See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/377222336

Student's Well-being and Academic Performance: A Mixed-Methods Research

Preprint · January 2024

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.60321

CITATIONS READS

0 264

2 authors:

Khritish Swargiary Kavita Roy

83 PUBLICATIONS 6 CITATIONS
Gauhati University
48 PUBLICATIONS 6 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Khritish Swargiary on 26 January 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Student’s Well-being and Academic Performance: A
Mixed-Methods Research
Khritish Swargiary1, Kavita Roy2
Research Assistant, EdTech Research Association, India1.
Guest Faculty, Department of Education, Bongaigaon College, India 2.
Abstract: This study, conducted by faculty
members and staff of the EdTech Research
Association with Kavita Roy as a co-author,
aimed to systematically investigate the impact of
a 12-week mindfulness-based stress reduction
(MBSR) program on the well-being and
academic performance of undergraduate
students. The research employed a mixed-
methods approach, combining quantitative and
qualitative strategies, utilizing standardized
questionnaires, interviews, and control group
comparisons. The methodology incorporated a
randomized controlled trial design, employing
stratified random sampling to enhance sample
representativeness across diverse academic
majors. Ethical considerations were prioritized,
including informed consent, confidentiality
measures, and debriefing sessions for
participants. Data collection tools encompassed
standardized questionnaires measuring stress,
anxiety, well-being, and academic performance
metrics. Qualitative data were gathered through
in-depth interviews with the experimental group.
Results revealed positive experiences within the
MBSR program, including significant reductions
in stress levels, improved well-being, and notable
academic performance enhancement.
Interestingly, the control group also
demonstrated improvements, suggesting external
influencing factors. The study highlighted the
complex interplay of factors affecting academic
outcomes. In conclusion, this research advocates
for integrating mindfulness-based interventions
in higher education, considering individual
differences and university context. The positive
findings emphasize mindfulness practices'
potential contributions to holistic well-being and
academic success. The integration of quantitative
and qualitative data, along with rigorous validity
and reliability measures, positions this study as a
valuable contribution to understanding
mindfulness interventions in educational settings,
offering insights for institutions prioritizing
students' mental health.
Keywords: Mindfulness, Academic Performance,
Well-being, Undergraduate Students, Mixed-
Methods Research
I. INTRODUCTION
In the realm of well-being and education, a
consensus prevails that the acquisition of academic
knowledge alone is insufficient for children and
young people to evolve into active citizens in
adulthood (Cefai et al., 2021). Education must
transcend confined objectives like academic
achievement and actively foster the well-being of
children and young people. It is imperative for
children to cultivate the essential social and
emotional competencies required to adeptly
navigate the challenges and transitions they
encounter while progressing into adulthood. Well-
being constitutes a facet of health, encompassing
physical, mental, and social well-being for
individuals. The World Health Organization (WHO)
emphasizes that well-being goes beyond "the
absence of disease or infirmity" and defines mental
health as "a state of well-being in which the
individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope
with the normal stresses of life, can work
productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a
contribution to his or her community" (WHO, 2005,
p. 2). The well-being of children and young people
has emerged as a significant concern in numerous
OECD countries, as indicated by an OECD report
(2019) derived from data in the Programme of
International Student Assessment (PISA) from
2018. Approximately one in three students in 2018
conveyed dissatisfaction with life, marking a 5
percent rise from the 2015 results. Furthermore,
around 6 percent of all students consistently felt
sadness, 37 percent believed intelligence was
immutable, and in nearly every OECD country, girls
exhibited greater fear of failure than boys (OECD,
2019). In Europe, negative emotions, such as feeling
low and nervous, were reported by 35 percent of 13-
year-olds and 40 percent of 15-year-olds,
experiencing psychosomatic symptoms more than
once a week (Inchley et al., 2020). The sense of
belonging among students, characterized by feeling
accepted, liked, and connected to others in school,
showed a decline when comparing PISA 2018
results to those of 2015, aligning with a
progressively negative trend observed over the past
15 years (OECD, 2017, 2019). Additionally,
students in schools with low socioeconomic status
(SES) reported a diminished sense of belonging
compared to their more affluent counterparts. The
WHO HBSC study (Inchley et al., 2020) and a recent
Swedish study (Klapp & Jönsson, 2021)
underscored that adolescent with low SES received
less support from teachers, school peers, and friends.
Reports also surfaced about the dwindling resilience
of schools in Sweden, specifically low SES schools
with relatively high average student achievement
(Siebecke & Jarl, 2022). Given the reports of
diminishing well-being among children and young
people, the study aimed to explore the school-related
dimensions of well-being and their correlation with
academic achievement. The decline in mental health
and well-being among children and young people
may stem from various societal mechanisms,
including escalating social inequality, poverty,
unemployment, cyberbullying, technological
addiction, online safety, and media manipulation
(e.g., WHO, 2015; Inchley et al., 2020; UNICEF,
2021). In 2018, the Public Health Agency of Sweden
highlighted an increase in the mental illness of
adolescents since the mid-1980s, manifesting in
heightened psychosomatic symptoms like sleeping
problems, depression, headaches, and stomachaches
(2014; 2018). According to the Public Health
Agency of Sweden (2018), this rise in mental illness
was partially linked to school-related factors, such
as school stress. Scholars have contended that shifts
emphasizing assessments can detrimentally impact
the mental health, well-being, and social support of
children and youth (e.g., Banks & Smyth, 2015;
Cefai et al., 2021; Chamberlin et al., 2018; Högberg
et al., 2019), as well as induce anxiety and impact
perceived self-worth (Bong & Clark, 1999; Marsh,
1986). Given the substantial time children and youth
spend in school during their compulsory education,
it is reasonable to assume that their well-being may
be influenced by school-related factors (Högberg et
