|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USING KELLY'S THEORY TO EXPLORE STUDENT TEACHERS' CONSTRUCT ABOUT THEIR PUPILS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hanne M. F. Touw *, Paulien C. Meijer **, Theo Wubbels ***
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Utrecht
University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Education, Utrecht, the Netherlands
**
Radboud Graduate School of Education, Radboud University
Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
***
Utrecht University, Faculty of Social and Behavioural
Sciences, Utrecht, the Netherlands
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
This study builds on and adapts a procedure to reveal
teachers’ constructs about their pupils and a method to categorise these
constructs. Kelly’s Personal Construct Theory (PCT) and his accompanying repertory grid technique are used to
study the constructs of Dutch student teachers
about their pupils. The elements used to elicit the constructs consisted of the
student teachers’ entire class. Seven categories were used to categorise
the constructs: Attitudinal,
emotional, relational, personal, intellectual, interests and physical. In
addition to Kelly’s original technique, the student teachers were asked to
provide descriptions of their construct and contrast poles. These descriptions
facilitated reliable coding.
Key words: Personal
construct theory, classification system for teachers' personal
constructs, student teachers' thinking, repertory grid technique,
research methodology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION
This
study focuses on the identification of student teachers’ perceptions about
their pupils in special schools. As in many other countries, education that is
more inclusive lies ahead in the Netherlands. On 1 August, 2014, a new law
derived from the Salamanca Statement called ‘suitable education’ has taken
effect in the educational field (UNESCO, 1994). As a result of this change of law
not only the teachers already working at special schools, but all teachers will
come into contact with pupils who need additional support. Therefore, it is essential
to know (student) teachers’ perceptions about their pupils: those who need
additional support as well as those who do not.
We operationalised teachers' perceptions and beliefs
about their pupils as constructs in accordance with Kelly’s Personal Construct
Theory (PCT, 1955/1991). Kelly originally developed his theory and technique to
focus on psychotherapeutic clients’ views of their world in their own terms.
The ‘repertory grid technique’ became a well-established technique for
clarifying constructs underlying these views and can be used in a wide range of
contexts (e.g. Anderson, 1990; Fransella & Dalton, 1990; Solas, 1992;
Walker, 1996; Baxter, Schröder, & Bower, 1998; Coakes, Fenton, &
Gabriel, 1999; Luque, Rodríguez, & Camacho, 1999; Feixas & Saúl, 2004;
Ortega, 2007; Köing, Jöri, &
Knüsel, 2011). As Solas (1992) argued, “Personal Construct Theory has a role to
play in education. The theory offers ways of seeing and doing which are
potentially applicable to many teaching and learning issues” (p. 209).
This manuscript will use the technique for
investigating student teachers' constructs underlying beliefs about their
pupils. These beliefs may influence their expectations of these pupils and the
way they relate to and interact with them (Munthe & Thuen, 2009; Koomen,
Verschueren, & Thijs, 2006; Opdenakker & Van Damme, 2006). Since the
extent to which someone has positive or negative expectations of another person
may have far-reaching implications for their relations with that person
(Pajares, 1992), understanding teachers' constructs about their pupils is an
important topic of research.
For a better understanding of differences in
constructs about pupils, knowledge of these constructs is needed. However, PCT
in the last decades only has been applied sporadically in education, perhaps
because it was originally designed for psychotherapy (Butt, 2008). Educational research projects
in which Kelly’s repertory grid technique
has been used show that this
technique provides reliable data to elicit teachers' perceptions about teaching
and the learning process (e.g., Christie & Menmuir,
1997; Pope & Denicolo, 2001; Roberts, 1999; Van der Wolf, 1984; Yorke, 1978;
Nash, 1976). Kleine and Smith (1989) used PCT as a framework to examine
the relationship of early socialisation to teachers’ belief systems. They
stated that PCT emerged as “a basis for empirical and theoretical work in
psychology and education” (p. 309).
Our
principal aim for using PCT is to chart student teachers’ underlying beliefs
about pupils in order to improve the guidance during their teacher education.
This is especially useful for articulating constructs that were previously
unarticulated. The primary aim of this study is to develop and describe a
coding system for these beliefs. Users of the PCT repertory grid thus might acquire
new ideas about adapting and implementing the repertory grid technique for
different populations and settings. Readers from education who are not familiar
with PCT may get an impression of the way constructs from student teachers can
be elicited and analysed.
THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK
Personal construct
theory
George Kelly (1955/1991) coined the term ‘personal
constructs’ to refer to thoughts, feelings,
intentions etc. that a person is not necessarily aware of. His theory concerns the manner in which personal
convictions guide the thinking and actions of people. He advances the idea that,
behind the judgment and behaviour of a person, an individual theory is hidden.
