Evaluation of a PILOT School-Based Mindfulness Program in Primary Education

Abstract

In light of the increasing interest in integrating mindfulness techniques into educational contexts, it is essential to examine their potential cognitive and emotional benefits for the child population. Pilot investigation, analyzed in this paper, aimed to study and assess the impact of a structured mindfulness-based intervention on executive functioning and dispositional mindfulness in young learners. The intervention sample consisted of 14 fourth-grade pupils (mean age = 10 years), enrolled in a public primary school. Pre-test–intervention–post-test quasi-experimental design with two conditions was adopted. Executive functioning was assessed using the Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System subtests (D-KEFS), while trait mindfulness was assessed via the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ). Preliminary findings revealed statistically significant improvements in cognitive flexibility and inhibitory control, as well as qualitative changes in mindfulness trait levels post-intervention. The results suggest that mindfulness-based programs may represent a promising approach for fostering executive and emotional competencies in younger school-aged children, thereby contributing to their overall academic performance and psychological development. Further research employing larger and more heterogeneous samples, including active control conditions, is warranted to replicate these effects and explore the long-term efficacy of mindfulness interventions in school settings.

1. Theoretical Background

Mindfulness is a psychological construct referring to an open, accepting, and deliberate attention to present-moment experience (Creswell, 2017). Rooted in Buddhist contemplative traditions, mindfulness is traditionally understood as the capacity to sustain full awareness of one’s present experience while adopting a nonjudgmental stance toward it (Kabat-Zinn, 2003). Within the framework of Western psychology, mindfulness has evolved into a structured therapeutic approach, most commonly employed to promote mental health and psychological well-being (Segal et al., 2002; Khoury et al., 2013; Shankland et al., 2020; van Agteren et al., 2021), increasingly also through digital and mobile health applications (Linardon et al., 2023; Sommers-Spijkerman et al., 2021).

Kabat-Zinn (1994, pp. 3–4) defines mindfulness as “the awareness that arises by paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally.” This definition has gained broad acceptance in contemporary psychological literature and reflects the dual-component structure of mindfulness: attentional focus and non-evaluative awareness (Bishop et al., 2004).

Empirical research suggests that mindfulness practices may exert significant effects on both the structure and function of the brain. Neuroimaging studies have shown that mindfulness training can increase gray matter density in regions associated with learning and memory, emotional regulation, and self-awareness (Zhang et al., 2021; Hölzel et al., 2011), as well as with attentional control and pain modulation (Fox et al., 2016). In parallel, mindfulness interventions have been associated with reduced judgmental reactivity, lower depressive symptomatology, and enhanced acceptance-based coping (Zoogman et al., 2015; Dunning et al., 2022; Pickerell et al., 2023). Structural and functional changes—particularly in the prefrontal cortex and amygdala—are thought to underlie improvements in both cognitive control and emotional regulation, which, in turn, contribute to overall psychological well-being (Tang et al., 2015).

Mindfulness has also been increasingly recognized as a mechanism for strengthening processes of executive functioning—core cognitive processes that enable goal-directed behavior, attention regulation, and planning (Zeidan et al., 2010). Empirical findings indicate that mindfulness practice improves performance on tasks measuring cognitive flexibility, sustained attention (Heeren et al., 2009), task-switching, working memory (Xie et al., 2024), and inhibitory control (Bigelow et al., 2021). However, the relationship between mindfulness and executive functioning appears to be bidirectional. For instance, Butterfield and Roberts (2022) found that baseline levels of executive function moderated the effectiveness of mindfulness interventions in children, suggesting that individual cognitive capacities may influence responsiveness to such practices.

In recent years, mindfulness-based interventions have gained considerable popularity within elementary education as a means of supporting children’s emotional and social development (Dunning et al., 2022). These programs are typically tailored to the developmental and cognitive needs of young children, often incorporating brief and engaging activities designed to promote present-moment awareness and self-reflection (Meiklejohn et al., 2012). Research has shown that mindfulness programs for children may improve emotional regulation, enhance attention and concentration, and reduce symptoms of anxiety and stress (Sciutto et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2021; Zenner et al., 2014). A recent international meta-analysis further emphasized the role of mindfulness in promoting school adjustment, with documented benefits for attention, academic performance, impulsivity, and the development of dispositional mindfulness (Mettler et al., 2023).

Despite these encouraging outcomes, several limitations have been noted in the implementation of mindfulness programs in primary education. For instance, a systematic review by Mak et al. (2018) reported that many studies failed to specify who delivered the intervention, and where this information was provided, the instructors were often not trained in formal mindfulness practice. A widely used example is the Mind Yeti program, which has demonstrated improvements in executive functioning (Ritter & Alvarez, 2020), but relies on digital delivery, uses primarily questionnaire-based outcome measures, and lacks opportunities for guided reflection or real-time facilitation by experienced mindfulness instructors. Other programs, such as the mindful awareness practice (MAP) intervention (Flook et al., 2010), are considered time-intensive and may not align with the scheduling constraints of primary schools in contexts such as Slovakia.

In the context of the present study, three core components of executive functioning were selected as outcome variables: inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, and working memory. These components were chosen based on robust empirical links between mindfulness practice and improved performance in these domains (Zelazo & Lyons, 2012; Diamond, 2013). Inhibitory control refers to the ability to suppress automatic or impulsive responses and is commonly assessed using the Stroop task, which has been validated in both adult and child populations (MacLeod, 1991; Wright et al., 2003). Cognitive flexibility—the capacity to switch between mental sets or perspectives—is a key developmental milestone in middle childhood and was measured using the Trail Making Test (condition 4), which requires alternating attention between numerical and alphabetical sequences (Sánchez-Cubillo et al., 2009). Working memory, defined as the ability to temporarily store and manipulate information, is essential for academic learning and emotional regulation and was assessed through the Digit Span task (Alloway & Alloway, 2009).

Given prior research showing that mindfulness-based interventions can improve each of these executive functions (Jha et al., 2010; Flook et al., 2010; Tang et al., 2015), we expected that participation in the intervention would lead to greater improvements in inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, and working memory compared to the control group. These expectations are grounded in developmental and cognitive research suggesting that the prefrontal cortex—heavily implicated in executive functioning—continues to mature during middle childhood and is responsive to experiential training such as mindfulness (Diamond, 2013; Zelazo & Lyons, 2012).