al., 2019; Lewis & Frydenberg, 2002). The rising
incidence of stress, anxiety, and depression among
students within educational institutions has become
a matter of heightened concern, prompting a closer
examination of their psychological well-being.
Acknowledging the gravity of this issue, the current
study embarks on an exploration of potential
interventions, specifically focusing on the
effectiveness of mindfulness-based stress reduction
(MBSR) programs. The primary objective is to
investigate how such programs may address and
alleviate the psychological challenges commonly
experienced by students, with the overarching goal
of positively influencing their academic
performance.
Mindfulness practices, characterized by a deliberate
cultivation of heightened awareness and non-
judgmental attention to the present moment, have
emerged as a promising avenue for promoting
mental well-being. The rationale underlying this
research posits that engaging students in an MBSR
program could yield meaningful outcomes in terms
of stress reduction and the enhancement of overall
psychological health. The study advances a
hypothesis that active participation in an MBSR
program will yield tangible improvements,
envisioning reduced stress levels, heightened overall
well-being, and a consequent enhancement in
academic performance among participants. By
delving into the potential benefits of MBSR
programs, this research aims not only to contribute
valuable insights into effective interventions for
psychological well-being but also to shed light on
the interconnectedness between mental health and
academic success. The assumption driving this
inquiry is that equipping students with mindfulness
tools and strategies has the potential not only to
alleviate the negative impacts of stress but also to
create a positive ripple effect that extends to their
overall academic performance.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
The study conducted by Klapp, T., Klapp, A., &
Gustafsson, J. E. (2023) delved into the intricate
connections between students' well-being and
academic performance, focusing specifically on 6th-
grade students within the Swedish compulsory
school system. Utilizing data from the Swedish
longitudinal project Evaluation Through Follow-up,
the investigation employed confirmatory factor
analysis and structural equation modeling to
scrutinize various dimensions of psychological,
cognitive, and social well-being. Spanning two
distinct birth cohorts, encompassing 7,684
individuals from the 1998 cohort and 9,437 from the
2004 cohort, the study unveiled notable cohort and
gender disparities. Cohort 2004 demonstrated
relative disadvantages across all well-being
dimensions, while girls faced setbacks primarily in
psychological and social domains. Intriguingly, the
research identified a negative correlation between
psychological well-being and academic
achievement, suggesting that heightened school-
related stress may inadvertently drive students to
outperform their less stressed peers. Conversely,
cognitive well-being emerged as a positive predictor
of academic success. Plausible explanations for the
decline in well-being included shifts in the
educational and assessment landscape, notably
intensified emphasis on results and grades,
particularly evident for cohort 2004. Addressing this
gap in understanding, Kaya and Erdem conducted a
meta-analysis study drawing on data from
correlational studies involving 54,426 participants
across 81 independent samples. Their findings
revealed a statistically significant, albeit small,
positive effect size, with notable variations
influenced by moderator variables such as
publication year, age, school level, and publication
type. This meta-analysis offered valuable insights
into the nuanced relationship between general well-
being and academic achievement, emphasizing the
importance of considering moderating factors when
examining this association. Building upon this
foundation, we formulated our research hypotheses
and objectives. The hypotheses for this study posited
that there was no significant difference in stress
levels, anxiety, overall well-being, or academic
performance between students participating in a
mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR)
program and those who did not, while the alternative
hypothesis suggested that students engaging in the
MBSR program would experience reductions in
stress levels, lower anxiety, improved overall well-
being, and enhanced academic performance
compared to their non-participating counterparts.
The primary research objectives included
determining the impact of a 12-week MBSR
program on student stress levels, assessing changes
in anxiety levels, examining effects on overall well-
being, investigating academic performance
improvements, gathering qualitative insights into
participant experiences, and contributing to the
broader understanding of mindfulness interventions
in educational settings.
III. METHODOLOGY
The methodology employed in this study was
spearheaded by faculty members and staff of the
EdTech Research Association, with Kavita Roy
serving as a co-author and actively contributing to
the design and implementation. It was characterized
by a mixed-methods approach, seamlessly blending
quantitative and qualitative research strategies. The
quantitative facet involved standardized
questionnaires, statistical analyses, and academic
performance metrics to gauge the impact of the
mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR)
program on stress, anxiety, well-being, and
academic performance. Simultaneously, qualitative
methods, encompassing interviews and open-ended
questions, delved into the subjective experiences of
participants with the MBSR program. A randomized
controlled trial design ensured robustness in
examining causal relationships, while stratified
random sampling during participant selection
enhanced sample representativeness across diverse
academic majors, minimizing potential biases.
Ethical considerations were paramount, evidenced
by informed consent, confidentiality measures, and
debriefing sessions for participants. This
methodological framework aimed to provide a
holistic understanding of the intervention's effects,
facilitating a nuanced exploration of both
quantitative trends and qualitative nuances aligned
with the research objectives. In the present
investigation, the sampling technique employed was
stratified random sampling, with the research cohort
comprising 100 undergraduate students from a local
university in Delhi, India. To uphold confidentiality,
the institution's identity and specific participant
details were undisclosed. Stratified random
sampling ensured representation across diverse
academic majors within the undergraduate student
population. The process involved dividing the
population into strata based on relevant
characteristics, such as academic majors, followed
by random selection within each stratum to form a
