Personal Construct Theory in action

Since the publication of Kelly’s theory (1955), many professionals have studied it, explained it through their writings and lectures and found ways of using it in various contexts. In this way, it has become more widely known particularly in the clinical rather than in the educational field. In many ways, this is

unfortunate, especially since Kelly himself was an educator and because learning has such an important place in the theory.

One major name in the field is Ravenette (1977) who argues that children do not appeal to their construct system in order to act but rather they are, themselves, their construct system. Understanding that children are this rapidly evolving system where they are trying out different ways to respond to situations in order to make sense of their world may help teachers to provide a learning environment best suited to support the learners. Furthermore, Butler and Green (1998:4) suggest that children’s behaviour is seen as

experimental. “If children’s behaviour reflects their construing it may thus be possible to infer their experience or construing from their behaviour.” By observing CA lessons it may be possible to infer how children understand their experience which may then be confirmed or revised when their constructs are provided during interviews.

In order to enable people to enter the scientific process more effectively, Kelly suggests attention to the use of language. He states:

Suppose our verbs could be cast in the invitational mood rather than the indicative … this would have the effect of orienting one to the future, not merely to the present or to the past. It suggests a variety of interpretations or constructions. It would set the stage for prediction of what is to ensue. It invites the listener to cope with the circumstances. It suggests that this is a hypothesis which can be pursued, tested, abandoned or reconsidered at a later time. (Kelly 1969:149).

Children providing constructs are required to recognise similarities and differences within the learning context and be able to verbalise these aspects. In expressing constructs children are sharing their individual view of their experience. The observer/listener/researcher can then pursue a hypothesis and interpret the constructs provided by the children in the light of experience.

A range of techniques has been developed to help people elicit their own constructs so that their knowledge and understanding of themselves, others and the world in which they live can grow and develop. This personal growth is an important aspect of development enabling change through personal choice and responsibility. This work has been developed extensively with children particularly by educational and clinical psychologists. In this study, however, the elicitation of constructs is primarily to provide information into how children experience learning and what is affecting learning in the context of CA lessons. In order to use PCT within this study it is necessary to explore various implementations of the theory with young children in order to evaluate the most useful ways to elicit constructs from children between 5-6 years.

Kelly’s original method for eliciting constructs was the Repertory Grid which can be seen as originating from his mathematical background. The purpose of this Grid was to elicit constructs about the roles that the individual applies to the people with whom s/he relates. It is important that the Grid lists a

representative group of role titles thus ensuring that people the individual “likes” as well as “dislikes” figure there. By looking at three role titles at a time, the individual is asked to name the ways in which two are alike but different from the third. This process is repeated several times. Because of the bi-polar nature of

constructs the similarities and differences are of equal importance. From this, Kelly went on to design a statistical procedure of analysis to relate these constructs mathematically. He states, “Factor analysis provides ways of seeing how constructs are interwoven to give substance to the fabric of society” (Kelly 1991, Vol. 1:189). This form of analysis proved neither simple nor popular. Kelly himself became concerned that the grid was getting in the way of, and clouding the constructs. Using the Repertory grid with young children would not seem to be helpful nor provide the information required.

Various forms of the grid method have evolved over the years, for example, the “ranking” form and the “rating” form (Fransella & Bannister, 1977, Bannister & Mair, 1968). In these, each construct is used as a scale along which the elements can be placed. For most situations and with most subjects, a five point rating scale offers more possibilities than the dichotomous method suggested by Kelly. Ravenette (1980), also, has produced several simple forms for use with children. The triadic elicitation was and remains very popular. It comes closest to Kelly’s theory as to how constructs are formed. In addition, it allows for much creativity and adaptation according to the situations and circumstances. A child can be asked for the names of three family members or three friends. The child is then asked to say in what ways two of these people are the same and therefore different from the third. However, young children may find this three- way comparison conceptually difficult and require a simpler form. Alternatively, a child could be asked to think about him/herself and a friend and provide similarities and differences between them. In this way the emergent pole and the contrast pole can be elicited, for example I’m quiet but he talks a lot. In this case, the emergent pole is I’m quiet as it is the aspect that is first revealed.

Another approach, which has been successfully used with young children, is the Salmon Line developed by Salmon (1988). A construct is elicited, for example: no good at reading/ very good at reading. A line is drawn and marked 1 – 7. The individual is asked to mark on the line: where they stand at the moment, where, if they have ever been lower and where they expect to reach at a point in the future. These activities can be extended to include other people’s perceptions, for example: Where would your teacher place you on the line?