In summary, we approached the research with the anticipation that students might benefit from the intervention along two main lines: (1) improvements in mental health, and (2) enhancements in the level of executive functioning. Mindfulness training aimed at enhancing executive functions can support students’ academic performance by strengthening abilities such as selective attention, inhibition, and cognitive flexibility. Executive functioning is typically stimulated through both domain-specific (e.g., mathematical or language-based) and domain-general (e.g., working memory training) cognitive programs; however, emerging evidence suggests that mindfulness-based interventions can also enhance cognitive capacities essential for academic success. Improvements in executive functioning have a direct transfer to the school context—skills such as maintaining attention, suppressing distractions, and responding deliberately are critical for effective learning and classroom performance.

2. Methods

The primary objective of this study was to investigate the effects of a mindfulness-based intervention on executive functions and trait mindfulness in children at the elementary level of education.

Research question: What is the effect of a mindfulness intervention on executive functioning and trait mindfulness in children enrolled in primary education?

Hypothesis: Participation in a mindfulness intervention will result in significant improvements in executive functioning and trait mindfulness.

2.1. Participants

Participants were recruited using a convenience sampling method from a fourth-grade class in a public primary school. Informed consent was obtained from all legal guardians prior to participation. Students with identified special educational needs were excluded to ensure a developmentally typical sample.

An initial total of 21 children were enrolled and randomly assigned to either an experimental group (n = 14) or a control group (n = 7). Children in the experimental group participated in the mindfulness intervention, while children in the control group received no intervention during the study period.

During the intervention, 7 children from the experimental group withdrew for various reasons (e.g., scheduling conflicts, illness), resulting in a final experimental sample of 7 children who completed both the intervention and pre-/post-assessments. All 7 children in the control group completed both assessments.

The final sample, therefore, consisted of 14 children (7 experimental, 7 control), all of whom underwent pre- and post-intervention testing.

2.2. Intervention Design

The structure of the intervention was based on the mindfulness curriculum developed by Flook et al. (2010), which organizes each session into three distinct segments: formal mindfulness meditation at the beginning and end, and a central component involving developmentally appropriate activities and games aligned with the session’s theme. Particular emphasis was placed on cultivating awareness of external sensory stimuli, in alignment with recommended outcome targets for school-based interventions (Mak et al., 2018). Each session lasted approximately 45 min and was delivered once per week after school hours, in a group format led by a certified mindfulness instructor.

The mindfulness intervention implemented in this study consisted of eight structured sessions, each with clearly defined thematic content and learning objectives. The sessions were designed to be developmentally appropriate and experientially grounded, emphasizing both formal meditation and interactive activities aimed at cultivating attention, emotional awareness, and self-regulation. Each session included (1) arrival and grounding (5 min), (2) main practice (10–15 min), (3) sharing (5 min), (4) creative follow-up (10–15 min, and (5) closing silent moment (5 min). The regular classroom teacher was not present during the sessions.

• The first session introduced participants to the concepts of thoughts and emotions, with the goal of fostering greater awareness of internal experiences. In the practical component, participants learned the “hand breathing” technique to anchor attention in the present moment, followed by a visualization-based belly breathing exercise involving an imaginary balloon, designed to enhance bodily awareness. This session primarily targeted attentional control and metacognitive awareness, which are foundational for inhibitory control (Zelazo & Lyons, 2012; Diamond, 2013) as measured by the Stroop test.
• The second session focused on the topic of stress and its somatic manifestations. Children engaged in a guided body scan meditation to help them identify areas of bodily tension and discomfort. In a subsequent creative activity, participants illustrated on a silhouette where they most often feel negative emotions, thereby externalizing their inner affective states. By increasing awareness of bodily tension and affective states, this session targeted emotional self-regulation and inhibitory control—capacities supported by mindfulness-based somatic practices (Farb et al., 2010; Tang et al., 2015).
• During the third session, participants explored their emotional states using the metaphor of weather to symbolically represent fluctuating moods. The session included a discussion on how thoughts about the past and future can influence present emotional experiences. The practical element involved a mindful listening exercise to promote sustained auditory attention and present-moment focus. The symbolic framing of emotions and the sustained auditory attention exercise aimed to strengthen cognitive flexibility and attentional regulation—skills associated with adaptive shifting and selective attention (Best & Miller, 2010; Zelazo & Lyons, 2012).
• In the fourth session, children were guided to observe their thoughts as if they were clouds passing through the sky—a metaphor used to foster cognitive decentering and emotional distance. This was followed by a formal thought-observation meditation encouraging curiosity and non-judgment. Participants were then introduced to the STOP technique (stop, take a breath, observe, proceed), which helps regulate responses to challenging mental events. This session emphasized cognitive decentering and impulse regulation, supporting both cognitive flexibility and inhibitory control—processes shown to improve through mindfulness-based cognitive strategies (Zelazo & Lyons, 2012; Dunning et al., 2022).
• The fifth session included a drawing exercise focused on visualizing one’s breath, helping participants to deepen their connection with respiration. Children also engaged in a symbolic activity—finding meaning in scribbles—to highlight the mind’s tendency to create narratives from abstract stimuli. Additional practices included “eagle breathing” and the “mountain meditation,” both aimed at cultivating emotional grounding and inner stability. Activities focusing on breath awareness and interpretation of ambiguous stimuli engaged attentional control and working memory—two core executive functions developed through focused attention practices (Jha et al., 2010; Quach et al., 2016).
• The sixth session centered on emotional expression through mindful visualization, helping children articulate and make sense of their feelings. The formal practice involved an acceptance meditation, which encourages openness to inner experiences without resistance. Group discussion emphasized the value of emotional acceptance for psychological resilience. The session fostered emotional regulation and openness to inner experience, reinforcing inhibitory control—a process associated with increased tolerance for emotional discomfort and reduced impulsivity (Hölzel et al., 2011; Roemer et al., 2015).
• In the seventh session, participants were encouraged to reflect on their positive qualities and aspects they appreciate about themselves, promoting self-awareness and self-acceptance. This session included a self-compassion meditation, as well as the RAIN technique (recognize, allow, investigate, and non-identify), designed to support emotional processing in moments of distress. Reflection on personal qualities and structured emotional processing promoted metacognitive insight and cognitive flexibility—both implicated in adaptive emotion regulation and thought reframing (Neff & Germer, 2013; Zelazo & Lyons, 2012).
• The final session involved an integrative discussion on how mindfulness techniques can be applied in daily life. The aim was to empower participants to independently utilize the practices in everyday situations, thereby supporting mental health, well-being, and emotional self-regulation beyond the context of the intervention. By encouraging independent application of techniques, this session engaged self-monitoring, decision-making, and flexible thinking—key components of executive functioning that support goal-directed behavior (Diamond, 2013; Duckworth et al., 2016).

