated sensory break area was provided for children experiencing emotional distress during the program; children were permitted to withdraw from the activity at any time without any negative consequences. The school counseling unit was informed when necessary.
One week after the intervention was completed, post-test measurements were administered to all groups (T2). A follow-up assessment was conducted four weeks after the post-test to examine the short-term sustainability of program effects (T3). The parent form was administered only at time points T1 and T2.
Intervention fidelity
To monitor adherence to the program, a 24-item “School-Based Mindfulness Program Teacher Observation Form” was used. This form was used to evaluate the extent to which each session adhered to the program protocol. For eight weeks, an independent researcher conducted on-site observations in both experimental conditions. The observer was not involved in the intervention delivery; however, full blinding to group assignment was not feasible due to the nature of the classroom setting. Inter-observer agreement was calculated using Cohen’s κ = 0.88 during pilot sessions and κ = 0.84 during the implementation phase. Mean implementation fidelity was 96% in the researcher-led condition and 93% in the teacher-led condition, indicating a high level of adherence to the intervention protocol. Fidelity scores were calculated across all sessions.
Example activity: emotional heat map
One representative activity in the program was the “Emotional Heat Map,” designed to help children recognize the changing nature of emotions through a concrete metaphor. Children observed glitter settling in a transparent jar and discussed how emotions may initially appear intense but gradually calm over time. Through guided discussion, children were encouraged to label emotions, connect them with bodily sensations, and reflect on how emotional states change. This example illustrates how the program principles were translated into concrete classroom practices supporting emotional regulation and self-awareness.
Data analysis
Analysis of quantitative data
Quantitative data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 25). All analyses were conducted using two-tailed tests at a significance level of α = 0.05. Prior to analysis, the dataset was examined for missing data, outliers, and normality assumptions. No missing data were found in the child measurements. Outliers were evaluated using standardized z scores (|z|< 3.00), and no extreme values that would disrupt the analysis were identified. In the parent data, one outlier in the control group was excluded from the analysis. Normality assumption was evaluated using skewness-kurtosis coefficients (within ± 1 limits) and Q-Q plots, and it was determined that parametric tests were applicable.
Analysis of child data
Children’s school readiness scores were analyzed using a 3 (Group: Experimental 1, Experimental 2, Control) × 3 (Time: T1, T2, T3) mixed-design ANOVA. This model allows for the examination of between-group differences, changes over time, and group × time interactions. Baseline equivalence between groups was examined using a one-way ANOVA on pre-test scores. The sphericity assumption was tested with the Mauchly test; Greenhouse–Geisser correction was applied in case of violations. Homogeneity of variance was assessed using Levene’s test. At time points where the homogeneity of variance assumption was violated, post hoc tests robust to unequal variances were applied. While homogeneity was achieved in pre-test measurements, the homogeneity of variance assumption was violated in post-test and follow-up measurements. Therefore, multiple comparisons were conducted using post hoc tests robust to heterogeneity of variance (Games-Howell and Tamhane’s T2). In cases of significant interactions or main effects, Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc comparisons were performed. Effect sizes were reported using partial eta squared (ηp2), with 0.01 interpreted as small, 0.06 as medium, and 0.14 and above as large effects.
Analysis of parent data
A one-way ANCOVA was conducted to compare post-test scores between the experimental and control groups, with pre-test scores entered as a covariate. ANCOVA assumptions (normality, homogeneity of regression slopes, and group × pre-test interaction) were tested. The slope of the regression lines and the interaction assumption were met (p > 0.05). Although the assumption of homogeneity of variances was partially violated, results were interpreted cautiously due to the similarity of group sizes and the relative robustness of ANCOVA to moderate violations. Post-test scores were compared using adjusted means (Estimated Marginal Means). Effect sizes were reported using ηp2.
Analysis of qualitative data
Qualitative data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. The analysis process was conducted according to Braun and Clarke's [6] six-phase framework: (1) Familiarization with the data through repeated reading and note-taking,(2) Independent open coding by two researchers; (3) Comparison and consensus process of the codes; (4) Creation of the codebook. (5) Organizing codes into candidate themes and generating overarching themes; (6) Reviewing and refining themes through triangulation and deviant case analysis.
