Running head: REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF MINDUP

Review and Critique of MindUp Curriculum

Melissa K. Andrews
University of British Columbia

REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF MINDUP

Review and Critique of MindUp Curriculum

Students today face an increase of social, emotional and behavioral difficulties, which
can affect their academic and social lives in school and in adult life (Schonert-Reichl & Lawlor,
2010). It is not unusual for one student to be dealing with more than one stressor in his or her
life, making learning a difficult task (MindUp Curriculum, 2011). Therefore, there has been an
enlarged focus on these concerns through the implementation of social and emotional learning
(SEL) within schools and classrooms. SEL is defined by the Collaborative for Academic, Social,
and Emotional Learning (CASEL) as a process for helping children and even adults develop the
fundamental skills for life effectiveness. SEL teaches the skills we all need to handle ourselves,
our relationships, and our work, effectively and ethically (CASEL briefs, 2007, p. 1). Elias
(2006) refers to SEL as sometimes being termed the missing piece (p. 6) due to its ability to
connect academics to important life skills. More specifically, SEL focuses on five core
competencies, which are self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills,
and responsible decision-making (CASEL, 2013) and ties them into academic learning.
Furthermore, specific SEL programs have been designed to promote social and emotional
learning within the school setting. An example of such a program is MindUp, a curriculum
focused on the above-mentioned competencies, mindfulness and brain-based learning (MindUp
Curriculum, 2011). Bond and Carmola Hauf (2004) discuss 10 important features of an effective
SEL program that are all interconnected, for example, successful primary prevention and
promotion programs (a) have a clearly defined purpose and goals; (b) are based upon sound
scientific theory and research in their content, structure, and implementation; (c) are structured
and packaged so as to be transferable and translatable (pp. 202-214). Looking specifically at
these three characteristics, they will be used to critically evaluate MindUp as an SEL focused
program.

REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF MINDUP

With this in mind, Bond and Carmola Hauf (2004) stated that having a clearly defined
purpose and goal for an SEL program was important. In regards to MindUp, the MindUp
program was developed not only to expand childrens social and emotional awareness but also to
improve their academic performance (MindUp Curriculum, 2011). Three goals that MindUp
discusses are (a) joyful learning, academic success, and a powerful sense of self and
community; (b) students who are able to engage in a focused, energetic way with one another,
with their teachers, and with their learning; (c) schools that are productive, harmonious centers of
successful learning, where all students thrive because they recognize themselves as capable,
creative learners, self-aware human beings, compassionate, responsible citizens (MindUp
Curriculum, 2011). The purpose and goals of this program are neatly organized in the
introduction portion of the textbook, along with an explanation of the research to support it as an
SEL program and what it looks like in the classroom. However, Bond and Carmola Hauf (2004)
clearly state the importance of having measurable goals within a program, yet MindUp does not
explicitly state how it will be known when these goals have been attained, aside from
observational results and student responses.
Moving on, it is essential to look at the research behind the MindUp program. A core
portion of MindUp focuses on the idea of mindfulness, which is described by Bishop et al. and
Siegel (as cited by Flook et al., 2010) as exercises that promote a state of heightened and
receptive attention to moment-by-moment experience. A common exercise involves directing the
attention to a present experience or sensation such as the movement of the belly during in-andout breaths. MindUp incorporates breathing techniques into its lessons in order to lower stress
levels, as well as increase the brains ability to learn effectively (MindUp Curriculum, 2011).
This tends to tie directly in with the executive functions (EF) of the brain, as researched by Adele
Diamond, in that students who are using SEL techniques seem to do much better on tests that use

REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF MINDUP

EF, such as coordinating and controlling, monitoring and troubleshooting, reasoning and
imagining (MindUp Curriculum, 2011). As well, Flook et al. (2010) have obtained research
results that seem to show increased use of these mindfulness techniques tends to cause positive
increases in EF. Conversely, feelings of negativity or higher stress levels can cause these
executive functions to become hindered; therefore, employing mindful attention strategies assists
students in increasing their own EF. These results are shown in Figures 1 and 2 through teacher
and parent reports.
FIGURE 1 Group Differences in Posttest EF by Baseline Score on Teacher BRIEF. (Note.
Lower scores reflect higher executive function. Improvement in executive function
is indicated by a decrease in score from pre- to posttest.)

FIGURE 2 Group Differences in Posttest EF by Baseline Score on Parent BRIEF.

REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF MINDUP

Even though there seems to be a positive correlation between mindfulness techniques and
executive functioning, some limitations that existed within the study by Flook et al. (2010) were:

There was a small sample size taken from one school in only grades two and three.

The study was completed in a short period of time (eight weeks).

The results were based primarily on parent and teacher ratings.

A greater possibility of report bias exists because the teachers knew their students.

Further research is necessary to see whether students with varying levels of executive
functions vary more or less from using mindfulness.

No follow up research was conducted to see if there were any changes to results after
time.