This hidden theory is based on an individual’s personal perceptions of
occurrences. According to Kelly, people construe their views of their current surroundings
and experiences by comparing them with previous experiences. Their assessments
are based on the views and convictions they have acquired over time. These views
and convictions are completely unique. Personal constructs are embedded in an
individual (personal) construct system. Each individual’s construct system is constantly
adjusted in the light of events. The personal construct system helps an individual to
assess a situation and act in specific circumstances. Constructs can vary in
the meanings they cover and the way they are valued. According to Kelly, an
individual personal construct system consists of double entities or ‘contrast poles’.
Their meanings can only be established in contrast to the other ‘pole’, for
example, brave–afraid, brave–anxious or brave–quit. These examples of
constructs do not illustrate the concept brave,
but rather a bipolar formation: brave versus another pole.
The contrast gives meaning to the content of both poles of the construct. Individual
constructs change slowly and are seen as stable building blocks that characterise
a person (Kelly, 1963).
Repertory
grid technique
The repertory grid technique is a procedure to
investigate personal constructs (Kelly, 1963). In working with the repertory grid,
participants are asked to name ‘elements’. There are many ways in which grids
can be and have been elicited (Epting, Suchman, & Nickeson, 1971;
Baillie-Groham, 1975; Van der Wolf, 1984; Anderson,
1990; Walker, 1996; Baxter et al., 1998; Coakes et al., 1999; Köing et al.,
2011). Kelly’s procedure to find elements, which we adapted in this study, consists
of asking stock questions. For example, ‘Who is the friendliest person at
work?’ The answer, ‘Tom’, is one of the elements. This name is then written on
a card. When all the questions have been answered, the cards with names are
gathered into a pile. Three cards are then put in front of the participant with
the question in what way two of the persons on the cards are alike and differ from
the third. The participant might reply, ‘these two are quiet but the third one is noisy’.
The construct quiet–noisy is written
down. The cards are returned to the pile of cards. Three more cards are
selected at random, and the same question is asked. This technique is repeated
until the participant cannot think of new constructs. Kelly (1963) found that
this is usually after 8 to 12 constructs. Every person mentions different
constructs about elements during this technique, even where the elements they refer
to are the same (Schwandt, 1994). Kelly stated this is because
people perceive elements in different ways, coloured by their previous experiences
(Kelly, 1955/1991).
With regard to teachers, Solas (1992) concluded that
the repertory grid procedure makes them aware of their constructs and gives ‘voice
to their otherwise silent thoughts’ (p. 220). Schwandt (1994) argued that the
repertory grid technique elicits the constructs that already exist and that are,
therefore, not ‘created’ at that moment. Furthermore
he states, “Kelly’s repertory grid technique is useful for researchers who wish
to understand thinking from the inside, the world of lived experience from the
point of view of those who live it” (1994, p. 118).
Theoretical and practical challenges
Kelly’s work has also been criticised, for instance by
Corporaal (1988). Her most fundamental criticism of the PCT concerns the
dichotomy proposition. The
objection highlighted by Corporaal is that information is lost when strictly adhering to the bipolar formation.
She also states that people tend to prefer the construct pole more, and the
contrast pole becomes something that “does not belong to the construct pole”
(Corporaal, 1988, p. 67). Other
studies also criticise the validity of the dichotomous nature of constructs (Riemann,
1990). Bonarius, Van Heck and Smid (1984) noted that the bipolar formation might
reduce the complexity of the topic under investigation into clear-cut
contrasting poles. Referring to this debate, Van Kan,
Ponte, and Verloop (2010) recently questioned the application of the repertory
grid technique in educational contexts. In their study about teachers’ views on
classroom interactions, they reported five difficulties in applying the
repertory grid technique
in its standard form. We address the criticisms of Van Kan et al. (2010) because
these authors are among the few who have recently used the grid technique in education. In our study methods were
sought to take advantage of the strong points of the repertory grid procedure
and, at the same time, deal with the objections raised. In Table 1 we have listed
the criticisms and the adaptations made to deal with them.
Table 1.
Criticisms and adaptations related to Van Kan et al. (2010)
Criticism
|
Adaptation
|
Provision
of elements without involving the teacher (p. 1555).
|
Actively
involving the student teachers in providing elements by letting them take all
the pupils in one class as their elements.
|
A too
abstract, generalized representation of the elements that have been provided
by the researcher disconnected from teacher’s personal meaning and experienced
practice (p. 1555).
|
Using
their own pupils as elements, student teachers refer to well-known, concrete
and meaningful elements, thus maintaining connection with their own practice
as teachers.
|
The
complexity of the triadic aspect: “The risk that in comparing three rather
complex elements at the same time too much attention is paid to the rules of
the technique instead of the content of elements” (p. 1558).
|
The
use of pupils from only one and one’s own class as elements reduces the
complexity.
|
The
strictly dichotomous character of constructs disregarding the possibility
that construct and contrast poles are categorised differently (p. 1556).
|
We
analysed the poles separately in the pilot phase. Only in three out of 113
cases were the construct and the contrast poles categorised differently,
|
The
superficiality of the constructs. Van Kan et al. (2010, p. 1555) found the
meaning underlying the construct to be crucial, whereas the repertory grid technique focuses on the elicited
constructs and allows little room for their meaning.
|
The
procedure was adapted by asking the participants to elaborate on each of the
construct poles after the elicitation of constructs, thus providing scope for
the meaning of the constructs.
|
Categorising personal constructs
The
diversity of the constructs elicited from participants (Yorke, 1978; Van Kan et
al., 2010) shows the need to classify the
content of the constructs. Such classification for
example is helpful for comparing different groups of respondents.