The coding process was conducted independently by two researchers; the code unit was defined as a meaningful statement segment. Disagreeing codes were discussed and redefined through consensus. To enhance trustworthiness, source triangulation (teacher interviews, parent interviews, and field notes) and temporal triangulation were applied. Themes were supported by representative participant quotations. Qualitative findings were integrated to deepen the interpretation of quantitative results. During the integration phase, qualitative themes corresponding to quantitatively significant changes were linked through integrative comparison tables.
Ethical principles
The study received approval from the ethics committee of the relevant university. Written informed consent was obtained from parents, and age-appropriate verbal consent was obtained from children. Participation was voluntary, and the right to withdraw without penalty was granted. The intervention content was age-appropriate and of short duration. Procedures for designated calming spaces (sensory break areas), withdrawal from sessions, and referral to school guidance services if necessary were pre-defined for potential emotional distress during the sessions. Classes were selected to ensure comparable socio-demographic characteristics; no child or class was disadvantaged. Equal opportunity was ensured by providing the control group with program materials and sample sessions at the end of the study. Data were collected with coded identifiers, stored digitally in encrypted form, and accessible only to the research team. Independent observer compliance was assessed solely to monitor the quality of the research; teacher professional performance was not correlated.
Results
Child form results
Preliminary analyses
A one-way ANOVA conducted on pretest scores indicated no significant differences between groups prior to the intervention (F(2,68) = 0.843, p = 0.435, ηp2 = 0.024), confirming baseline equivalence (see Table 2).
Table 2.
Descriptive statistics and ıntergroup comparison of child form pre-test scores
| Group | n | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental 1 | 23 | 41.26 | 11.68 |
| Experimental 2 | 26 | 38.42 | 11.52 |
| Control | 22 | 42.73 | 12.05 |
Mixed measures ANOVA results
A 3 (Group: Experimental 1, Experimental 2, Control) × 3 (Time: Pre-test, Post-test, Follow-up) mixed-design ANOVA was conducted to analyze children’s school readiness scores. A significant main effect of time and group was observed, along with a significant Group × Time interaction (see Table 3). The interaction effect indicated that changes in school readiness over time differed across groups.
Table 3.
3 × 3 mixed-design ANOVA results
| Effect | df | F | p | ηp2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group | 2, 68 | 5.79 | .005* | .146 |
| Time | 2, 136 | 70.91 | <.001 | .510 |
| Group × Time | 4, 136 | 17.641 | <.001 | .342 |
ηp2 = partial eta-squared. Greenhouse–Geisser correction applied in case of sphericity violation
*p <.05
As shown in Table 3, the main effect of time was found to be significant in the mixed measures ANOVA analysis of 3 (Group: Experimental 1, Experimental 2, Control) × 3 (Time: Pre-test, Post-test, Follow-up). This result indicates a large effect size and shows that school readiness scores changed significantly over time. The main effect of group was also found to be significant with a large effect size. However, the main finding demonstrating the effectiveness of the intervention is that the Group × Time interaction was significant (p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.342). This large effect size indicates that changes over time differed across groups and that the intervention significantly influenced developmental trajectories. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 4. To provide a clearer interpretation of within-group changes, effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were calculated for pretest–posttest and pretest–follow-up comparisons. Results indicated large to very large effects in both experimental groups. In Experimental Group 1, the effect size was large from pretest to posttest (d = 1.15) and increased further at follow-up (d = 1.42). In Experimental Group 2, effect sizes were very large at both posttest (d = 1.74) and follow-up (d = 2.22). In contrast, the control group showed negligible changes (d = −0.03 to 0.07).
Table 4.
Mean and standard deviation values by time for the child form
| Group | T1 mean (SD) | T2 mean (SD) | T3 mean (SD) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental 1 | 41.26 (11.68) | 54.09 (10.63) | 55.91 (8.66) |
| Experimental 2 | 38.42 (11.52) | 55.27 (7.41) | 58.50 (5.58) |
| Control | 42.73 (12.05) | 42.32 (12.84) | 43.55 (10.37) |
Descriptive statistics across measurement points are presented in Table 4. School readiness scores increased from pre-test to post-test and follow-up in both intervention groups, whereas scores remained relatively stable in the control group (see Table 4 and Fig. 2).
Fig. 2.
Mean school readiness scores across measurement points for the experimental 1, experimental 2, and control groups
Bonferroni-corrected comparisons showed a significant increase between T1-T2 and T1-T3 in both experimental groups (p < 0.001). No significant changes were observed in the control group. Furthermore, no significant difference was found between Experimental Group 1 (researcher-led) and Experimental Group 2 (teacher-led), indicating comparable intervention effects across implementation conditions. The mean change graph for the child form is presented in Fig. 2.