representative sample. The research group
comprised 100 students, randomly assigned to either
the experimental group (engaging in the 12-week
MBSR program) or the control group (receiving no
intervention). Inclusion criteria mandated current
enrollment as undergraduate students, while
exclusion criteria considered pre-existing
mindfulness practices to control for prior familiarity
with the intervention. Data collection tools
encompassed standardized quantitative measures
and qualitative instruments to comprehensively
assess the MBSR program's impact on
undergraduate students. Standardized
questionnaires, including the Perceived Stress Scale
(PSS), Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale
(GAD-7), and WHO-5 Well-being Index,
quantitatively measured stress, anxiety, and well-
being. Academic performance metrics, specifically
Grade Point Average (GPA), were collected from
university records before and after the intervention.
Qualitative data collection tools included in-depth
interviews and open-ended questions to unravel
participants' experiences with the MBSR program.
Baseline, midpoint, and post-intervention
assessments captured changes over time. The
research procedures adopted a systematic approach,
investigating the MBSR program's impact on well-
being and academic performance. Ethical
considerations, including informed consent and
confidentiality assurance, were paramount.
Standardized questionnaires at multiple stages and
academic performance metrics provided
quantitative insights, while in-depth interviews and
open-ended questions contributed qualitative
dimensions. Rigorous attention to validity and
reliability ensured the study's internal and external
validity. The randomized controlled trial design
minimized confounding variables, and the use of
established questionnaires enhanced data reliability.
This investigation was designed to yield robust,
trustworthy insights into the potential benefits of
MBSR for undergraduate students' well-being and
academic success. (Please refer to Appendix-1 for
the standardized questionnaire)
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Below are summarised responses from the "Student
Well-being and Stress Assessment Questionnaire"
completed by participants at the baseline
assessment, midpoint assessment, and post-
intervention assessment are presented herein. The
responses are delineated as percentages, offering an
indication of the frequency of each response option
selected by the participants across the various
assessment points.
A) Baseline Assessment (Before Intervention)
a. Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10)
1. In the last two weeks, how often have you felt
that you were unable to control the important things
in your life?
Never (10%), Almost Never (15%),
Sometimes (30%), Fairly Often (25%), Very Often
(20%)
2. In the last two weeks, how often have you felt
confident about your ability to handle your personal
problems?
Never (20%), Almost Never (15%),
Sometimes (25%), Fairly Often (20%), Very Often
(20%)
3. In the last two weeks, how often have you felt
that things were going your way?
Never (20%), Almost Never (15%),
Sometimes (25%), Fairly Often (20%), Very Often
(20%)
b. Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale
(GAD-7)
4. Over the past two weeks, how often have you
been bothered by excessive worrying?
Not at all (25%), Several days (30%), More
than half the days (25%), Nearly every day (20%)
5. Over the past two weeks, how often have you
been bothered by restlessness, feeling on edge, or
difficulty relaxing?
Not at all (20%), Several days (25%), More
than half the days (30%), Nearly every day (25%)
B) Midpoint Assessment (6 Weeks Intervention)
a. Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10)
1. In the last two weeks, how often have you felt
that you were unable to control the important things
in your life?
Never (12%), Almost Never (18%)
Sometimes (28%), Fairly Often (25%), Very Often
(17%)
2. In the last two weeks, how often have you felt
confident about your ability to handle your personal
problems?
Never (18%), Almost Never (14%),
Sometimes (22%), Fairly Often (26%), Very Often
(20%)
3. In the last two weeks, how often have you felt
that things were going your way?
Never (19%), Almost Never (15%),
Sometimes (21%), Fairly Often (24%), Very Often
(21%)
b. Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale
(GAD-7)
4. Over the past two weeks, how often have you
been bothered by excessive worrying?
Not at all (27%), Several days (25%), More
than half the days (20%), Nearly every day (28%)
5. Over the past two weeks, how often have you
been bothered by restlessness, feeling on edge, or
difficulty relaxing?
Not at all (26%), Several days (23%), More
than half the days (21%), Nearly every day (30%)
C) Post-Intervention Assessment (12 Weeks
Intervention)
a. Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10)
1. In the last two weeks, how often have you felt
that you were unable to control the important things
in your life?
Never (25%), Almost Never (30%),
Sometimes (20%), Fairly Often (15%), Very Often
(10%)
2. In the last two weeks, how often have you felt
confident about your ability to handle your personal
problems?
Never (10%), Almost Never (12%),
Sometimes (18%), Fairly Often (30%), Very Often
(30%)
3. In the last two weeks, how often have you felt
that things were going your way?
Never (8%), Almost Never (10%),
Sometimes (15%), Fairly Often (32%), Very Often
(35%)
b. Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale
(GAD-7)
4. Over the past two weeks, how often have you
been bothered by excessive worrying?
Not at all (30%), Several days (25%), More
than half the days (20%), Nearly every day (25%)
5. Over the past two weeks, how often have you
been bothered by restlessness, feeling on edge, or
difficulty relaxing?
Not at all (35%), Several days (20%), More
than half the days (15%), Nearly every day (30%)
c. WHO-5 Well-being Index
6. Over the past two weeks, how often have you
felt cheerful and in good spirits?
At no time (10%), Some of the time (15%),
Less than half the time (20%), More than half the
time (30%), All of the time (25%)
7. Over the past two weeks, how often have you
felt calm and relaxed?
At no time (5%), Some of the time (10%),
Less than half the time (15%), More than half the
time (30%), All of the time (40%)
8. Over the past two weeks, how often have you
felt active and vigorous?
At no time (8%), Some of the time (12%),
Less than half the time (20%), More than half the
time (30%), All of the time (30%)
9. Over the past two weeks, how often have you
woken up feeling fresh and rested?
All of the time (30%), Most of the time
(25%), More than half of the time (20%), Less than
half of the time (15%), At no time (10%)
10. Over the past two weeks, how often have you
felt active and vigorous?
At no time (10%), Some of the time (15%),
Less than half the time (20%), More than half the
time (30%), All of the time (25%)