In the literature, we found two general
classification systems to categorise personal constructs according to their
content. The first is the classification system by Landfield (1971), which
consists of 32 categories. The second is by Feixas, Geldschläger, and Neimeyer
(2002), who noted several disadvantages in Landfield’s system. To overcome
these, they designed another classification system (the Classification System
for Personal Constructs [CSPC]) consisting of 38 subcategories organised into
six main categories (Moral, Emotional, Relational, Personal, Intellectual/Operational
and Values/Interests) with a possible extension of two categories (Existential
and Concrete descriptors) to increase the CSPC’s usefulness in some contexts, as
reported by Neimeyer, Anderson, and Stockton (2001). In the present study, we
investigate whether this classification system can also be used for student teachers’
constructs.
RESEARCH QUESTION
This article
examines how Kelly’s repertory grid can be used as a procedure to investigate
student teachers’ constructs about their pupils. The following research
questions were addressed:
1.
|
Can
student teachers’ descriptions, when characterising their pupils, be elicited
and categorised in a reliable way?
|
2. |
What constructs do
student teachers mention and how often do they mention these? |
Creating a coding system enables the study of
similarities and differences between groups of individuals. In this manuscript
we study a group of student teachers preparing for teaching at inclusive schools
with pupils with special needs.
CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY
Participants
Twenty-two
student teachers at a teacher training college in the Netherlands, teaching 4
to 12-year-old pupils during their practical placements,
participated from December 2010 until May 2012 in our study. At the time of
their participation, the student teachers were in their third year of a
four-year teacher education programme. During that year, they attended classes
four days a week at the teacher training college and taught one day a week at
their placement schools, which were, in this case, inclusive schools with pupils
with special needs. The mean size of the class the student teachers taught
was for the younger pupils (4–8
years old) 21.3 and for the older pupils (9–12 years old) 25.6.
Eight additional
student teachers from the same teacher training college previously took part in
a pilot study. At the time of participation, all student teachers had been teaching
at least ten weeks at their placement schools. This insured familiarity with their
pupils.
Pilot
In the
pilot study, we followed two steps to elicit the constructs from eight student
teachers. The original procedure to find elements with stock questions was not
applied. Instead, all pupils in one class were conceived as ‘elements’. Accordingly,
the student teachers used their own pupils as elements in their individual
grids. We
elicited the student teachers’ personal constructs about pupils and they
determined the construct and contrast poles. In the pilot this resulted in 226
construct and contrast poles. We investigated the number of unique constructs named
by the student teachers and found that more than 50% of the constructs
mentioned were unique. In addition, even together with the contrast construct, the
constructs tended to be multi-interpretable. As Yorke suggested, “A strong case
can be made for going back to the respondent to ask for further clarification
in the light of the analysis of his grid” (Yorke, 1978, p. 73). Therefore, we went
back to the participants and asked them to take
an additional step, which was to explain the words that they used as construct and
contrast poles. Thus, t and this addition to the conventional grid technique was
included in the procedure of the main study
Data collection
In the
main study, data were collected from 22 student teachers following the
procedure developed in the pilot study. The student teachers wrote the names of
all pupils in their class (the elements) on small cards. Then, following
Kelly’s ‘triad procedure’, the cards were shuffled and three cards were laid
down with the names facing up. The student teacher answered the following
question: In what way are two of these pupils alike and different from the
third? The elicited word or combination of words was written down by the
student teacher. All cards were reshuffled, and the procedure was repeated –
answering the question, writing down the word or combination of words,
shuffling the cards and laying down new triads of pupils – until the student
teacher was unable to produce new words. Thereafter, the student teacher
formulated the opposite of each elicited word and wrote down all these
opposites. From this moment, the elicited word and its opposite formed unique
contrasting pairs, for example, quiet–restless,
reactive–laid back or afraid–brave.
Then, the student teacher indicated which of the two words from the construct
pair he or she viewed as the positive, ‘preferred’ pole. The pole designated as
preferred is from here on referred to as the construct pole and its opposite as
the contrast pole. Finally, the student teacher briefly elaborated, on paper,
on each of the poles in their own words. For example, a participant defined his
construct pole active as ‘largely contributes
during lessons, takes initiative’, and the contrast pole work-shy as ‘not willing to work or do any activity that needs
effort’.