Parent form results
An independent samples t-test revealed a significant difference between experimental and control groups in parent form pre-test scores, t(39) = 2.97, p = 0.005. Because baseline equivalence was not established for the parent sample, ANCOVA was conducted to control for pre-test differences. The adjusted post-test results are presented in Table 5.
Table 5.
ANCOVA results for parent form
| Effect | df | F | p | ηp2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-test (covariate) | 1,38 | 146.956 | .001* | .795 |
| Group | 1,38 | 128.066 | .001* | .791 |
*p <.001
After controlling for pre-test scores, the experimental group demonstrated significantly higher post-test scores than the control group (see Table 5). The effect size for the group effect was very large (ηp2 = 0.791). Although this magnitude suggests a strong intervention effect, it should be interpreted with caution. Given that parent participation was voluntary, the possibility of response bias should be considered, as more engaged or attentive parents may have been more likely to participate and report improvements.
Of the 41 parents who consented to participate in the home component, weekly feedback data were received from 32–34 parents during the first five weeks (78–83%) and from 31–35 parents during the final three weeks (76–85%).
Qualitative findings
Qualitative findings were analyzed using thematic analysis based on teacher interviews, parent interviews, and researcher field notes. Five main themes emerged from the analysis: (1) Emotional Regulation, (2) Attention and Focus, (3) Self-Awareness, (4) Self-Compassion, and (5) Strengthening Home–School Processes. Representative statements illustrating these themes are presented in Table 6.
Table 6.
Thematic analysis results and representative statements on the effects of the School-Based Mindfulness Program
| Major Theme | Data Source | Representative Participant Statement |
|---|---|---|
| Emotion Regulation | Teacher | “The child has started to express feelings verbally instead of reacting immediately.” |
| Parent | “When feeling upset, the child sometimes uses breathing techniques practiced in the program.” | |
| Researcher Diary | From approximately the fourth week onward, some children were observed pausing briefly before reacting in emotionally challenging situations | |
| Family Involvement | Families reported occasionally repeating emotion-card or breathing activities at home | |
| Attention and Focus | Teacher | “Children appear more willing to stay engaged with activities and try to complete them.” |
| Parent | “At home, the child can sometimes remain focused on tasks for longer periods.” | |
| Researcher Diary | By week six, children were observed following activity instructions for longer durations after attention-focusing routines | |
| Family Involvement | Some families reported practicing short breathing or attention exercises at home | |
| Self-Awareness | Teacher | “Children increasingly talk about their feelings or abilities during activities.” |
| Parent | “The child has started to say things like ‘I can try again’ or ‘I can do this.” | |
| Researcher Diary | Children occasionally used reflective statements about their performance during activity closures | |
| Family Involvement | Weekly drawings or reflection activities were sometimes shared and discussed at home | |
| Self-Compassion | Teacher | “Children are more likely to try again after making mistakes during activities.” |
| Parent | “The child sometimes responds more calmly after making mistakes.” | |
| Researcher Diary | Instances of supportive comments toward peers were occasionally observed | |
| Family Involvement | Some parents reported encouraging children to view mistakes as part of learning | |
| Program Integration and Sustainability | Teacher | “Mindfulness activities gradually became part of the classroom routine.” |
| Parent | “The child shows more willingness to participate in school activities.” | |
| Researcher Diary | Participation in weekly reflection activities increased over the intervention period | |
| Family Involvement | Parent feedback indicated that some mindfulness practices continued at home |
Overall, the qualitative findings support the themes identified in Table 6. Improvements in emotional regulation and attention were consistently reported by teachers and parents and were also reflected in researcher field notes. In particular, field observations indicated that from approximately the third to fourth week of the program, children began to spontaneously apply strategies such as pausing, breathing, and waiting before reacting, which corresponds to the themes of emotional regulation and attentional control.
The themes of self-awareness and self-compassion were reflected in children's increasing ability to verbalize their emotions, acknowledge mistakes, and attempt tasks again after difficulties. Teachers reported that children began to express statements such as recognizing their feelings or reflecting on their actions during classroom activities.
