Generación de una MS2-coat-protein pura y funcional con dos

Many MBA are taught by specialist instructors from outside the school so there is a lack of evidence for interventions run by classroom teachers during school hours (Britton et al., 2014). One of the strengths of this study, in relation to school wide implementation, is the use of usual classroom teachers to deliver the PME as part of the normal school day. When programmes are embedded into the curriculum, like in this study, any effects gained become more

141

This study did not wholly rely on self-report measures like many other studies exploring MBA (Burke, 2010; Weare, 2013). The use of third party reports and qualitative data is a strength of this study allowing triangulation of data (Zenner et al., 2014).

The use of qualitative data also marks this research as different from most studies of MBA with children. The literature reviewed in this paper is largely quantitative and very few studies include the views of children and their

perceptions of MBA (Burke, 2010; Weare, 2013). The use of mixed methods to include quantitative and qualitative data has been suggested as one way to further the evidence base for MBA with children (Rempel, 2012; Zenner et al., 2014).

The children who participated in the PME did not volunteer to take part. It is another strength of this study that it did not rely on volunteers for participants thus avoiding self-selection bias.

9.5. Study Limitations

Throughout the duration of the PME there were days when some children did not participate at all, participated a little or participated fully. It would be

extremely difficult to determine the level of involvement from each pupil on each and every day. Determining the extent to which participants engage with

mindfulness practices during interventions and programmes is a challenge for the field (Greenberg & Harris, 2012; Meiklejohn et al., 2012). This study attempted to capture some barometer of children’s involvement by asking the teachers to keep records of who was not participating (for example, reading a

142

book or absent), asking the children directly in the evaluation questionnaire, and interviewing a sample of those who participated.

This study did not include a control group and therefore alternative explanations for the quantitative findings such as regression to the mean, maturation and history are plausible (Robson, 2002). Additionally the teachers were not blind to the PME and the teacher reports may be subject to expectancy effects. No measure was taken of the individual teacher’s enthusiasm or attitude towards the PME whilst it was running. These factors may have had a bearing on the students’ levels of involvement throughout the programme.

The reasons for the choice of the SCWBS have already been mentioned earlier in this thesis however the appropriateness of the SCWBS is worth reflecting on in light of the lack of statistically significant differences in SCWBS scores

compared to the significant findings in some SDQ sub-scales. It may be that psychological wellbeing (PWB) as measured by the SCWBS is not an

appropriate measure for assessing the impact of mindfulness interventions. Perhaps PWB as measured by the SCWBS did not adequately capture any salutary effects of the PME or address relevant areas of SEW influenced by the PME in this study. As the SCWBS has yet to be assessed for sensitivity to change (Liddle and Carter, 2015) it may well be that the measure was

unsatisfactory at capturing change over the course of the PME. The SDQ sub- scales that showed a significant reduction in scores were conduct problems and externalising problems. It could be that the items on the SDQ that detected change are underrepresented in the SCWBS and that possibly the SDQ and SCWBS are measuring distinct aspects of SEW of which some are more susceptible to change over the duration of a six week intervention. Liddle and

143

Carter (2015) state that there is difficulty in defining and measuring PWB and designing a measure to use with children is a relatively new undertaking. Further use of the SCWBS alongside other measures, including measures of ‘mindfulness’, will hopefully shed further light on the appropriateness of the SCWBS for detecting change due to school-based mindfulness interventions. Due to the sampling method employed in this study the children interviewed for the PME may not be representative of both classes. Only the children who returned letters took part in an interview and different sampling strategies may have been more appropriate for this research. There is the possibility that children who returned signed forms may have been more eager to speak than other children or enjoyed the PME more. A more representative sample could have been gained by purposive sampling aiming to interview participants with low, medium and high SDQ before scores. Additionally the use of only six children raises the possibility of only particular types of participants being interviewed (for example, those with low scores on the SDQ, children who enjoyed the PME). The more overtly positive views expressed by participants in the interviews contrasted with the mixed opinions from the evaluation

questionnaire. This may be in part to the characteristics of the children interviewed as well as elements of social desirability during the interview process.

A lack of long term follow up measures in this study limits the findings to immediately after the intervention. It may be that any effects do not endure once participation in mindfulness exercises ceases. A lack of longer term follow up measures is a common criticism in the field of mindfulness research with children (Harnett & Dawe, 2012; Zenner et al., 2014).

144

One of the challenges facing mindfulness research is evaluating mechanisms of change within MBA (Harnett & Dawe, 2012; Zenner et al., 2014). As an

exploratory study with no control group this present research can offer no further insights into possible mechanisms of change. It is therefore conceivable that the effects noticed in this study could be attributed to factors other than the PME, such as taking part in a novel activity or generic resting and relaxing (Zenner et al., 2014).

The PME used in this study was devised by a non-specialist and although the exercises were taken from texts written by trained and experienced mindfulness practitioners claims about the extent to which the PME inculcated ‘mindfulness’ in those who participated is open to debate.