Mindfulness Study Using the Paradox Process Fall 2013

Our mission for this case study was to teach kindergarten eligible students how to identify, communicate and change their feelings and emotions through the use of The Paradox Process, and then to gauge the cognitive and emotional effects of The Paradox Process. Ten students, four females and six males all four to five years of age, participated for a nine-week study.

Weekly Charts: The below charts show the difference in the time, in seconds, that it took the students to solve a puzzle of the same difficulty level before and after The Paradox Process was administered. Any progress, positive or negative, equals each student’s time on COGNITIVE TEST #1 subtracted from their time on COGNITIVE TEST #2.


We had also analyzed the data from the questionnaire that the teachers had filled out. The graph  Average Change (See Below) shows negative changes in the students. Remembering that a negative change means a positive outcome, the results from all the teachers, as a percent of a whole, was found to be 9%. Of the three teachers, teacher three did not hand in a part of her assessment of the children and for that reason, a second result was rendered omitting her assessments completely. In that analysis, our team found a 13% change in the children from their behavior from week one to week nine.

Average Change (Above): The graph shows the perceived average change per student, regardless of teacher. Every teacher has a score for each student. That score is merely the difference between how he/she, the student, was rated BEFORE the Paradox Process began and AFTER. Scores from the teachers are combined together to show in that graph. The bars moving in the negative direction, indicates that the students are completing their task in LESS time.

Pearson Correlations Chart (Below): For a total of nine weeks, weekly Pearson Correlation tests compared the amount of time, in seconds, it took a participant to complete a task before and after having experienced the Paradox Process (Table 1). After nine weeks, a final Correlation was run comparing the changes in week one to the changes in week nine. For the purposes of this study, we are looking for a negative correlation. Although we found a significant correlation between the time it took to solve a puzzle before and the time it took to solve a puzzle after The Paradox Process, r(8) = .91, p <.05, the correlation is not negative. However, the results indicate a 9% decrease in the time it took to complete a task after nine weeks of implementing the Paradox Process.