The Design Process

To guide the design process a hierarchy of priorities was set, thus ensuring the project met all requirements from all stakeholders:

1. Generate a classroom culture

2. Provide appropriate guidance/teacher endorsement 3. A ‘legacy’ product

4. A ‘minimal resource’ approach

5. Continued engagement from teachers

Critically the primary design consideration was how to effectively communicate a rich body of literature to teachers in a fashion that would allow them to

effectively and easily promote growth mindsets in their classrooms. The rich theoretical literature surrounding mindsets provide an excellent basis from which to design an intervention but offers little guidance about how best to

achieve this. As previously discussed, almost all existing interventions work with secondary school aged children or older children. There was very limited work looking at interventions with young children.

142 There is a limited selection of distinct methodologies designed to facilitate the translation of findings from experiments into effective interventions. The

‘traditional’ approach is that academics, being experts in theory and the intended effects of the intervention, design an intervention and then conduct a study to evaluate whether it achieves the desired outcomes (Halskov & Hansen, 2015). This is often done through the ‘gold standard’ of a randomised control trial, in which participants are randomly allocated to either a control or experimental condition. Data are collected at a minimum of pre and post-test, often with many more occasion measurements taken (Grossman & Mackenzie, 2005). However, the exclusive perspective of academics in the development of an intervention is potentially problematic. Academics are unlikely to be practitioners within the field the intervention is designed to target and often act as onlookers, considering a priori categories to create universal, context-free knowledge (Evered & Reis, 2011). Therefore, such approaches will often fail to provide optimal solutions, making them unworkable in practice or less effective than if they had consulted with practitioners during the development stage.

Recent research by Yeager et al. (2016) attempted to overcome these limitations by employing ‘design thinking’ in the development of an internet-based growth mindset intervention. They utilised user centred design and A/B testing. User centred design places the user’s perspective at the centre of the process. To do this, designers provide ‘minimally viable’ prototypes to users who provide feedback, the designers then use this feedback to develop an improved product. A/B testing is an iterative approach to development; as aspects of the design are changed, their influence on the targeted outcome is tested. Combining the two

143 approaches as Yeager et al. (2016) did would capture teachers’ perspectives,

however, it potentially creates a power imbalance between the researcher and the user. During user centred design, opinions on the ‘product’ are sought from the end-user. This maintains the researcher in a position of power as users are participants in a process controlled by academics, rather than being active

participants helping to create the intervention themselves. Such a structure may inhibit users (teachers) in contributing fully to the process, i.e. feeling unable to critique the ‘product’. Furthermore, it would not be practical to A/B test the current intervention. Promoting growth mindsets requires time to be realised and would also require a large secondary pool of schools willing to engage in this stage of development making it impractical within the context and scope of the current research.

Another approach that has gained popularity in recent years is that of co-creation or co-design. In the current research co-creation will be considered as the active involvement of end-users in the design process (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). This is a more engaged approach than that of user centred design, as all participants are considered equal in the process and design ideas from all members are given equal consideration in the design process. Often this includes stakeholders from several different groups or perspectives engaged in participatory workshops which are designed to stimulate interactions and features continuous dialogue between all members throughout the design process (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010). This conceptualisation is synonymous with the definition provided by Sanders and Stappers (2008), “The authors take co-creation to refer to any act of collective creativity, i.e. creativity that is shared by two or more people.” (p. 6).

144 All the approaches described above would facilitate the production of an

intervention. However, the ‘traditional’ approach has the least potential advantages as it does not include any interaction with expert partners in the design process. Whilst user centred design with A/B testing would facilitate feedback from expert partners it would not directly engage them in the design process. By including expert practitioners directly in the design process the

intervention would gain their expertise and credibility, which as evidenced above, is key for interventions used by teachers. Therefore, the design process utilised in the development of the Mindset Kit was co-creation. Further considerations and description of the process adopted will be provided below.

3.2.1. Participants

It was essential to include many individuals with expertise and experience in delivering and designing interventions in the co-creation process. Participants were recruited through several approaches depending on where the participants were recruited from.

3.2.1.1. Teachers from within Stoke Reads.

Initially a call went out asking for volunteers to help develop a toolkit which would become a part of the Stoke Reads offering. This was done at Stoke Reads meetings and via the mailing list to the whole group. One teacher was recruited through this method. This teacher was a very experienced teacher who had taught from pre-school through to Key Stage 2.

145

3.2.1.2. Teachers outside of the Stoke Reads group.

An e-mail was sent to teachers with which I and my supervisor had an existing relationship with. This was done to increase the number of teachers included in the co-creation team and to avoid a potentially Stoke-on-Trent centric teacher base. One teacher was recruited using this method. However, this was a teacher who I had previously worked with on a feedback-based intervention to promote growth mindsets, who was very keen to work with us. This was a huge bonus because they brought a wealth of experience in promoting growth mindsets in pupils.