Data analysis
In the
data analysis, we first used the existing CSPC by Feixas et al. (2002). The CSPC has six categories (Moral, Emotional, Personal, Relational, Intellectual/Operational and
Values/Interests) with supplemental categories (Existential and Concrete). For
these categories descriptors were formulated by Neimeyer, Anderson, and Stockton (2001). We found that the subcategories
did not cover the constructs of our student teachers. Many subcategories (e.g. in
the main categories of existential and moral) remained empty. The main
categories, however, provided enough distinction between data. Therefore, the
subcategories of Feixas et al. (2002) and Neimeyer et al. (2001) were not included. We decided to take the system of eight
categories as a starting point.
We
followed the hierarchical order that Feixas et al. (2002) suggested to increase
the reliability of the system and to eliminate potential overlap among the
categories. Thus, a construct that could fit into two categories was classified
at the highest level.
Data
analysis during the pilot study showed that six constructs belonged in the
first category, ‘Existential’. Constructs in the first category were, for
example, pragmatic, philosophical and modern. Because of the hierarchical ordering of the system, we decided
to merge the first category (Existential) with the second category (Moral) and
rename this category ‘Attitudinal’. This led to a Classification System for Teachers’
Personal Constructs (CSTPC) based on the existing CSPC system. It contained
seven categories, three of which were slightly relabelled: (1) Attitudinal, (2)
Emotional, (3) Relational, (4) Personal, (5) Intellectual, (6) Interests and
(7) Physical. The results section includes two tables, in which these
categories are listed, described and illustrated with construct and contrast
pole examples from our data.
Reliability of the coding system
To
determine the reliability of the CSTPC, we calculated the inter-rater
agreement. First, an independent researcher, and the first author of this
article held a 30 minute consultation on the coding procedure and the meaning
of the categories, before independently coding an identical sample of 100
construct and contrast poles. Cohen’s Kappa was then calculated.
RESULTS
The data
collection resulted in 289 construct pairs consisting of 578 construct and
contrast poles, and the same number of elaborations of these construct and
contrast poles. The written elaborations provided by the student teachers
clarified the content of the constructs, which was necessary for reliable coding.
In order
to categorise student teachers’ constructs about their pupils in a reliable way
(research question 1), we modified an
existing coding system for personal constructs. Our pilot study showed that the
use of the subcategories that Feixas et al. (2002) and Neimeyer et al. (2001) developed
were not applicable to our student teachers’ constructs. Therefore, we
developed the CSTPC based on
the main categories of the CSPC. This system allowed us to reliably classify
the constructs elicited from student teachers; Cohen’s Kappa appeared to
be satisfactory at.91.
Regarding
our second research question (what constructs do student teachers mention and
how often do they mention these?), Table 2 presents the main categories on the
left, the description of the content of the categories Feixas (2002) and
Neimeyer (2001) used in their studies in the second column, the way we describe
the categories in this study in the third column, the frequencies we found and
in the last columns the number of users of each category. The 22 student
teachers mentioned 578 construct poles
(general M = 13.2, 4–8 years 12.6 and 9–12 years 14.7). The class size positively correlates quite substantially (.39, p =.07) with the number of constructs.
The findings show that student teachers most often (154
construct or contrast poles) used constructs that were categorised as
Attitudinal. These constructs refer to the meaningful, valuable and
characteristic aspects teachers notice about their pupils when they think and
act. The second most frequently occurring category (119) is Relational, or the
constructs about the social functioning of pupils and pupils’ relationships
with others, including parents and caregivers.
The
third most frequently mentioned category, Emotional, contains constructs about
a pupils’ emotional and psychological functioning; it included 110 construct
and contrast poles. By far, the least frequently mentioned constructs related
to Interests (11). This category includes constructs about the artistic,
expressive and physical abilities of pupils and various other activities.
Table 2
also shows the number of student teachers mentioning constructs in a
particular
category specified for the age of the pupils, between 4–8 and 9–12. The
age of the pupils does not seem to be strongly related to the use of
the categories by the student teachers, although relatively more
constructs were elicited from student teachers in the categories of
Interest
and Physical for the older pupils (9–12 years).
Table
3 presents examples of construct poles, contrast poles and personal
elaborations, collected from 7 different teachers. The elaborations were
crucial to the interpretation of each construct.