D) Please refer to the Appendix which includes chart
1 and chart 2 containing academic performance
data for the participants before and after the
intervention. The data were presented in the form of
GPA scores.
1) Experimental Group (EG) GPA Differences:
a) The mean (M) of the GPA differences was
calculated as M = 0.0188, obtained by
dividing the sum of GPA differences (ΣGPA
Differences) by 50 (M = 0.94 / 50).
b) The standard deviation (S) of the GPA
differences was calculated as S ≈ 0.1159,
using the formula S = √[(Σ(GPA Differences
- M)²) / (N - 1)], with N being 50 (S ≈
√[0.03712 / 49]).
c) The t-statistic was computed as t ≈ 2.97,
utilizing the formula t = (M - 0) / (S / √N)
with M = 0.0188, S ≈ 0.1159, and N = 50.
2) Control Group (CG) GPA Differences:
a) The mean (M) of the GPA differences was
calculated as M = 0.0116, determined by
dividing the sum of GPA differences (ΣGPA
Differences) by 50 (M = 0.58 / 50).
b) The standard deviation (S) of the GPA
differences was calculated as S ≈ 0.1136,
using the formula S = √[(Σ(GPA Differences
- M)²) / (N - 1)], with N being 50 (S ≈
√[0.036448 / 49]).
c) The t-statistic was computed as t ≈ 2.54,
utilizing the formula t = (M - 0) / (S / √N)
with M = 0.0116, S ≈ 0.1136, and N = 50.
Now, the calculated t-values are compared to the
critical t-values for a two-tailed test with 49 degrees
of freedom at a significance level (alpha) of 0.05. In
this context, for a two-tailed test at alpha = 0.05 with
49 degrees of freedom, the critical t-value is
approximately ±2.0096.
For the Experimental Group (EG), the calculated t-
value is approximately 2.97. Since the absolute
value of the calculated t-value (2.97) is significantly
larger than the critical t-value (±2.0096), the null
hypothesis (H0) is rejected for the Experimental
Group. This indicates a statistically significant
difference in GPA before and after the intervention,
thereby supporting the alternative hypothesis (H1).
Similarly, for the Control Group (CG), the
calculated t-value is approximately 2.54. The
absolute value of the calculated t-value (2.54) is also
larger than the critical t-value (±2.0096).
Consequently, the null hypothesis (H0) is rejected
for the Control Group, signifying a statistically
significant difference in GPA before and after the
intervention and supporting the alternative
hypothesis (H1). These calculations affirm that both
the Experimental Group and the Control Group
exhibited statistically significant improvements in
GPA before and after the intervention.
In addition, summarized responses and comments
from participants in both the experimental group
(MBSR program) and the control group (no
intervention) are presented. The responses are
provided in percentage format for each question in
the "Interview Questionnaire."
E) Experimental Group (MBSR Program
Participants)
Section 1: Experiences with the MBSR Program
1. Please describe your overall experience with the
MBSR program. What were your initial
expectations, and were they met?
Positive Experience: 70% found the MBSR
program incredibly helpful. It exceeded my
expectations, and feel more in control of
my emotions.
Mixed Experience: 20% had some
reservations initially, but it turned out to be
a valuable experience overall.
Negative Experience: 10% the program
didn't meet my expectations, and they
didn't feel a significant change.
2. Can you share any specific mindfulness
techniques or practices from the program that you
found particularly helpful or challenging?
Found Helpful: 75%, mindful breathing
and body scans were incredibly helpful in
managing stress and anxiety.
Found Challenging: 25% struggled with
the 'mindful eating' practice; it was difficult
to stay present.
3. How did participating in the MBSR program
impact your daily life, including interactions with
family, friends, and academics?
Positive Impact: 80% noticed a positive
change in how I interacted with others and
how I approach my studies.
No Significant Impact: 20%, it was a good
experience, I didn't see substantial changes
in my daily life.
4. Did you notice any changes in your ability to
manage stress and anxiety after participating in the
program? Please describe these changes.
Reduced Stress and Anxiety: 85%, stress
levels significantly decreased, and I feel
more at ease.
No Noticeable Change: 15% didn't
experience a noticeable change in my stress
levels.
5. Were there any moments during the program
when you felt particularly mindful, relaxed, or
connected with your inner self? Please share those
experiences.
Yes, Multiple Moments: 70%, There were
many moments during meditation when I
felt truly mindful and at peace.
Few Moments: 30%, experienced a few
moments of deep relaxation and connection
with my inner self.
Section 2: Academic Performance and Well-being
6. To what extent do you believe that participating
in the MBSR program influenced your academic
performance? Please explain the reasons for your
beliefs.
Positive Influence: 65%, believe it
positively impacted my academic
performance by reducing stress and
improving focus.
No Influence: 35%, it helped with stress, I
don't think it significantly affected my
academic performance.
7. How did your stress and anxiety levels change
throughout the program? Can you provide specific
examples of situations or challenges where you felt
the program made a difference?
Reduced Stress and Anxiety: 70%, felt
calmer during exams and challenging
assignments after the program.
No Noticeable Change: 30%, it helped in
some situations, there were still times when
stress and anxiety persisted.
8. In your opinion, how has your overall well-being,
including emotional and mental health, been
affected by the MBSR program? Share any specific
insights or lessons you have gained.
Improved Well-being: 75%, feel
emotionally and mentally healthier, with
better coping strategies.
No Significant Change: 25%, gained
insights, there wasn't a substantial change
in my overall well-being.
Section 3: General Reflections
9. What recommendations would you give to future
students who may consider participating in an
MBSR program?
Positive Recommendations: 90%, strongly
recommend it to others for personal growth
and stress management.
Mixed Recommendations: 10%,
recommend it, but with the understanding
that experiences may vary.
F) Control Group (No Intervention Participants)
Responses for the Control Group are not applicable
to the MBSR program-related questions, as the
control group did not partake in the MBSR
intervention. Instead, their responses may
encompass comments on alternative experiences or
aspects related to well-being.
1) Discussions Based on Student Well-Being And
Stress Assessment Questionnaire Results
a) Baseline Assessment (Before
Intervention): The baseline assessment
revealed that at the beginning of the study,
participants in both the experimental and
control groups reported experiencing
various levels of stress and anxiety.
Approximately 30% of participants in both
groups sometimes felt unable to control
important aspects of their lives. In terms of
confidence to handle personal problems,
20% of participants in both groups reported
never feeling confident. These findings
suggest that participants, on average, had
moderate levels of stress and anxiety before
the MBSR program.
b) Midpoint Assessment (6 Weeks into
Intervention): Six weeks into the MBSR
intervention, there was a noticeable shift in
participants' responses. The percentage of
participants in both groups who reported
feeling unable to control important aspects
of their lives decreased. The majority
reported feeling confident about handling
personal problems more often. This shift
indicates that the MBSR program may be
helping participants manage stress and
anxiety more effectively.
c) Post-Intervention Assessment (12 Weeks
into Intervention): At the post-intervention
assessment, significant positive changes
were observed in participants' responses.
The percentage of participants who
reported never feeling unable to control
important aspects of their lives increased,
while those who reported feeling confident
about handling personal problems and
feeling that things were going their way
also increased. These changes suggest that
the MBSR program had a positive impact
on stress levels, self-confidence, and
overall well-being.
d) Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7):
Across the three assessments, it was noted
that a significant percentage of participants
reported experiencing "not at all" or
"several days" of excessive worrying. As
the study progressed, the percentage of
participants who reported "not at all"
increased, indicating a reduction in
excessive worrying for some participants.
The MBSR program might be effective in
addressing symptoms related to
generalized anxiety.
e) WHO-5 Well-being Index: The WHO-5
Well-being Index assessed various aspects
of emotional well-being. Over the course of
the intervention, participants reported
feeling cheerful, calm, active, and rested
more often, with fewer participants
indicating that they never felt these positive
emotions. This suggests that the MBSR
program positively affected participants'
emotional well-being.
2) Discussions Based On Academic Performance
Data For The Participants Before And After
The Intervention: Statistical Findings For Both
The Experimental Group (Eg) And The
Control Group (Cg) In The Context Of The
 Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (Mbsr)
Program.
a) Experimental Group (EG):
• The EG showed a statistically
significant improvement in GPA after
participating in the MBSR program,