This intervention was designed with the explicit aim of cultivating and strengthening participants’ mindfulness-related skills, thereby enhancing their capacity to manage stress and negative emotions. Ultimately, the program sought to promote the development of emotional self-regulation and adaptive coping strategies. Although each session was designed to target specific executive functions, the program as a whole aimed to support broader self-regulatory and attentional capacities associated with dispositional mindfulness.

Table 1. Summary of Intervention Sessions, Targeted Executive Functions, and Outcome Measures.

Session	Core Activities	Targeted Executive Functions (Measured)	Associated Outcome Measures
1. Awareness of thoughts and emotions	Hand breathing; balloon visualization	Inhibitory control	Stroop subtest 4
2. Bodily stress awareness	Body scan; emotion mapping on silhouette	Inhibitory control	Stroop subtest 4
3. Emotional variability and listening	Weather metaphor; mindful listening exercise	Cognitive flexibility	TMT; Stroop subtest 5
4. Observing thoughts and STOP technique	Thought observation meditation; STOP technique	Inhibitory control; cognitive flexibility	Stroop subtests 4 and 5; TMT
5. Grounding and interpretation	Breath drawing; scribble interpretation; eagle breathing	Working memory; inhibitory control	Digit Span; Stroop subtest 4
6. Acceptance of emotions	Emotional visualization; acceptance meditation	Inhibitory control	Stroop subtest 4
7. Self-reflection and RAIN	Self-compassion meditation; RAIN technique	Cognitive flexibility	TMT; Stroop subtest 5
8. Integration and transfer	Daily-life application discussion; reflection	Cognitive flexibility	TMT

provides an overview of the eight intervention sessions, specifying the core activities, the executive functions explicitly targeted in each session, and the associated cognitive measures used to assess these outcomes.

In summary, we approached the research with the anticipation that students might benefit from the intervention along two main lines: (1) improvements in well-being, and (2) enhancements in the level of executive functioning. Mindfulness training aimed at enhancing executive functions can support students’ academic performance by strengthening abilities such as selective attention, inhibition, and cognitive flexibility. Executive functioning is typically stimulated through both domain-specific (e.g., mathematical or language-based) and domain-general (e.g., working memory training) cognitive programs; however, emerging evidence suggests that mindfulness-based interventions can also enhance cognitive capacities essential for academic success. Improvements in executive functioning would have a direct transfer to the school context—skills such as maintaining attention, suppressing distractions, and responding deliberately are critical for effective learning and classroom performance.

2.3. Measurement Instruments

To evaluate the effectiveness of the mindfulness intervention and its impact on participants’ executive functions and trait mindfulness, the following standardized assessment tools were employed:

• Trail Making Test (TMT, part of Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System battery). The Trail Making Test is a widely used neuropsychological assessment designed to evaluate core executive functions, including cognitive flexibility, processing speed, and attentional shifting. The full version of the test comprises five subtests. For the purposes of the present study, Subtest 4 was utilized, which requires participants to alternate their attention between numerical and alphabetical sequences (e.g., 1-A-2-B...), thus placing high demands on set-shifting and mental flexibility. The outcome variable was the total completion time, measured in seconds. Higher scores reflect slower performance and thus lower executive functioning (Delis et al., 2001).
• Color–word interference test (part of Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System battery): The test represents a version of the Stroop test, a standard neuropsychological instrument used to assess attentional control and the ability to inhibit automatic responses. During the task, participants are presented with color words printed in incongruent ink colors (e.g., the word “red” printed in blue ink), and are instructed to name the ink color rather than read the word itself. This task engages inhibitory control, as reading the word is the more automatic response. For the purposes of this study, Subtest 5 was used to assess cognitive flexibility, while Subtest 4 was used to assess inhibitory control (Delis et al., 2001). The D-KEFS test battery was adapted for use with the Slovak population, and the psychometric characteristics were tested and described by Ferjenčík et al. (2014). The outcome variable was the total completion time in seconds. Higher completion times reflect lower inhibitory control and executive functioning.
• Digit Span Test (DS): The Digit Span Test, a component of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale, assesses both short-term memory and working memory—key elements of executive functioning. The test comprises two sections: in the first, participants are asked to repeat sequences of digits in the same order (forward span), and in the second, to repeat them in reverse order (backward span), which places greater demands on working memory by requiring active manipulation of the information. Performance on this task provides a measure of an individual’s capacity to retain and mentally process information. The outcome variable was the sum of correctly recalled digit sequences across both forward and backward conditions. Higher scores reflect better working memory performance.
• Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ-39):
  The FFMQ-39 is a self-report instrument designed to measure trait mindfulness as a multidimensional construct. It consists of 39 items that assess five distinct facets of mindfulness: (1) observing (awareness of internal and external experiences), (2) describing (ability to label experiences with words), (3) acting with awareness (attentional control and conscious behavior), (4) nonjudging of inner experience (absence of evaluative reactions to thoughts and emotions), and (5) nonreactivity to inner experience (ability to allow thoughts and emotions to arise and pass without becoming entangled in them). This instrument is widely used to assess the effects of mindfulness-based interventions and is particularly sensitive to changes in dispositional mindfulness. The Slovak version of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ-39; Látalová & Pilárik, 2014) was used in the current study. Although this version has been validated for the adult Slovak population, it has not yet been adapted or validated for children. To ensure its appropriateness for younger participants, a pilot procedure was conducted with 10-year-old students (n = 15) to evaluate item comprehension. The participants completed the questionnaire and participated in unstructured interviews focused on their interpretation of individual items. No substantial comprehension issues were identified, and the adult version was therefore retained for use without linguistic modifications. The questionnaire includes 39 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never true) to 5 (almost always true). Only the total mindfulness score was used in the present analysis, calculated as the sum of all item scores. Standard negatively worded items (Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 26, 28, 30, 36, and 39) were reverse-coded according to the original scoring procedure by Baer et al. (2006). Higher total scores reflect higher levels of dispositional (trait) mindfulness. Internal consistency in the present sample was high (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.905).