Although most participants reported positive changes, some parents noted that children initially required reminders to practice breathing or reflection strategies at home. Similarly, the teacher reported that maintaining children's attention during initial sessions required additional effort, suggesting variability in responsiveness to the program. Over time, however, these practices were reported to become more routine both in the classroom and in the home environment. This pattern is consistent with the theme of strengthening home–school processes.
Overall, the qualitative findings indicate observable behavioral changes in emotional regulation, attention, and self-awareness, and suggest that family participation facilitated the transfer of these strategies into daily routines. These patterns are consistent with the direction of change identified in the quantitative analyses, particularly the significant Group × Time interaction.
To provide a clearer integration of quantitative and qualitative findings, a joint display table was constructed (see Table 7). This table illustrates how qualitative themes correspond to quantitatively significant outcomes, allowing for a more comprehensive interpretation of the intervention effects.
Table 7.
Integration of quantitative and qualitative findings
| Quantitative Findings | Qualitative Themes | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Significant Group × Time interaction (ηp2 =.342) and large effect sizes (Cohen’s d = 1.15–2.22) in the experimental groups | Emotional Regulation; Attention and Focus; Self-Awareness | The observed quantitative improvements are consistent with qualitative reports of changes in attention, emotional regulation, and self-awareness |
| Significant increases from pre-test to post-test and follow-up in the experimental groups | Emotional Regulation; Self-Awareness | Quantitative increases are supported by qualitative findings indicating changes in children’s ability to recognize and express emotions |
| Sustained effects at follow-up (T3) | Program Integration and Sustainability | Findings suggest that observed gains were maintained over time and reflected in daily routines |
| No significant difference between researcher-led and teacher-led conditions | Attention and Focus; Program Integration and Sustainability | Comparable quantitative results align with qualitative observations indicating similar implementation processes across conditions |
| Very large effect size in parent-reported outcomes (ηp2 =.791) | Program Integration and Sustainability; Self-Compassion | Parent-reported changes may be interpreted alongside qualitative findings suggesting transfer of practices into the home context |
As shown in Table 7, the qualitative findings support and help explain the quantitative results by providing contextual evidence for the observed changes in children’s attention and focus, emotional regulation, self-awareness, and self-compassion. In particular, the consistency between the researcher-led and teacher-led implementations further supports the robustness of the intervention across implementation conditions.
Discussion
This study indicates that the School-Based Mindfulness Program (SBMP) produces statistically significant and sustained effects on the school readiness of children aged 48–72 months. The observed increases in the experimental groups from pre-test to post-test and follow-up measurements, together with the lack of significant change in the control group, provide evidence supporting the effectiveness of the intervention. The group × time interaction identified in the quantitative findings gains further explanatory depth when evaluated alongside the qualitative data. In particular, the spontaneous breathing strategies, waiting behaviors, and emotion-naming patterns observed in the researcher’s field notes from the third week onward align with the increases in self-regulation identified in the quantitative measurements at the behavioral level. These findings are consistent with previous research reporting the effects of early-onset mindfulness interventions on self-regulation, attention, and social-emotional development [17, 26, 32],). Self-regulation skills, in particular, are known to be associated with academic achievement and long-term life outcomes [9, 28, 29]. The effect size observed in the present study (ηp2 = 0.342) represents a large effect and appears comparable to, or in some cases higher than, those reported in previous mindfulness-based interventions in early childhood (e.g., [12, 34]). While differences in study design and measurement approaches should be considered, these findings suggest that structured mindfulness programs may yield substantial improvements in school readiness-related outcomes.
When interpreted through the framework of flow theory [10], the observed improvements in attention and self-regulation appear theoretically consistent with the program’s design. The SBMP sessions incorporated short focusing practices, developmentally balanced activities, and reflective closures, which correspond conceptually to key elements of the flow experience, including focused attention, skill–challenge balance, and immediate feedback. The increased participation and sustained attentional engagement observed in the experimental groups may therefore reflect behavioral patterns aligned with these theoretical principles. Rather than indicating the direct measurement of flow states, these findings suggest that the structured activities may have supported forms of focused engagement that resemble characteristics associated with flow experiences in educational contexts [30]. However, as flow states were not directly measured in this study, these interpretations should be considered theoretical rather than mechanistic.