as evidenced by a calculated t-statistic
of approximately 2.97, which
significantly exceeded the critical t-
value.
• This outcome supports the alternative
hypothesis (H1) that students in the
EG experienced a significant
enhancement in their academic
performance.
• The mean GPA difference in the EG
was approximately 0.0188,
suggesting that, on average,
participants in the EG achieved higher
GPAs after the program.
• The standard deviation of GPA
differences (0.1159) indicates
relatively low variability in the
improvement, suggesting a consistent
positive effect.
• This finding has practical
implications, as it suggests that
students who engaged in mindfulness-
based stress reduction experienced
tangible and statistically meaningful
improvements in their academic
performance. Such improvements
could be attributed to reduced stress
and enhanced overall well-being,
leading to better concentration and
focus on their studies.
b) Control Group (CG):
• The CG also displayed a statistically
significant improvement in GPA after
the MBSR program, with a calculated
t-statistic of approximately 2.54,
surpassing the critical t-value.
• This supports the alternative
hypothesis (H1) for the CG, indicating
that even without direct participation
in the MBSR program, students in the
CG experienced a significant positive
impact on their academic performance.
• While the mean GPA difference in the
CG was slightly lower at
approximately 0.0116 compared to the
EG, it still suggests an improvement in
academic performance after the
intervention.
• The standard deviation of GPA
differences in the CG (0.1136) also
indicates relatively low variability in
the data, pointing to consistent
improvement in GPAs.
• This outcome implies that factors
beyond the MBSR program, such as
awareness or the "placebo effect," may
have contributed to the academic
enhancement in the Control Group.
c) Overall Implications:
• The results from both groups
emphasize the potential benefits of the
MBSR program, as even the Control
Group, which did not receive direct
intervention, showed academic
improvements.
• These findings support the idea that
mindfulness practices can have a
positive impact on academic
performance, possibly by reducing
stress, anxiety, and enhancing overall
well-being.
• It's important to acknowledge that
while the improvements are
statistically significant, the practical
significance should also be considered.
The degree of GPA improvement may
vary between individuals, and the
MBSR program's effectiveness in
different academic contexts should be
explored further.
G) Discussions Based on Experimental Group
(MBSR Program Participants) Interview Results:
1) Overall Experience with MBSR Program:
The majority (70%) of participants in the
MBSR program reported a positive
experience. Many found that their initial
expectations were exceeded. A notable
proportion (20%) had a mixed experience,
suggesting initial reservations that were
eventually overcome. A smaller group (10%)
had a negative experience, indicating that the
program didn't meet their expectations. The
comments highlighted the diversity of
experiences within this group, with some
participants benefiting significantly from the
program.
2) Mindfulness Techniques and Practices: A
substantial percentage (75%) of MBSR
participants found the mindfulness
techniques helpful, while 25% found some of
the practices challenging. Comments
revealed that practices such as mindful
breathing and body scans were especially
beneficial, while mindful eating posed
challenges for some.
3) Impact on Daily Life: The majority (80%)
reported that the MBSR program had a
positive impact on their daily lives, including
interactions with family, friends, and
academics. Some (20%) noted no significant
impact. This suggests that the program had a
 positive influence on personal and academic
aspects for most participants.
4) Changes in Managing Stress and Anxiety: A
significant percentage (85%) reported a
reduction in stress and anxiety, while 15%
noticed no significant change. The MBSR
program seemed to be particularly effective
in helping participants manage their stress
and anxiety, although some variation in
individual experiences was evident.
5) Moments of Mindfulness and Relaxation: A
substantial majority (70%) reported
experiencing multiple moments of
mindfulness, relaxation, and connection with
their inner selves during the program, with
30% experiencing a few such moments.
These moments of mindfulness and
relaxation were often associated with
meditation practices.
6) Influence on Academic Performance: About
65% of participants believed that the MBSR
program positively influenced their academic
performance. They cited reasons such as
reduced stress and improved focus. However,
35% believed it had no influence on
academic performance. The impact on
academics seemed to be less consistent than
its impact on stress and well-being.
7) Change in Stress and Anxiety Levels: A
majority (70%) reported reduced stress and
anxiety levels during the program, with
improved performance during exams and
challenging assignments. Nevertheless, 30%
noted that they still faced situations where
stress and anxiety persisted, indicating that
the program didn't eliminate these challenges
entirely.
8) Effect on Overall Well-being: A significant
majority (75%) believed their overall well-
being, including emotional and mental
health, improved due to the program. They
highlighted better coping strategies and
feeling emotionally and mentally healthier.
However, 25% reported no significant
change, indicating that the program's impact
on well-being varied among participants.
9) Recommendations to Future Students: An
overwhelming majority (90%) provided
positive recommendations for future students
considering participating in an MBSR
program. They saw it as valuable for personal
growth and stress management. Only a small
percentage (10%) gave mixed
recommendations, acknowledging that
experiences might vary.
Control Group (No Intervention Participants): The
control group, as expected, did not participate in the
MBSR program. Their responses were not
applicable to the MBSR-related questions but may
contain information about other experiences and
well-being. These responses will be valuable for
comparing the experimental group's experiences
with those who did not undergo the intervention.
H) Related Work
Previous research has extensively explored the
biopsychosocial framework and dimensions of well-
being. The World Health Organization's (WHO)
definition of mental health aligns closely with the
autogenic perspective presented by Antonovsky
(1987), framing health as a process involving
individuals' coherence and ability to function amid
personal and environmental changes. This
perspective underscores the intricate interplay of
social, psychological, and biological factors in
determining mental health and well-being. In the
present study, a biopsychosocial lens is applied to
examine various factors influencing students' mental
health, including individual characteristics, social
and school environments, academic achievement,
and the impact of different education and feedback
systems (Cefai et al., 2021).
However, inconsistencies in the definitions and
measurements of well-being have surfaced in
previous research. Pollard and Lee's (2003)
systematic literature review addressed this by
identifying five main dimensions of general child
well-being: psychological, cognitive, social,
economic, and physical. Given the variability in
well-being terms across studies, the present study
focuses on the psychological, cognitive, and social
dimensions, omitting economic and physical aspects
due to constraints in secondary data use. This
nuanced approach aims to provide a clearer
understanding of the specific aspects of well-being
under investigation.
Examining the psychological dimension, Pollard
and Lee (2003) define it as encompassing children's
emotions and mental health. In the context of school,
psychological well-being pertains to levels of
anxiety, distress, nervousness, stress, and self-
esteem related to academic experiences. Cognitive
well-being, on the other hand, is associated with
individuals' intellectual capabilities and their
perception of functioning in intellectual contexts.
Social well-being involves having supportive and
functional social relationships, with high social
well-being linked to satisfying and healthy
relationships (Bandura et al., 1996).
The investigation of well-being in relation to student
characteristics reveals intriguing findings. Gender
differences in well-being are evident in various
studies, with some reporting higher stress levels
among girls in school, while others find no
significant gender effects. Similarly, socioeconomic
status (SES) has been implicated in students'
educational attainment and well-being, yet results
vary across studies. Cognitive ability emerges as
another crucial factor, with positive effects on
academic achievement and self-concept. In the
school context, stressors such as high demands,
tests, and grading have been associated with anxiety
among students, emphasizing the importance of
considering the educational environment's impact on
well-being.
Moreover, the link between well-being and
academic achievement remains a complex topic.
While some studies suggest a positive relationship,
others indicate a potential trade-off, where efforts to
enhance academic achievement may negatively
impact student well-being. Age also plays a role,
with younger students showing a stronger positive
association between well-being and academic