Each of these instruments was selected based on its demonstrated reliability and validity in assessing key components of executive functioning and trait mindfulness relevant to the aims of the present study. The data obtained through these measures provides a comprehensive basis for evaluating the effectiveness of the mindfulness intervention and its impact on participants’ executive and emotional functioning.

2.4. Procedure

This study employed a quasi-experimental design. Data collection was conducted at two time points: prior to the onset of the mindfulness intervention (pre-test) and immediately following its completion (post-test). As mentioned, Informed consent was obtained from participants’ legal guardians prior to inclusion in the study.

Participants received a brief verbal orientation explaining the purpose of the study and the tasks involved. All instructions were delivered orally, and participants were given the opportunity to ask questions to ensure full comprehension of the procedures.

All assessment instruments were administered individually to ensure that students fully understood each question and its terminology. This approach was intended to prevent possible misunderstandings by allowing clarifications if necessary. However, no such situations occurred, and children demonstrated sufficient comprehension of all items. The student testing lasted approximately 60 min. The intervention was implemented by an experienced certified mindfulness lecturer, who is a psychologist currently involved in doctoral studies in the Teaching and Educational Sciences program. The intervention was implemented in a school environment, in a room allowing free movement and lying on a mat, as an extracurricular activity.

Informal, post-intervention interviews were conducted with the participants in the experimental group to explore their subjective experience of the mindfulness program. These unstructured conversations were led by the researcher who also delivered the intervention, which may have influenced participants’ responses. Notes were taken during and after the interviews. The aim was not to conduct a formal qualitative analysis but to gain exploratory insights that could inform interpretation of the quantitative data and guide future research.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

To evaluate the effectiveness of the mindfulness intervention and its impact on executive functioning and trait mindfulness, multiple statistical procedures were employed. The primary analytical approach was repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), which allows for the comparison of intra-individual changes over time (i.e., pre- vs. post-intervention) while simultaneously assessing whether these changes differ between the experimental and control groups. This method enabled the examination of the main effect of time, the main effect of group, and the time * group interaction, the latter of which is particularly informative when assessing differential changes in outcomes between the intervention and control groups.

Although the small sample size limits the power of parametric analyses, we opted to retain repeated-measures ANOVA and ANCOVA due to their widespread use in similar studies and relative robustness to violations of normality in small samples. The aim of this pilot study was exploratory, and findings should be interpreted with caution. Future studies with larger samples should consider complementing parametric methods with non-parametric alternatives.

Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was employed as a complementary method to control for baseline differences between groups. When initial scores differed across groups, ANCOVA allowed for adjustment of post-intervention scores by statistically controlling for pre-intervention performance, thereby providing a more accurate estimation of the intervention’s independent effect. Each ANCOVA model included the pre-test score as a covariate, the post-test score as the dependent variable, and group membership as the independent factor.

To further explore between-group and within-subject differences across time points, post hoc comparisons were conducted using Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test. Interpretation of the findings was guided not only by statistical significance (p-values), but also by effect sizes (η²), which provide information on the practical relevance of the observed effects.

In addition, Kendall’s tau-b correlation analysis was performed to assess the relationship between baseline scores and the magnitude of change (i.e., delta scores). This analysis provided insight into the extent to which initial performance levels influenced the degree of improvement following the intervention.

All statistical analyses were conducted using the Jamovi statistical software platform (Version 2.3.28.0).

3. Results

Descriptive statistics for the outcome variables are presented separately for the pre-test (

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for pre-test scores in experimental and control groups (mean and standard deviation).

	Group	TMT_switching_raw Score	STROOP_SWITCH_TIME	STROOP_INH_TIME	DS_sum	FFMQ1
Mean	experimental	119	79.0	79.4	13.3	120
	control	96.9	80.5	75.5	11.8	118
Standard deviation	experimental	28.5	22.2	22.6	3.04	5.76
	control	22.3	5.71	14.1	1.91	5.55

) and post-test (

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for post-test scores in experimental and control groups (mean and standard deviation).

	Group	2TMT_switching_raw Score	2STROOP_SWITCH_TIME	2STROOP_INH_TIME	2DS_sum	FFMQ2
Mean	experimental	82.1	66.4	63.7	12.6	133
	control	93.9	80.5	74.9	11.5	116
Standard deviation	experimental	8.61	18.1	15.5	1.51	4.78
	control	24.8	6.39	14.0	1.85	5.06

).

3.1. Cognitive Flexibility

• Trail Making Test—Subtest 4

Within-Subjects Effects. Repeated measures ANOVA revealed a statistically significant main effect of time, F(1,13) = 16.3, p = 0.001, η² = 0.164, indicating an overall improvement in performance from pre- to post-intervention across participants. Additionally, a significant time * group interaction was observed, F(1,13) = 11.8, p = 0.004, η² = 0.118, suggesting that changes over time differed between the experimental and control groups—suggesting that the magnitude of change over time differed between the intervention and control groups.

Between-Subjects Effects. The main effect of group was not statistically significant, F(1,13) = 0.266, p = 0.614, η² = 0.012, indicating no substantial difference in overall mean performance between groups when collapsing across time points. Nevertheless, the significant interaction effect underscores divergent trajectories of change attributable to group assignment.

Post Hoc Analysis. As shown in

Table 4. Post hoc comparisons—TMT task switching (Time * Group Interaction).

Comparison	Time	Group	Time	Group	Mean Difference	SE	df	t	p_tukey
	Pre	1	-	Pre 2	22.55	13.11	13.0	1.720	0.353
	-	Post 1			37.29	7.28	13.0	5.119	<0.001
	-	Post 2			25.55	11.71	13.0	2.182	0.180
	2	-	Post 1		14.73	11.50	13.0	1.281	0.590
	-	Post 2			3.00	6.81	13.0	0.440	0.970
	Post	1	-	Post 2	−11.73	9.88	13.0	−1.187	0.645

Note: 1 = Experimental group; 2 = Control group.

, Tukey’s HSD post hoc comparisons revealed a statistically significant difference between pre- and post-intervention scores in the experimental group (Group 1), t(13) = 5.119, p < 0.001, with a mean improvement of 37.29 points (SE = 7.28). No other comparisons—either between groups or across time points in the control group—were statistically significant (p > 0.05), suggesting that the observed improvement was specific to participants who received the mindfulness intervention.