The prominence of qualitative findings from the third week onwards also aligns with studies reporting the gradual effects of mindfulness interventions on social adjustment and emotional regulation [33, 34, 36]. Findings regarding family involvement also necessitate the evaluation of both quantitative and qualitative data. ANCOVA results showed a significant effect in favor of the experimental group when baseline differences were controlled. In qualitative interviews, parent reports of continuing awareness practices at home provide contextual support for the quantitative findings. However, the core structure of the intervention is school-based,family involvement is considered not as the program's fundamental mechanism, but rather as a contextual factor that may have supported the generalization of learning. However, as family involvement was not experimentally manipulated, this interpretation should be considered descriptive rather than causal. The literature suggests that parental involvement can enhance the effectiveness of early childhood interventions [18, 35]. Finally, obtaining similar effect patterns in researcher and teacher applications suggests that the program may be implementable by teachers with comparable outcomes. It is important to note that the teacher-led implementation in this study was conducted under conditions of structured training, supervised practice, and ongoing fidelity monitoring. Therefore, the observed outcomes may reflect an optimal implementation context, and similar effects may not be directly generalizable to settings where such support is not available.
The comparable outcomes achieved by researcher-led and teacher-led implementations also carry important implications for scalability. With structured pre-training and ongoing procedural monitoring, classroom teachers were able to deliver the program with effects comparable to those achieved by the researcher. This finding addresses a central challenge in school-based intervention dissemination: the feasibility of teacher-delivered programming [21]. However, these findings should be interpreted within the context of the structured support provided during implementation, including pre-training, supervised practice, and ongoing fidelity monitoring. The high inter-rater reliability and strong implementation fidelity observed across groups suggest that the SBMP’s structured protocols—including mandatory attention-focus openings and reflective closures—may facilitate teacher delivery while maintaining consistency in implementation. These findings align with prior research demonstrating that manualized mindfulness programs can be successfully implemented by trained educators when adequate support and fidelity monitoring are provided [12, 34].
Beyond demonstrating program effectiveness, the present study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, it provides experimental evidence regarding mindfulness-based interventions in preschool populations, a group that remains relatively underrepresented in existing research. Second, by combining researcher-led and teacher-led implementations, the study offers insight into the feasibility of teacher-delivered mindfulness interventions within the context of structured support in real classroom settings. Third, the integration of quantitative and qualitative findings allows for a more comprehensive understanding of how changes in attention and emotional regulation may emerge during the intervention process. Together, these contributions help clarify both the potential impact and the practical implementation conditions of mindfulness-based programs in early childhood education.
Collectively, these findings advance both theoretical understanding and educational practice. Theoretically, the results are consistent with interpretations based on flow theory in early childhood contexts, suggesting that structured activities promoting focused attention, intrinsic motivation, and emotional balance are associated with measurable gains in school readiness. However, as flow states were not directly measured in this study, these interpretations should be considered theoretical rather than mechanistic. Practically, the findings point to a potentially feasible model for integrating mindfulness into preschool curricula within contexts where structured training and implementation support are provided. For educators and policymakers, these results suggest that investment in teacher training for structured mindfulness programming may contribute to improvements in children’s cognitive, emotional, and social development.
Conclusion
This study indicates that the School-Based Mindfulness Program offers an effective and sustained intervention model that supports school readiness in early childhood. Quantitative findings indicate significant improvements in emotion regulation, attention-focus, self-awareness, and self-compassion, while qualitative data suggest that these improvements are reflected in classroom behavior patterns and the home environment. Thus, the effects of the program are supported not only at the measurement level but also at the contextual and behavioral levels.
Theoretically, the findings suggest that structured mindfulness practices, aligned with flow theory, may be associated with improvements in children's focused attention, skill–challenge balance, self-awareness, and compassion processes. However, as flow states were not directly measured, these interpretations should be considered theoretical rather than mechanistic. In this context, the SBMP offers a model that integrates mindfulness practices within a developmentally appropriate and pedagogically structured intervention framework.
One of the most important contributions from an application perspective is that the teacher-led implementation yielded effect patterns comparable to those of the researcher-led implementation. This finding provides preliminary evidence that the program may be applicable in classroom settings under conditions of structured training, supervised practice, and ongoing fidelity monitoring. This study provides evidence suggesting that short-term, structured, and adherence-monitored interventions may be systematically integrated into early childhood education settings. The family involvement component was identified as a contextual factor that may have supported the generalization of the intervention. Home–school continuity may contribute to the persistence observed during the follow-up period. Overall, the study suggests that school-based mindfulness practices that holistically support the development of emotion regulation, attention-focus, self-awareness, and self-compassion in early childhood may contribute meaningfully at both theoretical and practical levels.