Table 3: Classification system for teachers’ personal constructs: Examples of
construct poles, contrast poles and personal elaborations
Categories
|
Construct poles with
personal elaborations
|
Contrast poles with
personal elaborations
|
1: Attitudinal
|
1:
Motivated: ‘Preparedness to want to do it all’
2:
Concentrated: ‘Always attentive to what they are doing’
|
1:
Unmotivated: ‘Do
not want to join, no point
in doing something’
2:
Unfocussed:
‘Always pays attention to things around
him/her’
|
2: Emotional
|
1:
Optimistic: ‘Happy and cheerful’
2:
Confident:
‘Positive self-image and know
what they can achieve’
|
1:
Pessimistic: ‘Downhearted and gloomy’
2:
Unsure
of himself: ‘Has a negative self-image and needs much guidance’
|
3: Relational
|
1:
Helping others: ‘Prepared to help other pupils without being prompted’
2:
Good social skills: ‘Gets along very well with other people’
|
1:
Egoistic: ‘Thinks
of him/herself first, does not like to help others’
2:
Manipulating:
‘Plays people
against each other’
|
4: Personal
|
1:
Full of humour: ‘Making
funny remarks, positive about
life, can relativise’
2:
Honest: ‘Will never
lie and adheres to the class rules’
|
1:
Dull: ‘Does not see the humour, is
stodgy, cannot relativise’
2:
Secretly: ‘Secretive, aware of
being watched’
|
5: Intellectual
|
1:
Smart: ‘Able to
cope well with the level of
the curriculum’
2:
Quick on the uptake: ‘Sees through a situation quickly, and promptly takes the next step’
|
1:
Difficult learner: ‘Has
difficulty coping with the
curriculum’
2:
Slow on the uptake:
‘Needs help to see through a
situation, then takes the next
step’
|
6: Interests
|
1:
Creative: ‘Full of nice ideas and elaborations and
puts them into practice’
2:
Active exerciser:
‘Loves being actively engaged’
|
1:
Lacks inspiration: ‘No
ideas, cannot handle open plan task’
2:
Spiritless: ‘Unenterprising,
somewhat lazy and slothful’
|
7: Physical
|
1:
Physically healthy:
‘No physical
pain/inconvenience or illness’
2:
Attention to appearance:
‘Attentive to own personal care’
|
1:
Physical
discomfort/pain: ‘Teacher unable to help the pupil when in pain
and discomfort’
2:
Uncared for appearance: ‘Unwashed, uncared
for teeth/hair’
|
To demonstrate individual data Table 4 presents the
construct pairs used by two different student teachers in all categories. Table
5 shows the construct pairs of three teachers in a single category together
with the elaborations provided by the same teachers on the meanings attached to
the construct pairs. It can be noted that the constructs are
quite similar, but that the contrast poles and the elaborations differ.
Table 4: Number (#) of constructs of student teacher A and
B categorised in CSTPC categories.
Category
|
Student teacher A
|
Student teacher B
|
|
#
|
Construct pairs
|
#
|
Construct pairs
|
1: Attitudinal
|
3
|
- works independently–lazy
- works fast–works slowly
- heeds well–doesn’t heed
|
5
|
- works silently–chats during lessons
- able to collaborate–works independently
- often puts up hand–seldom puts up hand
- prefers to ask classmate–prefers to ask teacher
- invents/undertakes–reticent attitude
|
2: Emotional
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
3: Relational
|
4
|
- often collaborates–never collaborates
- often asks the teacher for help –
doesn’t ask
the teacher for help
- prepared to help a classmate–not prepared to assist
a classmate
- many friends in the group–few friends in the group
|
2
|
- many friends in the group–few friends in the group
- ready to help others–busy with own affairs
|
4: Personal
|
1
|
- discusses much–silent, discusses little
|
2
|
- doesn’t speak up–talks loudly and noisily
- social animal–introverted
|
5: Intellectual
|
2
|
- works accurately–works poorly
- able to read accurately–not able to read well
|
2
|
- fast and clever at arithmetic–needs more instruction
- reads fast with intonation–reads slowly
|
6: Interests
|
0
|
|
1
|
- likes playing soccer–not very sporty
|
7: Physical
|
0
|
|
2
|
- wears casual clothes–fashion doll
- writes neatly–writes untidily
|
Not classified
|
0
|
|
1
|
- healthy lunch ‘fruit’–unhealthy lunch ‘chocolate
cookies’
|
Total
|
10
|
|
15
|
|
Table 5: Construct pairs and elaborations of three
teachers in CSTPC category ‘Emotional’.
|
CSTPC
category Emotional
|
Construct
|
Elaboration
|
Contrast
|
Elaboration
|
Student Teacher X
|
Doesn’t fear failure
|
Risks
making mistakes
|
Fears failure
|
Afraid
to make mistakes. Therefore finds much trouble in many tasks
|
Happy
|
Enjoys
many things at school
|
Quickly angered
|
Does
not like many things at school
|
Contented
|
Can
be made happy with small things. Does not easily feel short-changed
|
Often feels short-changed
|
Personally
affected by everything classmates say and do. Envious
|
Student Teacher Y
|
Self-confident
|
Knows
quite well what he/she wants. Not easily in doubt
|
Uncertain
|
Often
in doubt over choices made
|
Happy
|
Cheerful.
Sunny disposition, character
|
Sombre
|
Views
life from a negative rather than a positive perspective
|
Accessible/
Open
|
Easy-going.