3.2.1.3. Academics

A call was put out to colleagues within the School of Psychology at Keele University. One academic was recruited from this process. With significant workload commitments this academic offered a single review of the Mindset Kit during the final cycle. This academic brought expertise in the psychology of education and familiarity with the implicit theories field.

3.1.2.4. Other professionals from Stoke Reads

An early years reading specialist and a speech and language therapist were recruited from within Stoke Reads. This was done via direct contact at Stoke Reads meetings. Only the early years reading specialist attended the initial co- creation meeting. The early years reading specialist was also an experienced primary school teacher. They also had significant experience in delivering interventions directly with pupils and across schools.

146

3.1.2.5. Consent

Ethical approval was granted by Keele University (see Appendix K). Information sheets were sent electronically to participants once they had expressed interest (see Appendix L). Once all participants had expressed their willingness to continue a mutually convenient time for the initial meeting was set and participants were sent a consent form. These were collected before the first meeting began.

3.2.2. Co-creation process

To re-iterate, co-creation is not the active focus of the research, rather a means to an end; it was utilised as a tool to generate the most effective possible

intervention through collaboration with expert practitioners. Therefore, consent was not sought to capture data as part of the process and the following is

presented as a summary of notes made by the researcher to provide the reader with an understanding of the reasoning behind decisions taken regarding the design of the Mindset Kit.

As described above, there are a limited number of fully comprehensive ‘how to’ guides on executing an effective co-creation process. This is especially pertinent within Psychology, as much of the literature has been produced from a business perspective (e.g. Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010) or health service perspective (e.g. Greenhalgh, Jackson, Shaw, & Janamian, 2016). Although a review by Lee et al. (2018) does present descriptions of a broad array of projects and processes, only one of these includes teachers and is an educational service development project as opposed to a social psychological intervention. Therefore, as there are

147 no directly adoptable co-creation processes outlined in the literature it is

necessary to describe the process utilised in the current research and the reasoning behind the decisions made.

Often co-creation processes require facilitators (usually researchers) to engage with partners as an initial stage in the process to build working relationships that will allow for honest, equal, and bilateral discussion and control throughout the design process (Greenhalgh et al., 2016; Pepler, 2016). However, in the current research this was not required as all participants already had these relationships. It is important to note that these relationships were already of the nature required for effective co-creation, being equal and allowing for

bidirectional communication. This is because the Stoke Reads programme was founded on the principle of collaborative and equal working relationships – all members working together to improve the outcomes of all members (and their pupils). Thus, with clear description and ‘ground rules’ the current design process could be initiated effectively with minimal management in respect of developing, maintaining, and managing working relationships.

All members of the co-creation team had significant workloads which meant it was necessary to adopt a process which allowed individual members to contribute within the constraints of their current workloads. This was considered essential to ensure that the co-creation environment felt like a positive collaborative space in which individuals willingly engaged without feeling obliged to do so or felt overburdened by its inclusion on top of existing commitments (Heerten et al., 2009). Therefore, an expansive initial meeting was the first step in the process as

148 this was the ‘easiest’ option for the team to commit to. This meeting would cover all the major design features of the Mindset Kit, its content, and agree a schedule of the subsequent activities. Furthermore, should the initial meeting fail to cover all the items required then further meetings could be scheduled.

149 Figure 20. Intervention development process diagram

150

3.2.2.1. Initial meeting preparations.

Prior to the meeting, the researcher collated examples of all possible methods to promote growth mindsets (see Figure 20 for a process diagram). These were taken from the extant literature and from the internet, including blogs and

discussions forums. The purpose of this bank of material was to provide examples to group members should a particular approach come up in discussion during the meeting. Group members with no prior knowledge of growth mindsets were directed to a website outlining mindsets (Popova, 2014). This website was chosen as it was highly accessible and covered a broad base of scenarios in which

mindsets have been shown to hold influence: education, creative processes, self- perception, and relationships. It also briefly mentions neurological evidence for mindsets. These features were considered important as it demonstrates the fundamental nature of mindsets, with the intention of persuading teachers that it is not just an ‘educational fad’. The group were also asked to consider their position on a range of questions before the first meeting, these were all interrelated but presented under headings:

 What format should the Mindset Kit take? o How long should it be?

o Physical presentation – folder/booklet/website/etc.

o Is the material and printing important? (e.g. glossy/regular printing)  How do you create culture within your classroom?

o Can you do this through activities?

o Does the physical environment matter? E.g. displays o Your role as a teacher

151  What about videos or training courses?

o What makes training courses successful or meaningful for teachers? o Would training videos be a useful addition to the Mindset Kit?  How do you think the Mindset Kit could best encourage teachers to

promote a growth mindset culture in their classrooms, in the following two scenarios:

o With unlimited resources o With very limited resources

3.2.2.2. The initial meeting.

The meeting began with a description of the project. This included an outline of the co-creation process and set out why it was important that the team were all equals in the project. This was reinforced by the researcher explaining that whilst he may have convened the group, that was merely a function of establishing it and in no way suggested any form of seniority or control. In addition, it was stated that in recognition of members workloads that the researcher’s involvement would be to facilitate the production and subsequent revisions of the intervention. It was his role to produce the material the group decided to include in the Mindset Kit. It was found that only the researcher and supervisor had previously encountered the co-creation process. As such, it was important to ensure that all parties understood the equal power balance within the relationship, and they were all actively involved in the design process. This was reinforced at every available opportunity throughout the process, for

