The main aim of the project was to improve pupil achievement in literacy, with a specific focus on writing. Some pupils within the Primary 4 cohort were falling well behind the expected levels of attainment in writing. The project provided these pupils with weekly group sessions focusing on literacy and growth mindset, to help them better understand the learning process, the skills involved and believe they could improve as writers. The project hoped to show an improvement in pupils’ writing abilities, greater than prior progress and that made by their peer group.
A secondary aim was that through growth mindset teaching, the pupils would grow in confidence, be more willing to persevere with tasks and display a greater belief in their abilities. As Carol Dweck has reported, “...students who believed their intelligence could be developed (a growth mindset) outperformed those who believed their intelligence was fixed (a fixed mindset). And when students learned through a structured programme that they could “grow their brains” and increase their intellectual abilities, they did better.” Overall, the aim was for the project to take place within an ethical framework, ensuring confidentiality, consent, honest reporting, and reflection by the teacher leading the project.
The project had mixed results and some aspects have proved difficult to fully assess. In terms of their writing achievements, in formal assessed class writing the pupils all increased their scores between their baseline task and their final one, by more than the average increase of pupils at the same level. Thus, there was an improvement in writing using this measure. All pupils in the group also showed improvements in their spelling and phonics knowledge and progress within the Read Write Inc (RWI) programme. However, it was difficult to assess whether this was because of the project. RWI performance stayed generally in line with the pupils’ progress beforehand and improvements in phonics and spelling could be attributed to this.
In terms of growth mindset, the class teacher reported that the pupils within the group showed more confidence and independence during literacy activities. However, other evidence did not show consistent results (e.g., Pupil Attitude Survey scores). As such, it is difficult to say if the pupils’ literacy results were impacted by the growth mindset elements of the sessions, or if they would have shown equal improvement with the standard literacy Support for Learning sessions.
If the same project were to run again, several elements might be changed. With one pupil moving, only four pupils were studied. Using a larger group at the same stage would allow for a better judgement of the impact. The small size of the group meant that the data did not always give an accurate picture, with PASS scores for example more likely to be influenced by pupil mood as compared to a larger group. If we had used two groups, then we could have limited the growth mindset input to only one group, allowing us to better assess its standalone impact on literacy. Running the project for a longer period of time, allowing for several assessed pieces of writing to be completed, would also give a clearer view of whether any improvements were consistent and lasting.
The project planned to have twelve sessions delivered over twelve weeks (excluding holidays). Due to the clear plan of what was to be covered in each session, we were able to deliver all the content in the time allocated, with only minimal changes. It did take a few more weeks to schedule the sessions, due to class cover being required. As this is commonplace, it had been anticipated in the initial plan. Given that the group was going to continue post project, if was agreed to finish the full number of sessions and end two weeks later.
The initial project plan stated that a small number of sessions could be cancelled without the project needing to be extended. However, having seen the progress the group was making and questioning the potential impact of a relatively small number of sessions, the decision was made to allow the project to overrun. Completing delivery of the planned sessions was felt more important than meeting the expected end date. The make-up of the group also changed during the project. One of the original pupils moved schools and could no longer participate. Two new pupils were also moved into the group, but their results were not included as they only had a limited number of sessions. Overall, the planned content of the sessions and their format did not change significantly.
The project group has seen an improvement in their writing abilities and general literacy. By comparing their writing scores with those of their peers, it seems that they were positively impacted by the sessions they received. There has been an improvement in writing quality during the sessions, including more accurate spelling and punctuation and better sentence quality. Assessments in spelling and phonics knowledge also showed an improvement and the class teacher noted increased pupil confidence during literacy sessions. The pupils themselves were positive about attending the group and felt it had improved their writing - Pupil L reported “I can write better,” and Pupil C “I learned more writing.”
In terms of the pupils’ growth mindset, there were variations across the different measures used to assess impact. Pupil Attitude Survey (PASS) data proved inconsistent and perhaps not suited to such a small group. Only Pupil C, showed a consistent improvement across all the growth mindset related sections. Attitudes to literacy surveys were created and the group competed these pre and post project. Whilst also inconsistent, these surveys did show some positives:
Pupil D recorded that he knows more things he can do to improve his writing
Pupil C is more confident that he can improve his writing by practising
Pupil L is much less likely to give up on writing when it is too difficult
Pupil C wrote “I learned to never give up,”
Pupil O wrote “I learned how to keep trying.”
Teacher judgement showed an increase in confidence, but it is not possible to know whether this is due to a better growth mindset, or the fact the pupils had new literacy skills and knowledge. The project has increased the confidence of those involved to deliver growth mindset lessons and embed the teaching in the classroom. In time, maintaining a focus on growth mindset should benefit the whole school.
The impact on the pupils’ literacy achievements was assessed in several ways. All pupils complete several writing assessments throughout the year in class. This includes a ‘cold’ piece completed before any teaching takes place and a ‘hot’ piece completed at the end of the teaching period. These assessments were used to compare the progress of the pupils in the project with their peers. Three of the pupils tested at 1.1 level showed an improvement beyond their peers, with increases of 4, 5 and 7 points, as compared to an average of 3.2 points. For the pupil tested at E.3 level, their score improved by 3 points versus 2.6 for their peer group. This appears to show that attending the group helped to improve the scores of pupils involved, beyond what might have been expected through class teaching alone.
Pupils within the group were also assessed on their knowledge of sounds and spelling at the start and end of the project. These assessments were based on the RWI programme used in school. Within a control group it is difficult to attribute results to the project and/or RWI programme. However, the results were positive with all four pupils achieving an increase in the number of words spelt correctly and three pupils increasing the number of sounds they could write correctly:
Due to the small scale of the project, few staff were involved and therefore able to offer detailed feedback. The class teacher of the pupils in the group reported more confidence when doing work in class, particularly their literacy work. She has found the pupils involved are more independent in their work and showing more enthusiasm for their writing lessons within class. Other members of staff and school management have shown interest in the use of growth mindset and are keen to understand the longer-term impact and progression of the project.
Before school closures, the project group continued to attend sessions weekly to build on their literacy skills. This would have continued, with growth mindset messages being integrated into literacy teaching. Unfortunately, growth mindset now also receives less of a focus in the School Improvement Plan and there is no standard approach being used across the school. We hope that by engaging colleagues and senior management in discussing the potential impact of using growth mindset alongside normal teaching and the results of this project, we can promote a growth mindset culture in our classrooms.