To continue, MindUp also introduces students to the brain and how it functions with the
intent to create students whose awareness of their impulses, thoughts, feelings, and behavior
enhances their confidence, pleasure, and sense of agency in their own learning process
(MindUp Curriculum, 2011). According to Neuroscientist Richard Davidson, SEL likely
produces beneficial brain changes, in part because it is plastic and built to change in response
to experience (George Lucas Educational Foundation, 2008). As well, research conducted by
Brown and Ryan offers verification that mindfulness has a positive association with well-being
(Schonert-Reichl & Lawlor, 2010). In order to be mindful, one must be fully aware and
conscious of what is happening around them; therefore, research tends to show that by
understanding the brain and how it works students are led on a path to becoming more mindful

REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF MINDUP

and in turn more academically prepared. To further this point, data collected by Schonert-Reichl
& Lawlor (2010) showed that the Mindfulness Education (ME) program, which is now known as
MindUp, seemed to have a positive effect on students social and emotional learning. The results
below (Figure 3) show that students who participated in the ME program were more optimistic
after completing the program when compared to a control group who did not participate in the
same program.
FIGURE 3 Difference scores by group for optimism, and positive and negative affect
(controlling for ESL status, gender, and age)

However, some limitations to this research are:

There is still not enough research to document the full impact of SEL on the brain.

The Schonert-Reichl and Lawlor study used individual student results but
clustering of students within classrooms could affect the independence of each
student creating a biased result.

Teacher behavioral ratings were used as opposed to direct observational results;

teacher bias may be a factor.

REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF MINDUP

Study results were not conducted over the entire year, which would have shown
whether or not the positive results were maintained over time.
(Schonert-Reichl & Lawlor, 2010)

Finally, another factor to consider for an effective SEL program is whether or not the
information gained from it is transferable and translatable to life outside of the classroom.
Specifically, do these mindfulness techniques transfer to everyday life and the workplace? The
MindUp Curriculum (2011) has included sections within the lessons titled MindUp In the Real
World, where they discuss career connections to the key concepts taught within that lesson.
Although it attempts to connect mindfulness to life outside of school through the use of roleplaying and discussion, CASEL (2013, see www.casel.org) states that MindUp only has a
minimal school-wide, family and community context. Bond and Carmola Hauf (2004) made it
clear that a programs success in regards to transferability is the degree to which experience can
be transferred from the program to other real life, everyday settings (p. 214). Based on this
point and the lack of longitudinal studies on the long-term sustainability of mindfulness training,
it cannot be assumed that the MindUp curriculum is transferable. On the other hand, it does not
disprove that the program is beneficial to students.
All things considered, every teachers classroom is unique in that each educator has the
ability to teach to their own strengths and create an educational setting that suits the SEL needs
of their individual students or group. After critically analyzing the MindUp program as a tool for
teaching SEL, the results appear to show that it is an effective way to assist students in
understanding their own body and mind; it also gives them techniques to use to be an effective
learner. Specifically, it has a clear purpose and goals, research to show it is based on sound
theory, and it makes an effort to be transferable to every day life outside of school. The world

REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF MINDUP

today is filled with many negative aspects that can affect a childs well-being; fear and insecurity
have a place in every day lives for some children. Zins and Elias (2006) discuss some of the
current issues that students deal with on a day to day basis, such as economic hardship, internet
accessibility, gory video games and newspapers filled with disturbing and unsettling information.
Society is always changing and evolving and education needs to evolve with it. If students today
are dealing with more pressure, stress and fear than ever before, then something needs to be done
to help them deal with these emotions effectively. The MindUp curriculum is one way for
educators to give these students a tool that they could possibly continue to use throughout their
lives to achieve a sense of well being in a world that is not always going to take them down the
easy path to success and happiness.

REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF MINDUP

References
Bond, L. A., & Carmola Hauf, A. M. (2004). Taking stock and putting stock in primary
prevention: Characteristics of effective programs. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 24,
199-220.
CASEL. (2013). See www.casel.org
CASEL briefs. (2007). Background on social and emotional learning (SEL). Retrieved from
http://casel.org/wp-content/uploads/SELCASELbackground.pdf
Elias, M. J. (2006). The connection between academic and social and emotional learning. In M.
J. Elias & H. Arnold (Eds.), The educators guide to emotional intelligence and academic
achievement (pp. 4-14). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Flook, L., Smalley, S., Kitil, M., Galla, B., Kaiser-Greenland, S., Locke, J., et al. (2010). Effects
of mindful awareness practices on executive functions in elementary school children.
Journal of Applied School Psychology, 26, 70-95.
George Lucas Educational Foundation. (2008). The heart-brain connection: The neuroscience of
social, emotional, and academic learning. Available from
http://www.edutopia.org/richard-davidson-sel-brain-video
MindUp Curriculum. (2011). The MindUp curriculum: Brain-focused strategies for learningand living. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.
Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Lawlor, M. S. (2010). The effects of a mindfulness-based education
program on pre- and early adolescents well-being and social and emotional competence.
Mindfulness, 1, 137-151.
Zins, J. E., & Elias, M. J. (2006). Social and emotional learning. In G. G. Bear & K. M. Minke
(Eds.) Childrens needs III, p. 1-13. National Association of School Psychologists.