Data from the weekly pre and post assessments, weekly STEAM challenge reflection pages, pre and post mindset surveys, and pre and post interviews revealed two significant findings. First, student mindsets did shift with four weeks of explicit instruction. At the end of this first phase, students indicated they had a greater liking of challenging tasks and that they knew strategies to help themselves when facing a challenge. As well, data indicated that they were less likely to get upset when making a mistake.
Student interviews reveled that although they still enjoyed getting the answer right on the first try, they were less frustrated when it did not happen. Three student responses indicated that they were less frustrated about the mistake, and now saw some success in their incorrect answer. A thread could be found among student comments such as, “…my answer was partially right….”, “…it only needed to be a little different…”, and “…just a small change…”. This terminology was grouped while coding student interviews. It leads me to believe that students may be more likely to see mistakes as partially correct answers, with less negative connotations. The second significant finding was that the use of the Question Formulation Technique improved the introduction of the STEAM challenge, but was less useful during the Plan and Improve stages. Almost all of the 19 students indicated that the technique was helpful during the Ask phase of the Engineering Design process. This finding improved over the course of the four weeks, with data collected during week one, three, and four.
I was surprised by the number of students who had never set a goal outside of the classroom setting. This was the most engaging week of growth mindset instruction in my classroom. Students enjoyed setting goals, and found value in the activity. This reflective process, individualized for each learner, has great potential for helping students plan to overcome challenges.
Next Steps
My initial research question, How does the presentation of a STEAM challenge affect student attitudes toward the process was investigated during this first phase of my action research. Again, initial observations showed most students were feeling frustrated during a STEAM challenge, with the initial excitement waning once challenges were faced. The explicit teaching of growth mindset helped students understand that challenges grow our brains, mistakes can be powerful learning tools, we all learn differently, and that goal setting helps us understand that just because we can’t do something now doesn’t mean we won’t ever be able to. These lessons were helpful in significantly diminishing frustration within STEAM challenges, yet this alone is not enough. Just as rules and expectations are revisited throughout the year in the elementary classroom, I believe this will be the case for growth mindset learning as well. The continued use of the Question Formulation Technique during the Ask phase will help frame students thinking as they begin to approach a STEAM challenge. The data shows that almost all students found this to be helpful during the Ask phase of the Engineering Design Process. Still, other avenues need to be explored to help students move through the Plan and Improve stages when they are likely to encounter challenges. Students were able to stop and ask meaningful questions, some even indicating that the process shifted their original thinking. Finding alternative divergent thinking strategies that can be integrated to the STEAM challenge should be explored.
Proposed Action Plan: Phase Two
For the second phase of this action research project, I propose introducing students to a divergent thinking strategy called SCAMPER. This strategy elicits, “…idea spurring questions that can help them generate diverse ideas” (Starko, 2010, p.133). The idea was conceived by Eberle (1977, 1996) using Osborn’s suggestions for enhancing divergent thinking (Starko, 2010, p.133). Each letter of the acronym stands for a word that helps students look at a problem from multiple viewpoints. S - Substitute C - Combine A - Adapt M – Modify P – Put to other uses E – Eliminate R – Rearrange Over a three-week period, students would be introduced to the acronym during the Improve stage of the Engineering Design Process. During the first week of the action plan, I would model the use of the acronym with a standard experiment, in which the variables are controlled. This would allow me to model how each part of the acronym could be applied to the example. I would create visual posters with easy to read sentence starters for students to use in future weeks. I would administer a post assessment in which students match the word to the definition to check for basic understanding. During week two, students would participate in a class STEAM challenge. The QFT would be used during the Ask phase, and students would have the opportunity to imagine and plan, but in a whole group setting. As a class we would then build and test our design. Once it was time for the Improve stage of the Engineering Design Process, I would have students help me find alternative designs using the SCAMPER acronym. We would then improve as a class and reflect upon the SCAMPER strategy. For a post assessment, I would ask students to suggest and additional way the original design could have been modified using the SCAMPER strategy. During the third week, we would complete a typical STEM challenge in small groups. The students again would use the QFT during the Ask phase. Additionally, I would ask students to give three improvement suggestions using the SCAMPER strategy before modifying their design. As well, student feedback would be gathered through a short survey and interviews.