Tuesday, 6 December 2016

A Marking Revolution?

Marking: it’s the issue that perhaps adds most to the workload of teachers and for many of us seems like painting the Forth Bridge, but harder. These days it gets paired up to make a double act: marking and feedback, but in fact these are two quite separate things.
We know from the work of Prof. John Hattie and the Sutton Trust that feedback has one of the highest effect sizes in all evidences teaching strategies. This alone gives us the mandate to seek to improve the quality of our feedback to students, and why so many of us spend so long doing it. But is marking the same as feedback? It would seem not.

As the recent report by the Education Endowment Foundation, ‘A Marked Improvement’ (Elliott et al., April 2016) states: “Careless mistakes should be marked differently to errors resulting from misunderstanding.” This makes the distinction that marking highlights errors: spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, carelessness through lack of effort or not proof-reading. Feedback, then, should aim to clear up misunderstandings, and if we want students to understand where they have gone wrong, we traditionally write our feedback on their work, and this takes the most time and effort.

We often find ourselves writing the same thing over and over as we plough through student books or writing lengthy comments to re-iterate what we said in class. And it’s this that contributes to make marking such a chore.

The EEF’s report outlines some key findings that we can learn from when we assess the impact of our marking and our feedback to students. Here are some of the main points and what they might mean for us:

“The quality of existing evidence focused specifically on written marking is low.”

This is surprising, as it makes up such a huge part of our workload. However, what little has been discovered helps us form a more flexible approach to the way we mark. What has been gleaned is detailed below:

“Careless mistakes should be marked differently to errors resulting from misunderstanding. The latter may be best addressed by providing hints or questions which lead pupils to underlying principles; the former by simply marking the mistake as incorrect, without giving the right answer.”

‘Careless mistakes’ are likely to take the form of SPaG errors, primarily. Two strategies that can help with this: 

1) Ensuring that work is proof-read before it is handed in. Students can either do this themselves, or swap with a peer to check against key words stipulated by the teacher or directed inclusions about workings-out and presentation. Don’t take work in unless this has been done. This would take 5 minutes tops.

2) Any errors you spot can be pointed out by underlining the error and marking it with a © (Check and Correct). Subjects such as MFL may have a list of marking codes here to support more complex grammatical errors, although keeping codes to a minimum has more impact. Have dictionaries on desks and students can correct these errors themselves.

“Pupils are unlikely to benefit from marking unless some time is set aside to enable pupils to consider and respond to marking”

DIRT (Directed Improvement and Response Time) is essential: without it you can feel like a yappy dog barking at the postman from the other side of the door, as your barking, or rather, feedback will have minimal impact. Building DIRT into lessons is not time-wasted, it’s time invested. But do heed the following warning too:

“Some forms of marking, including acknowledgement marking, are unlikely to enhance pupil progress. A mantra might be that schools should mark less in terms of the number of pieces of work marked, but mark better.”

DIRT is to allow the students make the work better and produce improved responses to the standard you have asked for. A comment from a teacher saying ‘You need to write more for an 8 mark question’ can elicit the response ‘Ok thanks Miss, I will next time’, which is all very polite, but has little impact. The feedback (oral or written) ‘Please re-do this again, this time with more detail’ should be an instruction and that is what the DIRT is for.

“There is an urgent need for more studies so that teachers have better information about the most effective marking approaches.”

We’re on it! In a bid to make feedback more meaningful but less onerous for the teacher, several subject areas at CWLC have been trialing different approaches to marking and feedback. One particular resource is being tried out in maths, MFL and English:

The whole-class feedback grid

A generic copy of a whole-class marking & feedback grid (referred to now as M&F grids) is here.
Methodology: The idea of these sheets is that, instead of marking every book closely and writing individual comments on every book, teachers read every book and only make the minimum number of interventions: e.g. question marks, any SPaG marking codes agreed by the dept., comments for that particular student based on your knowledge of their effort, etc.

As a teacher reads the books, they jot down notes using the M&F grid to highlight excellent work/effort, common problems, misconceptions, missing work, absences, common keyword issues, etc. The next lesson begins with this feedback being shared with the whole group, which can be done in a number of ways. The students then act on this feedback before moving on.

Martin Goffe (HoD MFL) presented to the T&L group recently how he and others in MFL had been using the M&F grids. MFL use a list of annotation codes to indicate a range of issues that commonly occur in MFL written work. The teacher annotates work with these codes in green.