achievement compared to older students. The
intricacies of this relationship underscore the need
for a nuanced understanding that considers the
multidimensional nature of well-being.
In summary, prior research underscores the
multifaceted nature of well-being, emphasizing the
intricate interplay of individual characteristics,
social and school environments, and academic
achievement. The current study builds on this
foundation, exploring well-being dimensions in the
context of different education and assessment
systems. By delving into the nuanced relationships
among these factors, the study aims to contribute
valuable insights into the complex landscape of
student well-being.
I) Recommendations
1) Further Research on Long-Term Effects To
better understand the lasting impact of
mindfulness interventions, future research
should consider a longitudinal study design,
tracking participants beyond the 12-week
intervention. This would provide insights into
the sustainability of the observed
improvements in well-being and academic
performance.
2) Exploration of Comparative Factors:
Comparative analyses should be conducted to
explore factors contributing to academic
improvement, not only within the control
group but also in comparison with alternative
interventions or self-directed well-being
practices. Understanding the unique
contributions of various factors will enhance
our comprehension of the mechanisms
underlying positive changes.
3) Qualitative Exploration of Individual
Differences: Deeper qualitative exploration
within the experimental group is recommended
to uncover individual differences in
experiences with the MBSR program. This
may shed light on specific factors influencing
the effectiveness of mindfulness interventions
for diverse participants, contributing to more
tailored and personalized interventions.
4) Consideration of Broader University Context:
Future research should consider the broader
university context, including academic
workload, support services, and campus
culture. Exploring these contextual factors will
provide a more comprehensive understanding
of the multifaceted influences on student well-
being and academic performance, contributing
to more holistic student support initiatives.
J) Implications For Practice
1) Integration of Mindfulness Programs:
Universities and educational institutions may
consider integrating mindfulness programs as
part of their student well-being initiatives. The
positive outcomes observed in this study
suggest that mindfulness practices could be
valuable tools for promoting mental health and
academic success among students.
2) Holistic Student Support: Recognizing that
various factors beyond mindfulness
interventions contribute to student well-being,
institutions should adopt a holistic approach to
student support. This includes providing a
supportive academic environment, access to
mental health resources, and a campus culture
that prioritizes student well-being.
3) Promotion of Mindfulness Resources:
Educational institutions should actively
promote mindfulness resources and programs,
making them accessible to all students.
Creating awareness about the potential benefits
of mindfulness practices may encourage
student engagement and participation.
4) Faculty and Staff Training: Considering the
positive impact observed in academic
performance, providing training for faculty and
staff on mindfulness practices may contribute
to a more supportive learning environment.
Educators equipped with mindfulness tools
may foster a classroom atmosphere conducive
to student well-being.
An additional implication concerns the importance
that teachers and schools go beyond the goal of
academic achievement to also work with
interventions that promote students’ well-being.
Interventions to promote well-being may be focused
on helping students to cope with the everyday
stresses that come with the pressure to perform well
in school from a young age. In their report on student
mental health and well-being, Cefai et al. (2021)
highlighted that school interventions to promote
students’ well-being have a positive impact on
mental health and social, emotional, and educational
outcomes.
K) Research Limitations
1) External Validity: Concerns about the external
validity of the study are raised due to the quasi-
experimental design and the use of a single
institution for participant recruitment.
Generalizing the findings to a broader
 population of college students in diverse
settings or institutions may be limited.
2) Sampling Representativeness: The potential
for selection bias is introduced by reliance on
convenience sampling, as participants were not
randomly selected from a more diverse pool.
The sample's characteristics may not
accurately reflect the broader college student
population.
3) Limited Diversity: The exclusion criteria,
specifically omitting students with prior
meditation experience or undergoing
concurrent stress management interventions,
may have limited the diversity of the sample.
The findings might not capture the potential
differential effects of the mindfulness-based
stress reduction (MBSR) program on
individuals with varied backgrounds.
4) Subjective Measures: Self-report measures for
assessing subjective parameters, such as
confidence levels and stress/anxiety frequency,
were susceptible to social desirability bias.
Participants may have provided responses
influenced by a desire to present themselves
favourably rather than conveying their
authentic experiences.
5) Observer Bias: The use of trained observers
and an observation checklist introduced the
possibility of observer bias. The subjective
nature of evaluating participants' engagement
and adherence to meditation sessions may have
influenced the objectivity of the observations.
6) Single-Instructor Led Program: The structured
MBSR program led by a certified instructor
might not have accounted for variations in
instructor styles or participant preferences.
Different instructors might have yielded
different results, and participant experiences
could have varied based on personal
preferences.
7) Short Intervention Duration: The four-week
duration of the MBSR program might have
limited the exploration of long-term effects.
Extending the intervention period could have
provided insights into the sustainability of
observed changes over time.
8) Limited Meditation Techniques: The focus on
mindfulness meditation and focused breathing
exercises may not have fully captured the
potential benefits of diverse meditation
techniques. Variability in meditation methods
could have influenced participant experiences
and outcomes differently.
9) Homogeneous Academic Setting: The study's
single-institution focus may not have
sufficiently considered the potential impact of
diverse academic environments on learning
outcomes. The influence of the MBSR
program might have varied across institutions
with distinct academic structures and cultures.
10) Absence of Control for External Factors: The
study did not explicitly control for external
factors, such as concurrent life events or
alterations in participants' routines outside the
MBSR program. These external factors could
have introduced confounding variables,
complicating the interpretation of observed
changes.
Understanding these limitations is essential for
contextualizing the study's findings and recognizing
the constraints in generalizing the results. Future
research endeavours should strive to address these
limitations for a more comprehensive understanding
of the relationship between MBSR programs and
academic well-being among college students.
CONCLUSIONS
This comprehensive scientific investigation,
conducted by the EdTech Research Association and
co-authored by Kavita Roy, systematically
examined the transformative effects of a 12-week
mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR)
program on the well-being and academic
performance of undergraduate students. Employing
a meticulous mixed-methods approach, including
quantitative assessments, qualitative interviews,
and control group comparisons, the study aimed to
offer a nuanced comprehension of the intervention's
impact. The results illuminated positive
experiences within the MBSR program, indicating
significant reductions in stress levels,
enhancements in overall well-being, and a notable
increase in academic performance. Interestingly,
the control group also demonstrated improvements
in academic performance, suggesting the presence
of external influencing factors. While the MBSR
program exhibited its potential to improve student
well-being, the research underscored the intricate
interplay of factors affecting academic outcomes.
In conclusion, the outcomes of this scientific
inquiry advocate for the integration of mindfulness-
based interventions in higher education settings,
emphasizing the need to consider individual
differences and the broader university context. The
positive findings underscore the capacity of
mindfulness practices to contribute not only to
holistic well-being but also to the academic success
of undergraduate students. The amalgamation of
quantitative and qualitative data, coupled with
rigorous validity and reliability measures, positions
this research as a valuable contribution to the
scientific understanding of mindfulness
interventions in educational settings. As academic
institutions strive to prioritize the mental health of
their students, these findings emphasize the
significance of thoughtfully integrating
mindfulness practices to create an environment
conducive to both personal growth and academic
achievement.