Limitations of the study
The findings of this study should be interpreted within the context of several limitations. First, the assignment process was conducted at the class level, and full randomization was not implemented. Although baseline equivalence between groups was statistically established, the quasi-experimental design does not allow for complete control of all potential confounding variables.
Second, the sample was drawn from a single city and a limited number of institutions. Therefore, the generalizability of the findings to different socio-cultural contexts should be approached with caution. In addition, the teacher-led implementation involved only one classroom teacher; thus, the findings may not be generalizable to teachers with different levels of experience and training.
Third, the follow-up period was limited to four weeks. While this provides information regarding short-term retention of intervention effects, it does not permit conclusions about long-term sustainability.
In addition, parent data were based on self-report measures, and the potential influence of response biases, including social desirability bias, cannot be entirely ruled out. This limitation is particularly important given the large effect size observed in the parent-reported outcomes.
Another limitation of the study is the use of a newly developed measurement tool (SRAT), which, although demonstrating strong psychometric properties, has not yet been widely validated across different populations.
Furthermore, although the intervention was conceptually informed by flow theory, flow states were not directly measured in this study. Therefore, interpretations related to flow should be considered theoretical rather than mechanistic.
Finally, the statistical analyses involved multiple comparisons. Although appropriate post hoc corrections were applied, the possibility of Type I error should be taken into account when interpreting the results.
Finally, school readiness was assessed using behavioral and report-based measures; neuropsychological attention tests or objective performance-based assessments were not included. Future research may examine the intervention mechanisms more comprehensively by employing larger and more diverse samples, longer-term follow-up designs, and multiple measurement modalities.
Acknowledgements
None.
Authors’ contributions
All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study, data collection, analysis, interpretation of the results, and writing of the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Funding
No financial support was received from any institution for this research.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by Gazi University Social, Behavioral, and Educational IRB protocol no. E-77082166–302.08.01–628331. Informed consent was obtained from all student participants, their parents or legal guardians, and teachers before data collection. Participation was voluntary, and confidentiality was assured.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
This article is derived from the first author’s doctoral dissertation completed at Gazi University.
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Allen CW, Diamond-Myrsten S, Rollins LK. School absenteeism in children and adolescents. Am Fam Physician. 2018;98(12):738–44. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Ashra H, Barnes C, Stupple E, Maratos FA. A systematic review of self-report measures of negative self-referential emotions developed for non-clinical child and adolescent samples. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2021;24(2):224–43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Özcan M, Kandır A. Okul Olgunluğu Değerlendirme Aracı’nın Geliştirilmesi ve Psikometrik Özellikleri. Cumhuriyet Uluslararası Eğitim Dergisi. 2026;15(1):106–30. 10.30703/cije.1666485.
- 4.Blair C, Raver CC. School readiness and self-regulation: a developmental psychobiological approach. Annu Rev Psychol. 2015;66:711–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Bluth K, Roberson PN, Gaylord SA. A pilot study of a mindfulness intervention for adolescents and the potential role of self-compassion in reducing stress. Explore. 2015;11(4):292–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Brown KW, Ryan RM. The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological wellbeing. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;84:822–48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Carro N, Lozada M. An effective intervention can contribute to enhancing social integration while reducing perceived stress in children. Electron J Res Educ Psychol. 2020;18(1):183–201. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Claessens A, Dowsett C. Growth and change in attention problems, disruptive behavior, and achievement from kindergarten to fifth grade. Psychol Sci. 2014;25(12):2241–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Csikszentmihalyi M. The systems model of creativity: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Springer. 2015. 10.1007/978-94-017-9085-7.