They then use the grid to make further notes. In the example Martin gave, he had typed his feedback comments onto Powerpoint slides so the whole class would see (he said this only took 5 minutes as he was simply copying from his notes). The first slides started with www comments with students gaining individual praise for work done well, with examples of why this was excellent (shown below). This worked as a model for improvement.

The next slides were highlighting common errors (this time with no student names/initials). This acts as a prompt so students can look to see if they made the same errors. Going through the slides took 10 minutes then the DIRT that followed was probably 15 minutes more.

Martin’s pros: ‘Marking took less time; I was able to give more specific praise and therefore felt it impacted positively on students’ self-esteem and confidence; it promoted more independence in the students.’  Cons: ‘None as far as marking/feedback method goes, but I think the marking codes MFL are using could be reduced as students progress, reducing the level of scaffolding and promoting even more independence in improving their own work.’

Tess Thomas (AHT & maths) presented how the whole maths department has been using these M&F grid (below)

With maths being marked far more frequently (in terms of right or wrong answers) than some other subjects, Tess said she doesn’t write the feedback onto slides. Classwork is always marked there and then for instant feedback with the students doing self and peer marking. Tess only marks homework closely. She then gives the feedback orally and directs it towards individuals. Best work is highlighted first, with two ‘BBs’ (Best Books) chosen each week. The BB students then act as Learning Ambassadors to support other students during DIRT. Students needing support are told why and then paired with Learning Ambassadors to improve the work. Each maths teacher also keeps their grids and files them as a record of student progress which Iglika Gillam (maths) says is very helpful when writing reports. Although it has been adopted across the maths department, teachers are using their grids in slightly different ways. For Tess, pros: ‘I feel the quality of my feedback has improved; I’m able to reflect more on what I plan for subsequent lessons more accurately; the time taken to mark is reduced.’ Cons: ‘None as yet!’

If departments want to try this method out, we would advise you adapt the generic form, as each department will have different needs and priorities in their marking. 

Endorsed by our Head of English Karen Cunningham, a few of us have also been giving the grids a try. Here's one I tried myself for some marking for a year 7 descriptive writing task. 

I later did what Martin had done and copied my notes onto slides to start the lesson off. I like to think I'm good at giving out praise but it turns out, when I compare my previous habits with using this grid, not so much. It was lovely being able to start the lesson with some specific praise for individuals and seeing how this affected the students' pride in themselves and their work. I was able to target some quite complex grammatical improvements with the whole class too, so that everyone could see and hear my comments and they weren't just aimed at particular high fliers and lost in their books. When they were doing their DIRT following this, I noticed it was much more purposeful than usual; students were comparing errors and praise, and working with one another to model best work. I was surprised at how successful the whole process had been.

It also showed me that the original grid needed to be tweaked to allow more space for praise, which I did ready for the next piece they do for me:

Another thing I really like about these grids and the feedback we're getting from teachers in lots of departments is just how flexible it is: each department is finding their own way with them, which surely indicates an engagement with the process looking for impact, rather than a whole-school one-size-fits-all approach.

The elephant in the room?

When sharing these and other alternative feedback methods, the most commonly-heard response from teachers tends to be “But what will Ofsted and SLT say? Won’t they want to see lots of teacher comments and student/teacher dialogue?”

The response to this is a resounding “NO!”, from Ofsted, and from our SLT after we discussed this recently. (My HT insisted I write this in bold. And red. In caps. I should add too that he's an Ofsted Inspector.)

Ofsted Chief Sean Harford’s recent document “Marking and other myths” (Nov 2016) states: ‘I have asked our inspectors when reporting to not give any impression that marking needs to be undertaken in any particular format and to any particular degree of sophistication or detail; this lines up with our myth busting document and the school inspection handbook deals with this.’

Read the whole (short) article here for details but he is very clear on this.

And our own Headteacher Neil Morris says: 

In our reviews, student work is always going to be scrutinised and will help provide evidence for student progress over time. But that progress is achieved in a variety of ways. As long as we demand high standards of literacy and presentation, and students have improved work when it is not good enough or when it shows misunderstandings, then that is evidence enough that feedback has informed this, whatever form the feedback takes. We don’t need stickers or stamps, or written conversations because that’s clearly done for me, or SLT, not the students! We do read students’ work, so we know when it reflects good teaching and high expectations.’

Our action research on this continues and will help inform policy when we review our whole-school approach to both marking and feedback. Watch this space!

Sunday, 17 April 2016

Saving the RHINOs and PANDAs in your school

(Image from onegreenplanet.org)

A few years ago, when we started thinking about using growth mindset as a way forward throughout our school, we realised that we would need to consider how it might fit in with our particular students. 