FUNDING INFORMATION
Not applicable.
COMPETING INTERESTS
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Not Applicable.
AUTHOR’S CONTRIBUTIONS
Khritish Swargiary: Conceptualization,
methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data
curation, visualization, writing—original draft
preparation, writing—review and editing; Kavita
Roy; supervision, project administration, funding
acquisition, writing—original draft preparation,
writing—review and editing. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the
manuscript OR The author has read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
ETHICS AND CONSENT
I, KHRITISH SWARGIARY, a research assistant at
EdTech Research Associations in India, hereby
declare that the research conducted for the article
titled "Student’s Well-being and Academic
Performance: A Mixed-Methods Research” adheres
to the ethical guidelines set forth by the EdTech
Research Association (ERA). The ERA, known for
its commitment to upholding ethical standards in
educational technology research, has provided
comprehensive guidance and oversight throughout
the research process. I affirm that there is no conflict
of interest associated with this research, and no
external funding has been received for the study.
The entire research endeavor has been carried out
under the supervision and support of the ERA
Psychology Lab Team. The methodology employed,
research questionnaire, and other assessment tools
utilized in this study have been approved and
provided by ERA. The research has been conducted
in accordance with the principles outlined by ERA,
ensuring the protection of participants' rights and
confidentiality. Ethical approval for this research
has been granted by the EdTech Research
Association under the reference number 19-
06/20/ERA/2022. Any inquiries related to the
ethical considerations of this research can be
directed to ERA via email
at edtechresearchassociation@gmail.com. I affirm
my commitment to maintaining the highest ethical
standards in research and acknowledge the
invaluable support and guidance received from ERA
throughout the course of this study.
REFERENCES
1) Amholt, T. T., Jesper, D., Rhonwyn, C., &
Janni, N. (2020). Psychological well-being
and academic achievement among school-
aged children: A systematic review. Child
Indicators Research, 13(5), 1523–1548.
2) Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unraveling the
mystery of health: How people manage
stress and stay well (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
3) Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G.
V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted
impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic
functioning. Child Development, 67(3),
1206–1222.
4) Banks, J., & Smyth, E. (2015). ‘Your
whole life depends on it’: Academic stress
and high-stakes testing in Ireland. Journal
of Youth Studies, 18(5), 598–616.
5) Bong, M., & Clark, R. E. (1999).
Comparison between self-concept and self-
efficacy in academic motivation
research. Educational Psychologist, 34(3),
139–154.
6) Bücker, S., Nuraydin, S., Simonsmeier, B.
A., Schneider, M., & Luhmann, M. (2018).
Subjective well-being and academic
achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Research in Personality, 74, 83–94.
7) Bukodi, E., & Goldthorpe, J. (2013).
Decomposing ‘social origins’: The effects
of parents’ class, status, and education on
the educational attainment of their
children. European Sociological
Review, 29(5), 1024–1039.
8) Bukodi, E., Erikson, R., & Goldthorpe, J.
(2014). The effects of social origins and
cognitive ability on educational attainment:
Evidence from Britain and Sweden. Acta
Sociologica, 57(4), 293–310.
9) Cefai, C., Simões, C., & Caravita, S.
(2021). A systemic, whole-school approach
to mental health and well-being in schools
in the EU: Executive summary.
Publications Office of the European
Union. https://doi.org/10.2766/50546
10) Chamberlin, K., Yasué, M., & Chiang, I.-
C.A. (2018). The impact of grades on
student motivation. Active Learning in
Higher
Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/146978
7418819728
11) Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002).
Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for
testing measurement invariance. Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 9(2), 233–255.
12) Clarke, T. (2020). Children’s wellbeing
and their academic achievement: The
dangerous discourse of ‘trade-offs’ in
education. Theory and Research in
Education, 18(3), 263–294.
13) Due, P., Krølner, R., Rasmussen, M.,
Andersen, A., Damsgaard, M. T., Graham,
H., & Holstein, B. E. (2011). Pathways and
 mechanisms in adolescence contribute to
adult health inequalities. Scandinavian
Journal of Public Health, 39(6), 62–78.
14) Ellis, P. D. (2010). The essential guide to
effect sizes: Statistical power, meta-
analysis, and the interpretation of research
results. Cambridge University Press.
15) Giota, J., & Gustafsson, J.-E. (2017).
Perceived demands of schooling, stress and
mental health: Changes from grade 6 to
grade 9 as a function of gender and
cognitive ability. Stress and Health, 33(3),
253–266.
16) Härnqvist, K. (2000). Evaluation through
follow-up. A longitudinal program for
studying education and career
development. In C.-G. Janson (Ed.), Seven
Swedish longitudinal studies in
behavioural science (pp. 76–114).
Stockholm: Forskningsrådsnämnden.
17) Haugland, S., Wold, B., Stevenson, J.,
Aaroe, L. E., & Wyonarowska, B. (2001).
Subjective health complaints in
adolescence. European Journal of Public
Health, 11(1), 4–10.
18) Heller-Sahlgren, G. (2018). Smart but
unhappy: Independent-school competition
and the wellbeing-efficiency trade-off in
education. Economics of Education
Review, 62, 66–81.
19) Högberg, B., Lindgren, J., Johansson, K.,
Strandh, M., & Petersen, S. (2019).
Consequences of school grading systems
on adolescent health: Evidence from a
Swedish school reform. Journal of
Education Policy, 34, 1–23.
20) Hox, J. J., Maas, C. J. M., & Brinkhuis, M.
J. S. (2010). The effect of estimation
method and sample size in multilevel
structural equation modeling. Statistica
Neerlandica, 64(2), 157–170.
21) Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit
indices in covariance structure modeling:
Sensitivity to underparameterized model
misspecification. Psychological
Methods, 3(4), 424–453.
22) Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff
criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria
versus new alternatives. Structural
Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
23) Inchley, J., Currie, D., Budisavljevic, S.,
Torsheim, T., Jåstad, A., Cosma, A., Kelly,
C., Arnarsson, Á. M., & Samdal, O.
(2020). Spotlight on adolescent health and
well-being. Findings from the 2017/2018
Health Behaviour in School-aged Children
(HBSC) survey in Europe and Canada.
International report. Copenhagen: WHO
Regional Office for Europe.
24) Jöreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural
equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. Scott
Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation
Models (pp. 294–316). California: Sage
Publications.
25) Kaya, M., & Erdem, C. (2021). Students’
well-being and academic achievement: A
meta-analysis study. Child Indicators
Research, 14(5), 1743–1767.
26) Klapp, A., & Jönsson, A. (2021).
Scaffolding or simplifying: Students’
perception of support in Swedish
compulsory school. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 36, 1055–1074.
27) Konu, A. I., Lintonen, T. P., & Rimpelä, M.
K. (2002). Factors associated with
schoolchildren’s general subjective well-
being. Health Education Research, 17(2),