- 11.Flett GL, Hewitt PL, Nepon T, Sherry SB, Smith M. The destructiveness and public health significance of socially prescribed perfectionism: a review, analysis, and conceptual extension. Clin Psychol Rev. 2022;93:102–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Flook L, Goldberg SB, Pinger L, Davidson RJ. Promoting prosocial behavior and self-regulatory skills in preschool children through a mindfulness-based kindness curriculum. Dev Psychol. 2015;51:44–51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Flook L, Smalley SL, Kitil MJ, Galla BM, Kaiser-Greenland S, Locke J, et al. Effects of mindful awareness practices on executive functions in elementary school children. J Appl School Psychol. 2010;26(1):70–95. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Fung WK, Chung KKH, Lam ICB, Li NX. Bidirectionality in kindergarten children’s school readiness and emotional regulation. Soc Dev. 2020;29(3):801–17. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Galvez Tan LJT, Alampay LP. Exploring moderators of intervention effects of a mindfulness program for Filipino children. Int J Sch Educ Psychol. 2021;10(3):368–82. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Guhn M, Gadermann AM, Almas A, Schonert-Reichl KA, Hertzman C. Associations of teacher-rated social, emotional, and cognitive development in kindergarten to self-reported wellbeing, peer relations, and academic test scores in middle childhood. Early Child Res Q. 2016;35:76–84. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Hooker K, Fodor I. Teaching mindfulness to children. Gestalt Rev. 2008;12(1):75–91. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Hughes C, White N, Foley S, Devine RT. Family support and gains in school readiness: a longitudinal study. Br J Educ Psychol. 2018;88(2):284–99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Jensen JL, Goldstein J, Brunetti BA. Kindergarten readiness assessments help identify skill gaps. WestEd. 2021. Available from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED616031.pdf.
- 20.Kang D, Lee S, Liew J. Academic motivational resilience and teacher support: academic self-efficacy as a mediator. Eur J Psychol Educ. 2024;39(4):4417–35. [Google Scholar]
- 21.King LM, Lewis C, Ritchie DM, Carr C, Hart MW. Implementation of a teacher‐led mindfulness program in a low‐income pre‐and early‐elementary school as part of a trauma‐responsive, resilience‐building community initiative. J Community Psychol. 2021;49(6):1943–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Knothe M, Martí I. Mindfulness in physical education. J Phys Educ Recreat Dance. 2018;89(8):35–40. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Kuzujanakis M. Anxiety in today’s children and young adults. Gift Educ Int. 2021;37(1):54–66. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Li-Grining CP, Votruba-Drzal E, Maldonado-Carreño C, Haas K. Children’s early approaches to learning and academic trajectories through fifth grade. Dev Psychol. 2010;46(5):1062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Lutz A, Slagter H, Rawling N, Francis A, Greischar LL, Davidson RJ. Mental training enhances attentional stability: neural and behavioral evidence. J Neurosci. 2009;29:13418–27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.McCallum F, Price D. Well teachers, well students. J Stud Wellbeing. 2010;4(1):19–34. [Google Scholar]
- 27.McClelland MM, Tominey SL, Schmitt SA, Duncan R. SEL interventions in early childhood. Future Child. 2017;27(1):33–47. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Moffitt TE, Arseneault L, Belsky D, Dickson N, Hancox RJ, Harrington H, et al. A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108:2693–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Ponitz CC, McClelland MM, Matthews JS, Morrison FJ. A structured observation of behavioral selfregulation and its contribution to kindergarten outcomes. Dev Psychol. 2009;45:605–19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Rheinberg F, Engeser S. Intrinsic motivation and flow. In: Heckhausen J, Heckhausen H, editors. Motivation and action. 3rd ed. New York: Springer; 2018. p. 579–622. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Roeser RW, Greenberg MT, Frazier T, Galla BM, Semenov A, Warren MT. Beyond all splits: Envisioning the next generation of science on mindfulness and compassion in education. Mindfulness. 2023;14(2):239–54. 10.1007/s12671-022-02017-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Schonert-Reichl KA, Lawlor MS. The effects of a mindfulness-based education program on pre-and early adolescents’ well-being and social and emotional competence. Mindfulness. 2010;1(3):137–51. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Sibinga EM, Perry-Parrish C, Chung SE, Johnson SB, Smith M, Ellen JM. School-based mindfulness instruction for urban male youth: A small randomized controlled trial. Prev Med. 2013;57:799–801. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Thierry KL, Bryant HL, Nobles SS, Norris KS. Two-year impact of a mindfulness-based program on preschoolers’ self-regulation and academic performance. Early Educ Dev. 2016;27(6):805–21. [Google Scholar]
- 35.Wati AP, Sahid S. Factors ınfluencing parents’ awareness of children’education ınvestment: a systematic review. Sustainability. 2022;14(14):8326. [Google Scholar]
- 36.Zenner C, Herrnleben-Kurz S, Walach H. Mindfulness-based interventions in schools—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Psychol. 2014;5:89024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.