To account for potential baseline differences in performance, an additional ANCOVA was conducted with TMT_switching_after as the dependent variable and TMT_switching_before as the covariate. The overall model was statistically significant, F(2,12) = 5.68, p = 0.018, indicating that the combination of baseline performance and group membership significantly predicted post-intervention outcomes.

The covariate (TMT_switching_before) exerted a statistically significant effect, F(1,12) = 9.08, p = 0.011, η² = 0.322, reflecting a medium-sized effect (

Table 5. ANCOVA results—Trail Making Test (Subtest 4: switching)—post-intervention performance.

	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	p	η2
Overall model	3634	2	1817	5.68	0.018
TMT_switching_before	2041	1	2041	9.08	0.011	0.322
Group	1593	1	1593	7.09	0.021	0.252
Residuals	2697	12	225

). Group membership also had a significant effect, F(1,12) = 7.09, p = 0.021, η² = 0.252, confirming that differences between the experimental and control groups remained significant even after adjusting for initial performance. These results further support the effectiveness of the mindfulness intervention in enhancing cognitive flexibility among children.

Kendall’s tau-b correlation analysis revealed a moderately strong positive association between the baseline score and the delta score (i.e., the difference between pre- and post-intervention performance), τ = 0.437, p = 0.025. This statistically significant correlation supports the hypothesis that initial performance levels positively influenced the degree of improvement observed following the intervention.

• Stroop Test—Subtest 5

Repeated Measures ANOVA. To assess the impact of the intervention on task-switching ability, a repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted. The results indicated a statistically significant main effect of time, F(1,13) = 11.1, p = 0.005, η² = 0.045, suggesting overall improvement in performance from pre- to post-intervention across participants.

A significant time * group interaction was also observed, F(1,13) = 11.1, p = 0.005, η² = 0.045, indicating that the pattern of change over time differed between the experimental and control groups, suggesting that the observed improvements may be associated with the intervention.

In contrast, the main effect of group was not statistically significant, F(1,13) = 1.15, p = 0.302, η² = 0.070, suggesting that, when averaged across time points, no meaningful differences in task-switching performance were observed between groups.

Post Hoc Analysis. As shown in

Table 6. Post hoc comparisons—Stroop Test (Subtest 5: Task Switching)—Tukey’s HSD Results.

Comparison	Time	Group	Time	Group	Mean Difference	SE	df	t	p_tukey
	Pre	1	-	Pre 2	−1.50	8.10	13.0	−0.185	0.998
	-	Post 1			12.57	2.76	13.0	4.553	0.003
	-	Post 2			−1.50	7.53	13.0	−0.199	0.997
	2	-	Post 1		14.07	7.45	13.0	1.890	0.279
	-	Post 2			1.81 × 10−14	2.58	13.0	7.01 × 10−15	1.000
	Post	1	-	Post 2	−14.07	6.82	13.0	−2.062	0.216

Note: 1 = Experimental group; 2 = Control group.

, post hoc comparisons (Tukey’s HSD) revealed that the significant improvement occurred exclusively within the experimental group (Group 1), with a pre- to post-intervention difference of t(13) = 4.553, p = 0.003, and a mean improvement of 12.57 points (SE = 2.76). All other comparisons—including changes over time in the control group and between-group differences at each time point—were not statistically significant (p > 0.05), indicating that the observed enhancement in task-switching performance was specific to participants who underwent the mindfulness intervention.

Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA). To account for baseline differences in task-switching performance, an ANCOVA was conducted with STROOP_switching_after as the dependent variable and STROOP_switching_before as the covariate (

Table 7. ANCOVA results—Stroop Test (Subtest 5: task switching)—post-intervention scores adjusted for baseline performance.

	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	p	η2
Overall model	2396	2	1197.9	30.8	<0.001
STROOP_switching_before	1771	1	1771.2	43.5	<0.001	0.614
Group	625	1	624.7	15.3	0.002	0.217
Residuals	489	12	40.7

). The overall model was statistically significant, F(2,12) = 30.8, p < 0.001, indicating that the combination of baseline performance and group assignment significantly explained variance in post-intervention outcomes.

The covariate (STROOP_switching_before) showed a very strong effect, F(1,12) = 43.5, p < 0.001, η² = 0.614, highlighting the substantial role of initial performance in predicting post-intervention results. Additionally, the effect of group was statistically significant, F(1,12) = 15.3, p = 0.002, η² = 0.217, suggesting that differences between the experimental and control groups remained robust even after adjusting for pre-intervention scores.

Kendall’s tau-b correlation analysis did not reveal a statistically significant association between baseline scores and the delta scores (i.e., the change from pre- to post-intervention), τ = 0.039, p = 0.421. This result does not support the hypothesis that initial performance levels positively influenced the degree of improvement.

3.2. Inhibitory Control

• Stroop Test—Subtest 4

Repeated Measures ANOVA. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the effect of the intervention on inhibitory control. The analysis revealed a statistically significant main effect of time, F(1,13) = 10.27, p = 0.007, η² = 0.060, indicating an overall improvement in performance from pre- to post-intervention across groups. A significant time * group interaction was also observed, F(1,13) = 8.76, p = 0.011, η² = 0.051, suggesting that the trajectory of change over time differed between the experimental and control groups.

In contrast, the main effect of group was not statistically significant, F(1,13) = 0.192, p = 0.669, η² = 0.012, implying that average performance did not differ significantly between groups when time was not considered.

Post Hoc Analysis. As shown in

Table 8. Tukey’s post hoc comparisons—Stroop Test (Subtest 4: inhibitory control)—Time × Group Interaction.

Comparison	Time	Group	Time	Group	Mean Difference	SE	df	t	p_tukey
	Pre	1	-	Pre 2	3.929	9.57	13.0	0.411	0.976
	-	Post 1			15.714	3.72	13.0	4.221	0.005
	-	Post 2			4.554	8.71	13.0	0.523	0.952
	2	-	Post 1		11.786	8.58	13.0	1.374	0.536
	-	Post 2			0.625	3.48	13.0	0.179	0.998
	Post	1	-	Post 2	−11.161	7.61	13.0	−1.467	0.483

, follow-up Tukey post hoc comparisons revealed that a significant improvement occurred exclusively in the experimental group (Group 1), where the pre- to post-intervention difference reached t(13) = 4.221, p = 0.005, with a mean difference of 15.714 points (SE = 3.72). No other comparisons—including changes within the control group and between-group differences—were statistically significant (p > 0.05), suggesting that the observed improvement in inhibitory control can be attributed to the mindfulness intervention.

Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA). To further examine the effect of the intervention while controlling for baseline differences, an ANCOVA was conducted with post-intervention inhibitory control performance as the dependent variable and baseline scores as the covariate (

Table 9. ANCOVA results for post-intervention inhibitory control (Stroop Test—Subtest 4).

	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	p	η2
Overall model	2721	2	1360.7	18.9	<0.001
STROOP_inhibition_before	2019	1	2018.6	30.7	<0.001	0.575
Group	703	1	702.8	10.7	0.007	0.200
Residuals	790	12	65.8

). The overall model was statistically significant, F(2,12) = 18.9, p < 0.001, indicating that the combined predictors significantly explained variance in post-intervention outcomes.

The covariate (STROOP_inhibition_before) had a significant effect, F(1,12) = 30.7, p < 0.001, η² = 0.575, suggesting that baseline inhibitory control strongly influenced post-intervention performance. Additionally, the effect of group was also statistically significant, F(1,12) = 10.7, p = 0.007, η² = 0.200, indicating that differences between the experimental and control groups remained even after adjusting for baseline scores.

Kendall’s Tau Correlation Analysis. Kendall’s tau-b correlation analysis did not reveal a statistically significant association between baseline performance and the change in scores (delta score), τ = 0.039, p = 0.421. This result does not support the hypothesis that the initial performance level influenced the extent of improvement following the intervention.

3.3. Working Memory

• Digit Span Task

Repeated Measures ANOVA. To assess the effect of the mindfulness intervention on working memory, a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted. The analysis revealed that the main effect of time was not statistically significant, F(1,13) = 1.004, p = 0.335, η² = 0.013, indicating no meaningful change in working memory performance across time points.

Similarly, the time * group interaction was not statistically significant, F(1,13) = 0.233, p = 0.637, η² = 0.003, suggesting that changes in performance over time did not differ significantly between the experimental and control groups. The main effect of group, as examined in the between-subjects analysis, was also not significant, F(1,13) = 1.71, p = 0.213, η² = 0.095.

Post Hoc Analysis. As shown in

Table 10. Post hoc comparisons of working memory scores (Digit Span) by Time * Group Interaction.

Comparison	Time	Group	Time	Group	Mean Difference	SE	df	t	p_tukey
	Pre	1	-	Pre 2	1.536	1.291	13.0	1.189	0.644
	-	Post 1			0.714	0.703	13.0	1.017	0.743
	-	Post 2			1.786	1.119	13.0	1.596	0.414
	2	-	Post 1		−0.821	1.092	13.0	−0.752	0.874
	-	Post 2			0.250	0.657	13.0	0.380	0.980
	Post	1	-	Post 2	1.071	0.882	13.0	1.215	0.628

Note: 1 = Experimental group; 2 = Control group.

, Tukey post hoc comparisons did not reveal any statistically significant differences across time points or between groups (p > 0.05 in all comparisons). The highest t value was observed for the comparison between pre- and post-intervention scores within the experimental group, t(13) = 1.215, p = 0.628; however, this difference did not reach statistical significance.

Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA). To evaluate the effect of the intervention while controlling for baseline performance, an ANCOVA was conducted with post-intervention Digit Span scores (DS_after) as the dependent variable and pre-intervention scores (DS_before) as the covariate (

Table 11. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for post-intervention working memory scores (Digit Span).

	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	p	η2
Overall model	17.252	2	8.626	6.041	0.015
DS_before	16.786	1	16.786	9.625	0.009	0.440
Group	0.466	1	0.466	0.267	0.615	0.012
Residuals	20.929	12	1.744

). The overall model was statistically significant, F(2,12) = 6.041, p = 0.015, indicating that the predictors collectively explained a significant portion of the variance in post-intervention outcomes.

The covariate (DS_before) exerted a statistically significant effect, F(1,12) = 9.625, p = 0.009, η² = 0.440, reflecting a moderate influence of baseline working memory on post-intervention performance.

In contrast, the effect of group membership was not statistically significant, F(1,12) = 0.267, p = 0.615, η² = 0.012, suggesting that—after controlling for initial performance—no meaningful differences were observed between the experimental and control groups.

3.4. Trait Mindfulness

• Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ)

To evaluate the effect of the mindfulness intervention on levels of trait mindfulness, a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted. The results revealed a statistically significant main effect of time, F(1,13) = 14.4, p = 0.002, η² = 0.113, indicating that participants’ mindfulness scores significantly changed over time.

Moreover, a statistically significant time * group interaction was observed, F(1,13) = 24.1, p < 0.001, η² = 0.189, suggesting divergent trajectories of change in mindfulness levels between the experimental and control groups.

Additionally, the between-subjects main effect of group was significant, F(1,13) = 17.0, p = 0.001, η² = 0.337, indicating substantial differences in overall mindfulness scores between the two groups.

Post hoc analyses (Tukey’s HSD). As shown in

Table 12. Post hoc comparisons for interaction effect (Time * Group)—mindfulness trait (FFMQ).

Comparison	Time	Group	Time	Group	Mean Difference	SE	df	t	p_tukey
	Pre	1	-	Pre 2	2.39	2.92	13.0	0.819	0.845
	-	Post 1			−12.71	2.13	13.0	−5.966	<0.001
	-	Post 2			4.02	2.75	13.0	1.458	0.488
	2	-	Post 1		−15.11	2.73	13.0	−5.533	<0.001
	-	Post 2			1.63	1.99	13.0	0.815	0.846
	Post	1	-	Post 2	16.73	2.55	13.0	6.560	<0.001

Note: 1 = Experimental group; 2 = Control group.

, post hoc comparisons indicated that a statistically significant improvement occurred only within the experimental group, t(13) = –5.966, p < 0.001 (mean difference = –12.71, SE = 2.13). No significant change was detected in the control group (p > 0.05). Furthermore, between-group comparisons following the intervention revealed a marked advantage in favor of the experimental group, t(13) = 6.560, p < 0.001 (mean difference = 16.73, SE = 2.55).

Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA). To control for baseline differences in trait mindfulness, an ANCOVA was conducted with post-intervention FFMQ scores as the dependent variable and pre-intervention FFMQ scores as the covariate (

Table 13. ANCOVA results for post-intervention mindfulness trait (FFMQ) controlling for baseline scores.