Each school is unique; this is what makes us feel our hearts belong to a particular institution. Remember how panicked you felt as a trainee when you had to change placements? But once you’d been at your second school for a few weeks, it was hard to even remember the name of the first school. So even though 'kids is kids', each school works in its peculiar bubble, ethos and culture. It can feel quite strange when you spend a day in another school when you don’t get out much, a bit like drinking in the day and going into the daylight – it’s like real life but slightly distorted and disorientating. For this reason, your own students in your unique context should be a school’s starting point for any focus on change and attempted improvement.

I teach in a pretty leafy area, in a semi-rural shire county. However, we also have one of the most socio-economically poor housing estates in the city on our doorstep and our catchment is fully mixed – and fully inclusive.

Through experience, close data analysis and anecdotal evidence and discussion, two key types of student kept surfacing as needing our attention. We decided to pool our evidence and identified them as belonging to two distinctive groups. We’ve now committed to focusing on these groups in our teaching and in our pastoral support. These are our RHINOs and our PANDAs.

Whilst we recognise that every student is an individual and has their own unique set of abilities and needs, by grouping students into these two categories, we feel might be able to share strategies and approaches that will help them to overcome their barriers to learning. It might also be that, in doing this, we can pinpoint strategies that could also work with students who show similar traits but in different ways.

Who are RHINO students?

A RHINO is Really Here In Name Only, a term coined in the late 1990s by the then Secretary of State for Education, David Blunkett. He was interested in the significant proportion of students who were disengaging from the idea of education, typically at secondary level. Unlike the students who showed their feelings through disruptive behaviour, low attendance and poor relationships, Blunkett found a large number of these disengaged students attend school regularly, are of average to high ability and capable of attaining C grades (3 levels of progress in new money) and therefore unlikely to be the subject of intervention. They are often adept at the social behaviour teachers like to see: smiling, maintaining eye-contact, using affirmative body language. But school is not engaging them actively and so they do what is necessary to get by, hence Really Here In Name Only. We have LOTS of RHINOs and I've written about them before.

Who are the PANDAs?

PANDA stands for Perfectionist AND Anxious (name created by myself and Tess Thomas @flickasforeva, my oppo in T&L). We’ve found these often higher ability students are surfacing earlier and earlier, and they are of concern to us primarily for their inability to switch off from work, their heavy investment in self-criticism and sometimes even their potential to develop anxiety-related behaviours; in the worst cases manifesting in eating disorders, self-harm and medium to long-term mental health issues. I know we are not alone in worrying about students with this profile, however low down the scale of concern they might be now.

Do you know any RHINOs and / or PANDAs? If so, and you’re interested in what we’re doing to focus on and support them, read on…

Who are your RHINOs and PANDAs?
Thinking of particular students and then seeing how far they fit the profiles can help in deciding on strategies to use and share.


(Our Headteacher says it's also interesting seeing if any of these traits apply to colleagues!)

In our Teaching & Learning group, we are looking at strategies that may work well with these two types of students using three main foci from our current areas of interest and action research:

Marking & Feedback
Our whole-school policy that focuses on quality, not quantity and that asks teachers to consider the impact of their marking above everything else (copy here)

Growth Mindset
A continued area of importance at our school, that features in our school development plan 

Learning Ambassadors
A growing range of student roles throughout the school in various subjects, which includes student voice, modelling high standards of effort/work, and support roles 

These areas will form the focus on of our work and discussions in 2016, with the aim of identifying the strategies with the highest impact, sharing them and promoting their use across the school into 2017.

To act as a starting point, we produced the following list of possible strategies, based on feedback we’d had from staff about where they had previously had success with particular students, and also taken from published research on growth mindset; Pupil Premium attainment, and findings from SLT’s pilot research with their own teaching groups.

This is what we shared with our Teaching & Learning group and then with our middle leaders:

Strategies for PANDAs and RHINOs

Members of the T&L group (and any other interested members of staff) can choose any of the coloured boxes and trial ONE idea for ONE group or ONE student, for ONE term.

After one term, what worked? What didn’t? Why? What can be shared?

GREEN boxes are growth mindset strategies;
LILAC is marking & feedback;
BLUE is for Learning Ambassadors.