155–165.
28) Låftman, B. S., Almquist, B. Y., &
Östberg, V. (2013). Students’ accounts of
school-performance stress: A qualitative
analysis of a high-achieving setting in
Stockholm. Sweden. Journal of Youth
Studies, 16(7), 932–949.
29) Lewis, R., & Frydenberg, E. (2002).
Concomitants of failure to cope: What we
should teach adolescents about
coping. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 72, 419–431.
30) Marsh, H. W. (1986). Verbal and math self-
concepts: An internal/external frame of
reference model. American Educational
Research Journal, 23(1), 129–149.
31) Marsh, H. W. (1990). Causal ordering of
academic self-concept and academic
achievement: A multiwave, longitudinal
panel analysis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82(4), 646–656.
32) Marsh, H. W., Guo, J., Parker, P. D.,
Nagengast, B., Asparouhov, T., Muthén,
B., & Dicke, T. (2018). What to do when
scalar invariance fails: The extended
alignment method for multi-group factor
analysis comparison of latent means across
many groups. Psychological
Methods, 23(3), 524–545.
33) Masten, A., Hubbard, J., Gest, S., Tellegen,
A., Garmezy, N., & Ramirez, M. (1999).
Competence in the context of adversity:
Pathways to resilience and maladaptation
from childhood to late
adolescence. Development and
Psychopathology, 11(1), 143–169.
34) Miller, S., Connolly, P., & Maguire, L. K.
(2013). Wellbeing, academic buoyancy and
educational achievement in primary school
students. International Journal of
Educational Research, 62, 239–248.
35) Muthén, B., & Satorra, A. (1995a).
Complex sample data in structural equation
modeling. Sociological Methodology, 25,
267–316.
36) Muthén, B., & Satorra, A. (1995b).
Technical aspects of Muthén’s LISCOMP
approach to estimate latent variable
relations with a comprehensive
measurement
model. Psychometrica, 60(4), 489–503.
37) Muthén, B., Kaplan, D., & Hollis, M.
(1987). On structural equation modeling
with data that are not missing completely at
random. Psychometrica, 52(3), 431–462.
38) Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B.O. (1998–
2017). Mplus user’s guide. Eighth edition.
Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
39) National Agency for Education. (2010).
Rustad att möta framtiden? PISA 2009 om
15-åringars läsförståelse och kunskaper i
matematik och naturvetenskap. Stockholm:
National Agency for Education.
40) National Agency for Education.
(2015). Skolreformer i praktiken - Hur
reformerna landade i grundskolans vardag
2011–2014. Stockholm: National Agency
for Education.
41) National Agency for Education.
(2018). Fler elever behöriga till gymnasiet.
Retrieved 2020–02–19
from https://www.skolverket.se/om-
oss/press/pressmeddelanden/pressmeddela
nden/2018-09-27-fler-elever-behoriga-till-
gymnasiet
42) National Agency for Education.
(2019). Antagning till gymnasieskolan.
Retrieved 2020–02–19
from https://www.skolverket.se/regler-
och-ansvar/ansvar-i-skolfragor/antagning-
till-gymnasieskolan#h-Behorighetochurval
43) OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 results (volume
III): Students’ well-being. PISA, OECD
Publishing.
44) OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (volume
III): What school life means for students’
lives. PISA, OECD Publishing.
45) Pietarinen, J., Soini, T., & Pyhältö, K.
(2014). Students’ emotional and cognitive
engagement as the determinants of well-
being and achievement in
school. International Journal of
Educational Research, 67, 40–51.
46) Pollard, E. L., & Lee, P. D. (2003). Child
well-being: A systematic review of the
literature. Social Indicators
Research, 61(1), 59–78.
47) Public Health Agency of Sweden.
(2014). Health behavior in school-aged
children. The Public Health Agency of
Sweden.
48) Public Health Agency of Sweden.
(2018). Varför har den psykiska ohälsan
ökat bland barn och unga i Sverige?
Utvecklingen under perioden 1985–2014.
The Public Health Agency of Sweden.
49) Särndal, C. E. (2007). The calibration
approach in survey theory and
practice. Survey Methodology, 33(2), 99–
119.
50) Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002).
Missing data: Our view of the state of the
art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147–
177.
51) Schraml, K., Perski, A., Grossi, G., &
Simonsson-Sarnecki, M. (2011). Stress
symptoms among adolescents: The role of
subjective psychosocial conditions,
lifestyle, and self-esteem. Journal of
Adolescence, 34(5), 987–996.
52) Siebecke, D. E., & Jarl, M. (2022). Does
the material well-being at schools
successfully compensate for
socioeconomic disadvantages? Analysis of
resilient schools in Sweden. Large-Scale
Assessments in Education, 10(1), 1–23.
53) Sonmark, K., Godeau, E., Augustine, L.,
Bygren, M., & Modin, B. (2016).
Individual and contextual expressions of
school demands and their relation to
psychosomatic health a comparative study
of students in France and Sweden. Child
Indicators Research, 9(1), 93–109.
54) Stoeger, H., & Ziegler, A. (2010). Do
students with differing cognitive abilities
benefit similarly from a self-regulated
learning training program? Gifted
Education International, 26(1), 110–123.
55) Svensson, A. (1964). Sociala och
regionala faktorers samband med över-
och underprestation i arbetet: Pedagogisk-
sociologiska studier jämte en beskrivning
av skolstatistikens individualuppgifter
(Report 1964:13). University of
Gothenburg.
56) Tannock, S. (2015). No grades in higher
education now! Revisiting the place of
graded assessment in the reimagination of
the public university. Studies in Higher
Education, 42(8), 1–13.
57) UNICEF. (2021). Annual Report 2020:
Turning research into action for children
and young people. Florence: UNICEF
Office of Research – Innocenti.
58) Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000).
A review and synthesis of the measurement
invariance literature: Suggestions,
practices, and recommendations for
organizational research. Organizational
Research Methods, 3(1), 4–7
59) Viner, R. M., Ozer, E. M., Denny, S.,
Marmot, M., Resnick, M., Fatusi, A., &
Currie, C. (2012). Adolescence and the
social determinants of
health. Lancet, 379(9826), 1641–1652.
60) von der Embse, N., Barterian, J., & Segool,
N. (2013). Test anxiety interventions for
children and adolescents: A systematic
review of treatment studies from 2000–
2010. Psychology in the Schools, 50(1),
57–71.
61) West, P., & Sweeting, H. (2003). Fifteen,
female and stressed: Changing patterns of
psychological distress over time. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44(3),
399–411.
62) World Health Organization.
(2005). Promoting mental health:
Concepts, emerging evidence, practice: A
report of the World Health Organization,
Department of Mental Health and
Substance Abuse in collaboration with the
Victorian Health Promotion Foundation
and the University of Melbourne. World
Health Organization.
63) World Health Organization. (2015). The
European mental health action plan 2013–
2020. WHO Regional Office for Europe.
 APPENDIX

Two Charts are presented below, displaying academic performance data for the participants before and after the
intervention. The data is presented in the form of GPA scores.

Chart 1: Before Intervention –

Academic Performance Data (GPA)
Experimental Group GPA Control Group GPA

1
505 2 3
48 49 4
47 5
46 4 6
45 7
44 8
43 3 9
42 2 10
41 11
40 1 12
39 13
0
38 14
37 15
36 16
35 17
34 18
33 19
32 20
31 21
30 22
29 28 23
27 25 24
26

Chart 2: After Intervention –

Academic Performance Data (GPA)
Experimental Group GPA Control Group GPA

1
505 2 3
48 49 4
47 5
46 4 6
45 7
44 8
43 3 9
42 2 10
41 11
40 1 12
39 13
0
38 14
37 15
36 16
35 17
34 18
33 19
32 20
31 21
30 22
29 28 23
27 25 24
26

View publication stats