	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	p	η2
Overall model	948.8	2	474.4	26.00	<0.001
FFMQ_before	60.5	1	60.5	2.85	0.117	0.050
Group	888.2	1	888.2	41.77	<0.001	0.738
Residuals	255.2	12	21.3

).

The overall model was highly statistically significant, F(2,12) = 26.00, p < 0.001, indicating that the combination of group membership and baseline mindfulness significantly predicted post-intervention mindfulness levels.

The group effect remained statistically significant even after adjusting for baseline differences, F(1,12) = 41.77, p < 0.001, with a large effect size (η² = 0.738). This result suggests a robust effect of the mindfulness intervention on trait mindfulness.

In contrast, the covariate (FFMQ_before) was not statistically significant, F(1,12) = 2.85, p = 0.117, η² = 0.050, indicating that post-intervention outcomes were not meaningfully influenced by initial levels of mindfulness.

Qualitative Observations

To complement the quantitative findings, informal post-intervention interviews were conducted with participants from the experimental group. Several consistent themes emerged. All participants described the intervention as a novel experience, noting that they had never previously encountered practices in school that addressed thoughts and emotions directly. Many reported that they had learned to observe their emotions more objectively and felt less compelled to believe every thought that crossed their mind. Several children described using specific techniques, such as the RAIN method, to calm themselves before a test or to improve concentration during lessons. Participants also noted increased awareness of their internal experiences and surroundings—such as noticing nature, other people, or their own emotional states—with some expressing curiosity and interest in “getting to know themselves better.”

4. Discussion and Conclusions

This pilot study aimed to examine the effects of a mindfulness-based intervention on executive functioning and trait mindfulness in young children. The findings provide evidence of significant improvements in several targeted cognitive domains. Specifically, the intervention group demonstrated marked enhancements in task-switching and inhibitory control, suggesting that mindfulness techniques may serve as effective tools for supporting key executive functioning in young learners.

These results are consistent with previous research demonstrating associations between mindfulness practice and improvements in executive functioning (Heeren et al., 2009; Zeidan et al., 2010). The most robust gains were observed in task-switching and inhibition, functions that are crucial for adaptive self-regulation and academic performance. Neuroimaging studies (Zhang et al., 2021; Hölzel et al., 2011) further support these behavioral findings by showing that mindfulness training can enhance activity in prefrontal regions and modulate the amygdala, thereby promoting attentional control and emotional regulation.

In contrast, no statistically significant changes were observed in working memory performance. This aligns with prior findings suggesting that the efficacy of mindfulness may be moderated by individual differences in baseline executive function capacities (Butterfield & Roberts, 2022). Additionally, it is possible that the limited duration of the intervention or the developmental plasticity of working memory systems may have constrained the detectability of short-term effects.

A significant post-intervention increase was observed in trait mindfulness, as measured by the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ). Participants reported greater attentional awareness and a less judgmental attitude toward internal experiences. These outcomes are consistent with previous studies highlighting the cognitive and emotional benefits of sustained mindfulness practice (Shankland et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2015). The observed gains may reflect improved emotional self-regulation and enhanced stress processing capacities, as supported by prior evidence (Dunning et al., 2022; Pickerell et al., 2023; Zenner et al., 2014).

To better understand the mechanisms behind these quantitative outcomes, we conducted post-intervention interviews. Informal post-intervention interviews with the experimental group revealed that participants perceived the program as highly novel and engaging. Several children reported that they had never previously reflected on their thoughts and emotions in a structured way. They described learning to observe emotions from a distance, question their automatic thoughts, and apply specific strategies to manage stress or improve focus. Some participants mentioned feeling calmer before tests, more attentive during lessons, and more aware of their internal and external experiences. These anecdotal experiences may be interpreted through the lens of executive functioning: recognizing and naming emotions can support metacognitive awareness, distancing from automatic thoughts relates to cognitive flexibility and inhibitory control, and applying structured techniques such as RAIN reflects improvements in attentional control and emotional regulation (Zelazo & Lyons, 2012; Tang et al., 2015). Several of these abilities are core components of executive functioning and have been shown to benefit from mindfulness training, especially in youth populations (Schonert-Reichl & Lawlor, 2010). Although no formal coding procedure was used, the interview records were reviewed for recurring themes and representative statements. These self-reported experiences resonate with the observed improvements in trait mindfulness and executive functioning. The fact that participants reported noticing thoughts and emotions more consciously, applying self-regulation strategies, and expressing increased self-awareness suggests meaningful internalization of the mindfulness principles taught during the program. For instance, the introduction of RAIN as a structured emotional regulation tool appeared to resonate strongly with children, many of whom reported applying it in real-life situations, such as test anxiety. One child noted, “When I get scared before a test, I remember to breathe and tell myself the thought is not true,” while another said, “I started noticing how I feel, and I don’t have to react right away.” These statements illustrate how abstract mindfulness principles were internalized in developmentally appropriate ways. This aligns with findings from Zoogman et al. (2015), who observed that mindfulness-based strategies improved children’s perceived ability to manage emotionally challenging academic scenarios. Although exploratory in nature, these qualitative observations offer valuable insight into the potential mechanisms behind the quantitative effects and support the feasibility of mindfulness-based interventions in primary education settings. Based on these insights, future interventions might benefit from incorporating follow-up reflections, journaling, or guided discussions to deepen metacognitive awareness. Such integrative elements have been linked to stronger long-term outcomes in mindfulness programs with youth (Felver et al., 2016). In line with these findings, other studies have emphasized the value of including reflective discussions and opportunities for experiential learning within school-based mindfulness programs, particularly for younger children who benefit from explicit guidance and scaffolding (Greenberg & Harris, 2012). These elements may have contributed to the high level of engagement reported by participants.