Learn more about growth mindset and apply its thinking to help PANDAs cope with set-backs and stress more effectively. (GM)
RHINOs could benefit from growth mindset meta-cognition teaching strategies to improve exam techniques. (GM)
Break tasks and challenges down into small steps that can be tackled bit-by-bit.
Show RHINOs examples of medium and long-term gain as incentives.
Talk about skills you now have that you didn’t have previously because of the practice you put in. Dramatise mistakes that demonstrate solutions; describe things you’ve struggled with yourself and that you’ve now made progress in.
Try to engage parents/carers: the vast majority want their children to do well and once they see that you recognise their child’s potential, most will support you to help them reach it.
Try not to over-indulge PANDAs during anxious episodes: use good relationships to be supportive but clear and decisive about expectations.
Do not accept under-par work: set high standards in detail and presentation of written work. (M&F)
Use time-planners to help PANDAs with revision timetables, including wind-down time to help them cope with exam periods.
Be consistent with praise in feedback: RHINOs will often indicate they aren’t bothered about rewards but are in reality. Reward effort (M&F) & (GM)
Use growth mindset language in our written and oral feedback to help confidence and attainment with our PANDAs. (M&F) & (GM)
Use feedback strategies that encourage responsibility for improvements and greater detail in RHINOs’ written work. (M&F)
Use PANDAs to provide quality student voice on the teaching strategies that work best for them. (LA)
Give RHINOs roles as Learning Ambassadors to help them increase their accountability and engage more in their learning. (LA)
After careful explanation, use the ‘R’ (Requires improvement) grade for effort, if and when appropriate. Use it to encourage conciseness when PANDAs write too much. (M&F)
Be very specific about revision strategies. Tick boxes and directed class time can help RHINOs organise their revision content.
Monitor DIRT carefully and be kind but firm with PANDAs when they don’t follow up on your feedback. They may ignore advice if they think they know better! (M&F)
Sit RHINOs with Learning Ambassadors who act as models for written standards.

This will be added to by colleagues and built up as a bank of strategies. It will then be added to our Staff planners this year, and will also be a feature of the T&L focus for the rest of this year and into next.

Monday, 13 July 2015

Our year of Growth Mindset research

After embracing the ideas and principles behind growth mindset, we'd decided it was definitely a road we wanted to travel down and explore. This post details how we decided on an organic approach to introducing it as a whole-school focus. One of the important things for us was that staff should not be asked to take on anything that we hadn't, in part at least, tried out first in our own context, with our students. 

Through our Teaching & Learning groups, Head of Drama Simon Beasley (@EconomySir), volunteered to run a pilot project that would trial a number of growth mindset strategies and, importantly, measure its impact.

The following guest blogpost is by Simon and details the year of our first official growth mindset trial.

Our Growth Mindset Pilot Project

Simon Beasley

The study took place over the course of the academic year 2014/15 and went through various stages:

     Student questionnaire
     Lesson studies (observations of key students in a range of subject lessons)
     Results analysis
     Staff interviews

Mindset Study Group

After we had completed the initial school wide questionnaires I picked out six students (4 girls and 2 boys) to work with who showed signs of having a fixed mindset and who were high achievers. These students were chosen as while they were doing well in school they had not yet managed to break into the top grades. We had identified this profile of student as one that was prominent at our school and could potentially benefit from a push towards growth mindset thinking.

We met each week at guidance time. I delivered seminars on mindset theory and brain development and we discussed the theories. The students were asked to try to apply a new skill each week from what had been discussed and this would feed into the following weeks discussion.

Students were also asked to keep a diary of their experiences throughout the study.

I undertook lesson observations of the students in order to see if they were indeed exhibiting fixed mindset traits. Finally I also interviewed the teachers of the students in order to gauge their impressions.


In the lesson observations the students exhibited very "typical" behaviour when they faced challenges. One students actually cut out sections of spare paper in order to glue it into her book to cover up where she had made a mistake.

Students who were on the surface quite able switched off the moment that they had to complete a task they found difficult and, where possible, they would simply seek out the answers from any source rather than trying to figure it out for themselves.

They had developed their learned helplessness and would be very needy of the teacher exclaiming that they could not do the task and that it was too hard.

I interviewed eight teachers overall from Maths, English, MFL, Geography, Science and DT in order to ascertain a wide range of opinions from a variety of subjects. Each of the teachers when interviewed said mostly the same thing that the students were doing well but that they were not very resilient and that they required a lot of support.

One teacher mentioned that one of the students refused to allow her note book to be marked as there were mistakes in it and that they would only hand in polished work.

Throughout the sessions the students were very responsive to the seminars and that they understood the thinking behind developing a growth mindset. However, they were exceptionally resistant to applying it to their work.