Extraverted
|
Timid
|
Reserved
disposition. Bottles up
|
Student Teacher Z
|
Extraverted
|
Child
expresses everything outward
|
Introverted
|
Child
reacts at himself
|
Self-confident
|
Child
feels sure and at ease in the classroom
|
Fears failure
|
Child
thinks little of his/her abilities and has little self-confidence
|
Happy
|
Pupil
who always enters smiling and is always heard to be laughing
|
Sad
|
Pupil
who is very much on his/her own and prefers doing things alone
|
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
In this research,
we established a reliable way to elicit and categorise student teachers’
constructs about their pupils. This study shows that student teachers’
constructs about their pupils can be investigated with a slightly adapted
version of Kelly’s repertory grid technique (1955/1991). The first adaptation was
taking all pupils in one class as elements. In this way all participants were
actively involved in providing the elements for the grid procedure. A second
advantage of using the pupils as elements is that they are well known to the
student teachers. Our participants were capable of following all the steps in
the repertory grid technique. No participant complained about the complexity of
the task.
The
second adaptation is the extension of the original repertory grid
technique by requesting the participants to give a personal written elaboration
of each of their construct poles. This adaptation appeared to be crucial in
interpreting the meaning of each construct. This was in line with the
suggestion from Yorke to “ask the respondent for further clarification in the
light of the analysis of his grid” (Yorke, 1978, p. 73). The elaborations
showed a deeper understanding of each construct. We, therefore, suggest that educational researchers who
use Kelly’s grid incorporate this step into their research method. This enhances the
procedure for understanding and interpreting the meaning of teachers’
constructs about their pupils, increases reliability and might even be
indispensable in an educational context.
To
underpin the usefulness of clarification, we give an example. It is hard to understand the meaning of the construct pole Quick-witted (Dutch: Bijdehand) without a personal description by the student
teacher. The additional information in the personal description shows the
student teacher's idea of Quick-witted: ‘Good at expressing themselves verbally,
assertive’. This description, coupled with the contrast pole Shy (Dutch: Verlegen) and the description of Shy
(‘should be encouraged to express themselves’) facilitated the categorisation of
this construct .
In the original classification system by Feixas et al. (2002) and Neimeyer et al. (2001), each main category was divided
into several subcategories, which proved unfit to distinguish between the domain-specific
constructs of our student teachers. We concluded that student teachers’
constructs and accompanying descriptions, when characterising their pupils, could,
however, be reliably categorised in seven main categories. Together, these
categories make up the CSTPC. The seven
categories are: (1) Attitudinal, (2) Emotional, (3) Relational, (4)
Personal, (5) Intellectual, (6) Interests and (7) Physical. The hierarchical structure
in the system of Feixas et al. (2002)
was maintained, and the coders used the descriptions of the construct and
contrast poles given by the student teachers when identifying the best category
for coding the constructs. This classification system enabled
student teachers’
constructs about their pupils to be categorised, apparently reliably, thus
answering the first research question (Can student teachers’ descriptions, when
characterising their pupils, be categorised in a reliable way?) in the
affirmative.
Regarding the second research question (What
constructs do student teachers mention and how often do they mention these?),
student teachers in our study most often used constructs referring to the
meaningful, valuable and characteristic aspects the teachers notice when their
pupils think and act (Attitudinal), constructs about pupils’ social functioning
and relationships with others (Relational) and constructs about pupils’
individuality (Personal). Least frequently, student teachers used constructs
about their pupils’ artistic, expressive and physical abilities (Interests). Unexpectedly,
student teachers infrequently mentioned constructs that referred to a pupil’s
intellectual functioning and school achievement. This category (Intellectual)
refers to pupils’ cognitive and intellectual functioning. Ten per cent of the
student teachers’ constructs were classified within this category. This seems interesting,
considering the educational context. We had expected that more attention would
be given to this category, especially in view of the great emphasis the school
inspectorate places on learning outcomes and academic skills.
The age of the pupils does not
seem to be strongly related to the use of the categories by the student
teachers.
The average number of constructs from our student teachers
(13.2) is slightly above Kelly’s findings (1963). He found that a repertoire of
personal constructs was exhausted after 8 to 12 separate constructs. This
difference might be related to the specific context of our study. Our sample
consisted of student teachers whose profession it is to adapt to the
characteristics of individual pupils. Therefore, we may assume that they have a
more differentiated view of pupils than the average person has of people and
have developed more constructs than the average person has to describe their
perceptions of pupils. Other explanations might be connected to the fact that
Kelly’s and our participants lived in a different era and in different
cultures. For example, the differences might arise from differences in individual
development between student teachers and Kelly’s patients.
In the
pilot phase of this study, we first analysed the construct poles separately. As
this resulted in the construct and the contrast pole being categorised
differently in only three out of 113 cases, in the present study construct and
contrast poles were kept together as a bipolar formation as Kelly (1955/1991)
suggested in his PCT.