Despite these promising findings, several limitations should be acknowledged. The small sample size limits the generalizability of the results, and future studies should aim to include larger and more diverse cohorts. Given the small sample size and high dropout rate, this study is best interpreted as a preliminary exploration of feasibility and potential effects, rather than a definitive efficacy trial. During the course of the intervention, seven participants withdrew for various reasons, resulting in a final sample of seven pupils. In the middle of the intervention, it was not methodologically appropriate to integrate additional children into the experimental group. Despite the significant experimental mortality, we decided to continue the research. In addition, this experience allowed us to identify factors that influence the drop-out of subjects in the future planned experiment with experimental and control groups. After all, the intention of the pilot study was to track all contextual factors of the intervention: to design a mindfulness intervention for students, to monitor students’ reactions, to obtain feedback on how to modify instructions during the intervention, and to monitor the appropriateness of the time aspects of the intervention. Another methodological limitation is that the post-intervention interviews were conducted by the same person who led the intervention, which may have introduced social desirability bias in participants’ responses. However, given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, these informal observations still offer valuable contextual insight. Further research is also warranted to explore individual factors that may moderate the impact of mindfulness, such as baseline stress levels or prior experience with contemplative practices. While the FFMQ-39 is not specifically validated for children in Slovakia, the high internal consistency observed in our sample (α = 0.905) supports its preliminary applicability in this age group. Nonetheless, further adaptation and psychometric validation of the scale for child populations is warranted. Another limitation involves the use of parametric statistical procedures with a small sample size. While the tests employed are considered relatively robust, the findings require replication using more conservative non-parametric analyses in future research. These findings are consistent with an emerging body of research suggesting that even brief mindfulness interventions can enhance classroom climate and emotional self-regulation among children (Zenner et al., 2014). Embedding such programs within regular curricular activities, rather than as add-ons, may maximize feasibility and sustainability (Meiklejohn et al., 2012).

The observed improvements may suggest that developmentally appropriate mindfulness practices could serve as accessible tools for fostering psychological well-being and may be feasibly integrated by school psychologists and educators into broader school-based well-being strategies. Given the low cost, adaptability, and potential cognitive and emotional benefits, such programs may serve as accessible support tools for enhancing self-regulation and executive functioning in school-aged children. Importantly, the primary school years represent a sensitive developmental period in which executive functions are rapidly maturing (Best & Miller, 2010). Mindfulness interventions may therefore capitalize on this neuroplasticity window to scaffold skills such as attention, emotional regulation, and metacognitive awareness in a lasting way. Future research should continue to explore the long-term effects of such interventions and their influence on a broader spectrum of child executive and emotional capacities. These preliminary results may reflect the way mindfulness training enhances top-down regulatory pathways by strengthening prefrontal cortical regions involved in attention and inhibition (Hölzel et al., 2011; Tang et al., 2015). By cultivating a non-judgmental stance toward internal experiences, children may develop the capacity to pause before reacting, reframe distressing thoughts, and redirect attention—skills that are directly linked to academic performance and social-emotional resilience (Flook et al., 2010). While this was a small-scale study, the alignment of our findings with previous classroom-based mindfulness research (e.g., Zenner et al., 2014) supports careful consideration of broader implementation in school settings. School psychologists may deliver group mindfulness interventions, with a recommended maximum of 10 students per group—especially for participants with no prior mindfulness experience. As familiarity increases, group size can be gradually scaled up to match typical classroom sizes. Smaller group formats not only support emotional safety and individual engagement, but also allow the psychologist to observe emerging behavioral patterns—such as shifts in attention, emotional expression, or peer interactions—which can enrich future individualized support and intervention planning (Zenner et al., 2014). For example, school psychologists can observe whether children are able to apply mindful strategies in situational stressors (e.g., before tests or during conflict), and tailor subsequent guidance accordingly. In practice, schools could begin with simple, low-threshold strategies—such as short breathing pauses before cognitively demanding tasks, reflective check-ins during circle time, or structured emotional labeling after conflicts. Teachers can be trained to deliver brief mindfulness moments embedded into daily routines—such as beginning the day with grounding, or incorporating mindful listening during group work. Previous studies show that when teachers consistently model mindful behavior, it fosters a more emotionally regulated classroom climate (Jennings et al., 2013). Thus, mindfulness may benefit not only students but also support teacher well-being and improve classroom management. Teachers themselves may also benefit from basic training that enables them to integrate brief mindfulness activities (such as 2-min breathing pauses or body scans) at key moments during the school day. For researchers, these results underscore the importance of linking intervention content with developmentally sensitive outcomes and combining quantitative and qualitative data to better understand change mechanisms. Qualitative feedback proved particularly valuable in identifying which mindfulness strategies (e.g., emotional labeling, distancing from thoughts) children found most intuitive and applicable. For practitioners, especially school psychologists and educators, the integration of mindfulness must consider contextual feasibility, cultural adaptability, and the need for professional training. This is particularly relevant in the Central European context, where school-based mindfulness interventions remain relatively rare and under-researched. In this pilot, we deliberately prioritized ecological validity—embedding the intervention in a real-world school setting with minimal artificial constraints. While this may limit strict scientific control, it offers valuable insights into feasibility, cultural fit, and real-life application, which are critical for long-term sustainability and acceptance in regional educational systems. A pilot program’s success is not only determined by statistical outcomes but also by the perceived relevance, emotional resonance, and practical usability of its components by young participants. To conclude, we entered the study with the hypothesis that students might benefit from the intervention in two key domains: (1) increased psychological well-being and (2) strengthened executive functioning. Mindfulness-based interventions targeting executive processes hold promise for enhancing academic performance by cultivating essential cognitive skills such as sustained attention, inhibitory control, and mental flexibility. Although executive functioning is commonly developed through both domain-specific (e.g., subject-based learning) and domain-general (e.g., cognitive training) programs, emerging research suggests that mindfulness can also serve as an effective means of fostering these capacities. Strengthened executive functioning may transfer directly to educational settings, where the ability to focus, filter distractions, and respond thoughtfully plays a critical role in learning and academic engagement.

Future research should assess whether these early gains persist over time and explore which mindfulness components are most effective for children at different developmental stages. Embedding such practices into the classroom culture may gradually cultivate a more reflective, emotionally regulated learning environment (Weare, 2013). Observational insights may subsequently inform individualized psychological support and intervention planning. Longitudinal research is needed to assess whether these early gains persist over time and how they translate into academic achievement, peer relationships, and mental health outcomes. Furthermore, a more granular analysis of which mindfulness components (e.g., breath awareness, body scan, emotional labeling) yield the strongest effects may help refine age-appropriate interventions for educational settings. Future studies should also investigate barriers to implementation and scalability in real-world school settings, including teacher buy-in, scheduling constraints, and cultural considerations. Taken together, these findings offer preliminary yet promising directions for how mindfulness may enrich not only cognitive development, but also the broader emotional culture of primary education.