The main argument being that they were doing okay and that if they tried the ideas out they feared either getting something wrong or being perceived as a 'try hard' by other members of the group.

Even when they were presented with articles etc. that demonstrated to them that this is exactly the problem with being fixed in their approach the risk was not deemed to be worth taking.

The students all agreed that the system was right but there was also scepticism that it would be another initiative that would be big for a while before they slipped back into the status quo.

Student questionnaires

Once this study had run its course I presented the findings to the Teaching and Learning group and it was decided to trial the ideas in several classes with teachers adapting their language and style to help foster a growth mindset amongst the students.

Before the trial I gave out questionnaires to the students in order to gauge their perceptions of what makes a successful learner.


The responses were unsurprising given the reactions of the students from the initial group. The 93% of students answered that hard work was more important than natural skill. They also showed that the students realised that with the right effort the students would continue to improve and that they would be capable of improving in all subjects.

On the surface of it this was going to be an easy task. With the overwhelming majority of students already had a growth mindset and knew the secret to their own success.

Lesson Studies

The staff in the study were given copies of Mindset by Dweck in order to help them to understand the theories. I also ran a couple of sessions where resources were given out to support the staff. Each member of staff then came up with a way of implementing the ideas and measuring their success.

In Maths the focus was to be on changing the language of the teacher so that they spoke to the students in a manner that helped to instil a growth mindset (see appendix)

In Science the teacher focused on teaching the neurological aspects of leaning and the importance of understanding the neuroplasticity of the brain.

In Geography the focus was on feedback and methods the students could develop to improve their work in a more independent manner.

I undertook a series of lesson studies to observe the impact of the teaching and the reaction of the students to the work.


This was a very interesting phase of the study. The students who were in lower sets seemed to fully embrace the system and were responding exceptionally well. The atmosphere in the classes that I visited was purposeful and the students were active and thriving.

In one Maths lesson the students made an enormous amount of progress completing work that would not be expected of them.

However, this was starkly contrasted by the students in the higher sets. There was a great deal of resistance to the work. Students shied away from challenging tasks. They were still obsessed with making sure that they got things right and became distressed when there was a possibility of getting it wrong. In a Drama lesson a group of very capable but fixed mindset students completely fell apart in their performances when expected to learn lines. This was a task that had been completed with ease by a less able group from the year below.

In another Maths lesson students all opted for the easier questions rather than the challenge work despite having been taught the method well at the start of the lesson. When the students were challenged they were capable of answering the questions they were just afraid that they would get it wrong and therefore feel stupid.

Even though these students knew that the best way to improve was to challenge themselves. They still felt too insecure to take the risk of trying questions that they may get wrong. this contrasted so much with the lower ability students. These students are used to getting things right. When they do well in a test or in class it reaffirms their self-belief that they are intelligent. Anything that challenges them or that risks making them feel like they cannot achieve easily feels like it challenges this self-belief. This then becomes a viscous cycle which makes the students extremely wary of completing anything but that which they feel they can do without challenge.

These students therefore will never be able to break through their own self imposed glass ceiling while they are too afraid of being uncovered as a fraud who should not be in the highest set. It felt like their position in the set was more important to them then their actual ability. They felt like if they could stay in set 1 then they would always be intelligent. However, the less they pushed themselves and the more comfortable they became the less likely it becomes that they will achieve the very top grades.

Data Analysis

Each of the teachers did a baseline test with the groups that they were working with and in most cases a control group was used as well in order to give comparative data. In Science the students were tested with a mock GCSE exam in January and the test was repeated with another paper in March and then June.

The data for Geography was taken from the schools teacher assessments taken in November, February and June. These assessments are based on classroom tests and homework.

In Maths the results were from tests completed in November, March and June.
All of the groups were measured against control groups who were at a parallel ability level in the year group.


In Science the mindset group were on average 0.4 of a grade higher and made 2.6 grades more progress than the control group. These are impressive results but the most interesting aspect of this was that some of the students in the control group were also in the mindset group for Maths where they had made enormous improvements using the mindset skills.

I think it is possible to draw the conclusion that the teacher has a vital role to play in ensuring that the skills are transferred between the subjects. While it could be argued that the students may have more of an aptitude for one subject over another. I think that both subjects are similar enough that had the skills been applied in both areas that the improvements would have been different.

In Geography the control group improved on average by 1.4 sub levels whereas the mindset group improved by 2.5 that is a difference of 1.1 sub levels over the course of a year. If this can be maintained throughout KS3 alone the students will achieve roughly a whole grade higher over the course of Years 7-9. 