Implications for practice and
research
After
completing the procedure, the reactions of the student teachers showed that
they had often been unaware of the constructs about their pupils that were
elicited by the grid technique. Thus, this procedure offered them an
opportunity to become aware of these constructs. This experience felt ‘new’ to
them and might open a road to reflection and coaching. This could be meaningful
during teacher training. The student teachers’ supervisors could facilitate the
articulation of the cognitive processes and this could be valuable for helping
student teachers develop their awareness of useful and powerful constructs for
understanding their pupils. The procedure might be helpful when individuals
receive teaching or counselling, as provided in a teacher training college.
Student teachers might benefit from becoming more articulate about their
understanding of their own learning styles and personality make-up.
The
results of this study might be used as the basis for developing self-awareness
and cognitive awareness of student teachers with regard to the ways they understand
their pupils. In this study, we therefore described the techniques used in
order to enable teacher educators to apply them in their practice.
In this manuscript, we have
described a coding system that will allow comparisons between
various groups. The results of such comparisons, for example between beginning
and experienced teachers, may help to guide and coach student teachers. Further
useful comparisons might include teachers teaching in different types of
education or subjects and teachers in different phases of their careers.
In Tables
3, 4 and 5 we showed some of the cognitive complexity of the individual
construct systems. Future research and analysis of individual data is needed to
provide more insight into the cognitive complexity of student teachers’
construct systems.
Further
research could also include the question of whether a set of norm scores could
be derived from data collected from a representative sample. Such a norm would
allow individual teachers to compare their constructs with those of the larger
group, which might facilitate possible incorporation of some of them. Insight
into this topic might help teacher educators better prepare teachers for the
challenges of their chosen complex profession.
In this
research all student teachers worked at inclusive schools with pupils with
special needs. It would be interesting to investigate whether constructs of
student teachers for pupils in a more ‘standard’ population would differ.
This study is limited to the
perceptions of student teachers about their pupils. We did not study how the
constructs related to the way teachers acted toward their pupils. How these constructs
underlie their relationships and interactions with their pupils would be an
interesting topic for further research. It
is important to recognise that we only studied the constructs of Dutch student
teachers. An interesting future question would be whether there is a cultural
component, which implies questioning a sample of teachers from other countries.
Our coding system might be a useful starting point.
We hope
that the ideas on adapting and implementing the repertory grid technique for
educational settings described in this article could also be used in different
settings and with different populations. We do hope this can be a starting
point for other PCT users and educational researchers to further explore the
possibilities offered by the present study.
|
|
|
|
|
|
REFERENCES |
|
|
Anderson, N. R. (1990). Repertory grid techniques in
employee selection. Personnel Review, 19,
9–15.
Baillie-Groham, R. (1975). The use of a modified form of repertory grid
technique to investigate the extent to which deaf school leavers tend to use
stereotypes. Unpublished MSc thesis, University of London, London, UK.
Baxter, I. A., Schröder, M. J. A., & Bower, J. A.
(1998). The use of repertory grid method to elicit perceptual data from primary
school children. Food Quality and
Preference, 9, 73–80.
Bonarius, H., Van Heck, G., & Smid, N. (Eds.).
(1984). Personality psychology in Europe:
Theoretical and empirical developments.
Butt, T. (2008). George
Kelly. The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Christie, D. F. M., & Menmuir, J. G. (1997). The
repertory grid as a tool for reflection in the professional development of
practitioners in early education. Teacher
Development, 1, 205–217.
Coakes, S., Fenton, M., & Gabriel, M. (1999).
Application of repertory grid analysis in assessing
community sensitivity to change in the forest sector. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal,
17, 193–202.
Corporaal, A. H. (1988). Bouwstenen voor een opleidingsdidactiek. Theorie en onderzoek met
betrekking
tot
cognities van aanstaande onderwijsgevenden [Building blocks of a study programme
about teaching didactics. Theory and research on cognitions of expectant
teaching professionals].
Van Lier: Academische Boeken Centrum.
Epting, F. R., Suchman, D. I., & Nickeson, C. J.
(1971). An evaluation of elicitation procedures for personal constructs. British Journal of Psychology, 62, 513–517.
Feixas,
G., Geldschläger, H., & Neimeyer G. J. (2002). Content analysis of personal
constructs. Journal
of
Constructivist Psychology, 15, 1–19.
Feixas, G., & Saúl, L. A.
(2004). The multi-center dilemma project: An investigation of the role of
cognitive
conflicts in health. The Spanish Journal
of Psychology, 7,
69-78.
Fransella, F., & Dalton, P.
(1990). Personal construct counseling in
action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs (Vols. 1–2). New York, NY:
Norton (reprint 1991, London: Routledge).
Kelly, G.