152 The primary objective of the meeting was to agree the format of the Mindset Kit and whether it should include any other support such as video training. It was important to reach a consensus upon this first as it would dictate the size of the kit. In turn, this influenced the style of activities which could be included in the Mindset Kit. There were several different positions advocated by members, from A4 ring binders with dividers and pull-out sections, to a preference for the least amount of material possible. This discussion also included the printing style (e.g. professional glossy or regular office laser printing), and the level of colouration in the Mindset Kit. After much discussion the group agreed on a few key points regarding the physical design of the Mindset Kit, outlined below.

Many decisions surrounding the physical formatting came from the desire of the group that the Mindset Kit be distinctive. Many of the group suggested that teachers are often saturated by A4 sized, black and white, instructions,

memoranda, etc. Therefore, the group agreed that the Mindset Kit must not be A4 and try and be of a ‘distinctive’ shape and colour scheme whilst maintaining a professional look. This was counter to some initial preferences for an A4 style ring-binder which would allow for a very detailed intervention and still have room for teachers to include their own materials or notes. However, the argument that a smaller and distinctive Mindset Kit could be easily transported was

accepted. Ease of transport was highlighted as a potential driver for engagement with some teachers who often do ‘reading’ at home and would avoid taking a potentially weighty A4 ring-binder home or may leave it at home and not access it whilst on school premises. A vibrant colour scheme was unanimously agreed upon as it may catch the eye, and whilst this may not prompt teachers to re-read

153 the Mindset Kit, it may encourage or remind them to ensure they are promoting growth mindsets in their classrooms. Thus, meeting design criteria 4 (A ‘minimal resource’ approach) and design criteria 5 (Continued engagement from teachers).

Following the decision regarding the formatting of the Mindset Kit, the discussion moved on to content and whether training should be required for teachers engaged in the intervention. Initially members of the group discussed training that they had found most effective. The consensus was that training which provided teachers with tools and knowledge but allowed them freedom to integrate them into their own practice were the most well received amongst teachers. At this point the researcher put it to the group that it would not be possible to ensure that training was always available for the Mindset Kit unless it was online videos, owing to resource constraints. The teachers suggested that whilst videos may be a solution, teachers would likely view videos negatively as they would require planning or personal time to view. This is as opposed to a dedicated off-site training course which would likely be accounted for by their school management in their workload. The agreed solution was for the Mindset Kit to be highly accessible and to ideally not require training to be utilised by teachers. This decision eliminated design criteria 7 (Train the trainer model), but in doing so made design criteria 2 (Provide appropriate guidance/teacher

endorsement) even more prescient. However, this did ensure we were meeting design criteria 3 (A ‘legacy’ product).

The point of teachers responding most positively to interventions which allowed them autonomy in their implementation was raised again. It was unanimously

154 agreed that it is important to develop an intervention that teachers could select elements from with no minimum requirement to be effective. In doing so, they would feel empowered by the Mindset Kit rather and obliged to implement it. One teacher suggested that in their personal practice they would appreciate mindset ‘lessons’ as this would be a more ‘guaranteed’ way to promote growth mindsets effectively. However, after some discussion the argument of how a changing national curriculum could potentially render sections of the Mindset Kit irrelevant gained the most traction. Other members also cautioned that this was too prescriptive, and despite teachers being free to implement some, but not all, elements of the Mindset Kit having lessons plans could put teachers off any level of engagement. As this would feel like the intervention was ‘teaching them how to teach’. Despite some arguments to the contrary, to ensure an empowering as opposed to prescriptive feel it was agreed to not include any lesson plans. The group wished to explore how content which was not subject specific could be included. This removed design consideration 6 (Lesson plans).

An agreement was reached on how much theoretical content to include, it was decided that there must be no more than 5 pages and ideally include some of the concepts as images. The agreed goal was that teachers would be able to read the Mindset Kit and gain a practically useful understanding of the theory

underpinning the intervention. The group agreed that it was critical to provide a foundational understanding of theory without overwhelming teachers. They suggested that the detail offered in the website they were directed to by the researcher was too expansive. The researcher suggested attempting to make all theoretical content as ‘real world’ as possible. For example, that descriptions of

155 behaviours associated with a growth or fixed mindset would be presented as a vignette of a ‘pupil’. All agreed that is important to present sufficient theory without it being too dry as users of the Mindset Kit would have limited interest in the mechanics of the theory underlying it.

Finally, a selection of potential activities, and approaches to promoting growth mindsets were presented by the researcher. The group unanimously accepted process praise as a method that teachers would be willing to utilise in their

practice. One teacher proposed a growth mindset ‘display’ which they had seen in a school, one side listing fixed mindset ‘thinking’ and the other offering growth