In Maths the set 3 students in the mindset made more progress than those in the control group. The control group improved by 0.9 of a grade while the mindset group improved by 1.2 grades. However, the results in the top set were not as impressive. The mindset group improved by 0.7 and the control group by 0.9 of a grade.

This follows the pattern of what we were expecting from the observations and the focus group that I ran in the first half of the year. The more able students found it difficult to adapt to the challenge. It forced them to be more cautious as they struggled to maintain their self-theory.

  • While the results are positive some factors need to be considered in their evaluation:
  • Some students had been taught about mindset in other classes and so it is not possible to categorically state that the students in the control group have never been taught about growth mindset.
  • Also some of the teachers in the project had already been using aspects of mindset theory in their teaching which may have weakened the impact of the intervention.
  • One of the teachers in Geography and one in Maths had started the project at the start of the year and so the comparative results were taken from the year before to act as a baseline.
  • Each of the classes had different teacher for the control and mindset classes.

Each of these factors I do not feel have a negative effect on the results as a whole. The results and patterns are clear throughout and fit in with the wealth of research carried out by other studies. 


In the final phase I interviewed each of the teachers involved in order to gauge their perceptions of what differences, improvements and difficulties that they had faced over the course of the trial.


"I felt that in lifting the lid on the students I also to a certain extent lifted the lid on my own teaching. I felt like I had brought certain expectations to my classes that I am not proud of and that this process forced me to re-evaluate my prejudices as it were of what a grade E student could achieve."

"Students have higher aspirations. It hasn't worked on all but the majority are working towards achieving much more than they usually do. While students may not be passionate about the subject they have become much more passionate about improving"

"It is a much more enjoyable process and way to teach. I have felt stuck in my ways and this process has helped me to re-evaluate things like marking and its use. That improvement has given me a real sense of achievement"

"As a consequence I have more extension materials available and the students have become more independent. I feel more comfortable having students working on different things rather than keeping everybody together in a more rigid style"

"It feels like teaching used to feel like. We are working towards getting better and becoming more knowledgeable for the sake of it rather than performing for an inspector or imposing something contrived on our teaching"

"It works a lot easier with the lower sets who are naturally more open. I think that is because they have probably already experienced failure and overcome it more that those in Higher sets. The more able seem to find it an insult that people who are not as bright can become as good as them through effort and time and it makes them defensive"

"It is a really positive approach, there is always room to get better. The students at first are very cynical and mock the language of it. But after time they get used to it and see that it works and they see the value in it"

Changing Mindsets

The Changing Mindsets project also ran a project that targeted Year 5 pupils in Portsmouth, Southampton and Hampshire. The delivery  of the interventions was led by the University of Portsmouth and took place between January and May 2013. Their key findings were...
  • Pupils who received the growth mindset workshops made an average of two additional months' progress in English and Maths. These findings were not statistically significant which means that they could not be confident that they did not occur by chance. However, the finding for English was close to statistical significance, and this suggests evidence of promise.
  • Pupils whose teachers received the professional development intervention made no
  • additional progress in Maths compared to pupils in the control group. These pupils made less progress in English than the control group, but this finding is not statistically significant and they could not be sure that it did not occur by chance.
  • FSM-eligible pupils who were involved in the professional development intervention gained a better understanding of the malleability of intelligence.
  • Intervention and control school were already using some aspects of the growth mindset approach. This may have weakened any impact of the interventions.
  • Future trial could examine the impact of a programme that combines the two interventions and runs for a longer period of time.

  • Using mindset language and thinking makes a noticeable and measurable impact in our school
  • If the system is not re-enforced by the teacher the students will slip back into old habits.
  • Students in the higher sets feel that they have more to lose and so resist adopting the methods.
  • This resistance holds them back from achieving the best results.
  • The teachers who have used this method have really enjoyed it and all feel it is worth the effort to make the adjustments to their own views and the way that they teach.

Next Steps for the new academic year

Some recommendations:
  • Widen the study to include more departments and staff.
  • Include more higher ability students in the studies with staff more experienced in teaching growth mindset.
  • Roll out a programme of mindset activities with the higher learning potential students in order to improve resilience.
  • Develop a series of lessons on resilience with staff and tutors.
  • Encourage staff to change simple language choices and expectations in order to embed mindset thinking throughout the school.
  • Develop a programme of challenge that stretches the more able but scaffolds their fear of failure and develops their resilience to encourage them to take risks.