A. (1963). A theory of personality. The
psychology of personal constructs. New York, NY: The Norton Library.
Kleine, P. F., & Smith, L. M.
(1989). Personal knowledge, belief systems, and educational innovators.
International Journal of Personal Construct
Psychology, 2, 301–313.
Köing,
C. J., Jöri, E., & Knüsel, P. (2011). The amazing diversity of thought: A
qualitative study on how
human resource practitioners perceive selection
procedures. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 26, 437–452.
Koomen,
H. M. Y., Verschueren, K., & Thijs, J. T. (2006). Assessing aspects of the
teacher–child
relationship:
A critical ingredient of a practice-oriented psycho-diagnostic approach. Educational and
Child Psychology, 23, 50–60.
Landfield, A. W. (1971). Personal
construct systems in psychotherapy. Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally.
Luque,
A., Rodríguez, J. M., & Camacho, M. (1999). El uso de la rejilla: Revision
[The grid technique: A
review].
Anales de Psiquiatría, 15(6), 44–54.
Munthe,
E., & Thuen, E. (2009). Lower secondary school teachers’ judgments of
pupils’ problems.
Teachers
and Teaching, Theory and Practice, 15, 563–578.
Nash, R. (1976). Teacher
expectations and pupil learning. London: Routlegde & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Neimeyer,
R. A., Anderson, A., & Stockton, L. (2001). Snakes versus ladders: A
validation of laddering
technique
as a measure of hierarchical structure. Journal
of Constructivist Psychology, 14, 85–106.
Opdenakker,
M., & Damme, J. van (2006). Teacher characteristics and teaching styles as
effectiveness
enhancing
factors of classroom practice. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 22, 1–21.
Ortega, E. (2007). Aplicaciones de la técnica
repertory grid en el ámbito del marketing [Applications of
the repertory grid technique in the field of
marketing]. Investigación y Marketing,
95, 31-39.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and
educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.
Pope, M. L., & Denicolo, P. M. (2001). Transformative education: Personal construct
approaches to
practice
and research. London: Whurr Publishers.
Riemann,
R. (1990). The bipolarity of personal constructs. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 3, 149–165.
Roberts,
J. (1999). Personal construct psychology as a framework for research into
teacher and learner
thinking.
Language Teaching Research, 3, 117–114.
Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist interpretivist
approaches to human enquiry. In N. K. Denzin,
& Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, (pp. 118–137).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Solas, J. (1992). Investigating teacher and student
thinking about the process of teaching and learning
using autobiography and repertory grid. Review of Educational Research, 62, 205–225.
United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1994). The Salamanca
statement and framework for action on special needs
education. New York, NY: UNESCO.
Van Kan, C. A., Ponte, P., & Verloop, N. (2010). How
to conduct research on the inherent moral
significance of teaching: A phenomenological
elaboration of the standard repertory grid application. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1553–1562.
Walker, B. M. (1996). A psychology for adventurers: An
introduction to personal construct
psychology from a social perspective. In D.
Kalekin-Fisherman, & B.M. Walker (Eds.), The
construction of group realities. Culture, society, and
personal construct theory (pp. 7–20). Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.
Wolf, J. C., Van der
(1984). Schooluitval. Een empirisch
onderzoek naar de samenhang tussen
schoolinterne factoren en schooluitval in het regulier
onderwijs [School
drop-out. An empirical investigation of the relationship between internal
school factors and early school leaving in mainstream education]. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Yorke,
D. M. (1978). Repertory grids in educational research: Some methodological considerations.
British Educational Research Journal, 4,
63–74. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. 69–78.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|
|
The authors are grateful to Dr. Ben Smit from Leiden
University and Dr. Huub Everaert from Utrecht University of Applied Sciences
for their contribution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ABOUT
THE
AUTHORS
|
|
|
Hanne M. F.
Touw is educational psychologist at the University of Applied
Sciences, Utrecht. She is currently working on a Ph.D., examining teachers’
perceptions about their pupils. Hanne.Touw@hu.nl
Paulien C. Meijer is a professor and scientific director at
the Radboud Graduate School of Education, Radboud University Nijmegen. Her research
interests focus on learning to teach, teacher learning and teacher education.
P.Meijer@ru.nl
Theo Wubbels, Ph.D. is a professor of education and acting
chair of the Department of Education at Utrecht University. His research
interests are teaching and teacher education: more specifically, interpersonal
relationships in education. T.Wubbels@uu.nl
Correspondence address: Hanne.Touw@hu.nl
|
|
|
|
|
|
REFERENCE
Touw, H. M. F., Meijer, P. C., Wubbels, T. (2015). Using Kelly’s
theory to explore student teachers’ constructs about their pupils.
Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 12, 1-14, 2015
(Retrieved from http://www.pcp-net.org/journal/pctp15/touw15.html)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Received: 29 August 2014 – Accepted: 15 January 2015 –Published: 20 January 2015
|
|
|
|
|
|