Kelly recognised the role of the teacher as helping and enabling the “learning as a personal exploration process”. He stated, “To become a fully accredited participant in the experimental enterprise she (the teacher) must gain some sense of what is being seen through the child’s eyes” (Kelly, 1970: 262). Pope and Shaw stated that for education to be a joint venture between teacher and learner it is essential that each has some awareness of the other’s personal constructs (cited in Pope and Keen, 1981). Pope and Keen have demonstrated the value to the learner of reflecting on and coming to a deeper awareness of their constructs and the relationships between their ideas and those of their peers. In conclusion, Pope and Keen state that active involvement with personal and others’ ideas may encourage “the learner to see himself as a more potent force in the determination of his own learning and in the development of new knowledge”. (Pope and Keen, 1981: 94).

Teaching a CA group is a joint venture between the group and the teacher and between the individual children in the group and the teacher. It may be possible to enhance children’s learning by raising awareness of perceptions of the experience being shared by all participants.

Educationists often assert that children’s emotional states impinge on their learning. Baddeley (1987) and Sarason (1975) both showed anxiety and negative moods impairing memory recall and, therefore, learning. The evidence seems to suggest that negative emotions while learning give rise to less adequate encoding resulting in poor retrieval later. The implications for CA lessons are that the metacognitive aspects of the lessons may help to deepen the children’s awareness of their learning and that learning in a relaxed and friendly group may give rise to more effective learning. Teachers being aware of what helps children to experience learning in a relaxed atmosphere could help effective learning to take place. Work using PCT with children has demonstrated that children’s lives have improved as a result. Mueller (1996) has shown that children’s interior perceptions of self and self in relation to others, as revealed through imaginative play, are related to their state of mental health. One form of assessment used in his study of pre-school children was “The Teddy Bear’s Picnic” which allows the child’s own perceptions of self and others to be examined. These results gave a unique understanding of each child which was then the subject of qualitative analysis. Mueller believes that a highly negative set of constructs characterises an emotionally troubled child. This being brought to light enables the child to receive the professional help required to address the difficulties. Teachers’ understanding allows them to perceive the child neither as naughty nor ill-disciplined but as emotionally in need of support. This, in turn, can alter the way any teacher behaves towards the child, generally, using an approach characterised by compassion rather than annoyance.

Ravenette (1980) has developed forms of grid techniques which are particularly suitable for use with children from about the age of eight. These are relatively quick to administer and to analyse. Their main advantage is that the child is directly involved in looking at him/herself and others in relation to family, teachers and peers. Ravenette particularly recommends the use of photographs and pictorial

representations of situations. It is often more possible to elicit children’s constructs in this way than when children are asked to construe real people in a verbal way.

With younger children and those with limited language it is possible to use pictures of facial expressions to elicit constructs. As an advisory teacher, I used this method to gain information from children who were struggling in learning to read. Individual children were asked to colour the face which best resembled their own in given situations, for example, when asked to read to the teacher. These coloured faces were then used as prompts within unstructured interviews to elicit, if possible, further information.

The following is an example from part of a recorded interview (as part of my work to improve the standard of reading in the LA and used as part of MA study, 1997) with a child aged 7 years:-

Child: Like this … (picking up sad face coloured in) … Can’t smile.

A: You can’t smile when you read to your teacher because ….?

Child: Too hard…. Don’t know words … Steven can smile ‘cos he knows words. Can’t smile if you don’t know words, can you? Miss don’t smile when I read. She smiles when Steven reads.

It was possible, from the information gathered in this interview, to elicit constructs about how the child perceived herself as a learner in various situations within the school context. It was also possible to explore her relationships with her teacher, peers and parents. She was able to show where she could /could not smile and where people smiled at her. The behaviour being identified as, being smiled at was an indication to the child of acceptance. Where adults did not smile, the child construed herself as not being liked because she was stupid. She could, spontaneously, offer the contrast pole of her construct in relation to the facial expression. In discussion with the class teacher, it became apparent that she had not considered how the child construed herself either as a person or as a reader. Resulting from this, the teacher began to assess her own constructs in the relevant areas. She construed the children who were experiencing difficulties as stupid and not worth my time. She generally asked the teaching assistant to hear them read.

Six months later, a marked difference could be noted in the constructs of both child and teacher. The teacher had begun to enter into the child’s world by providing appropriately differentiated classroom activities and re-structuring her management of the class and use of her time. When re-assessed, although the child had made only a little actual progress in reading competence, she did, however, colour more smiling faces than previously. In interview she explained, “I can do more things. Words ain’t so hard now. Miss smiles with me now.”

One aspect of the methodological theoretical approach adopted in this current research was informed by another element of previous study. At the time (1998), I was interested in children on the Special Education Needs (SEN) Registers identified as having poor reading and writing skills while, at the same time, being apparently able to attain at least an average level of work in science. The investigation included all children in two Year 2 classes and two Year 3 classes in one school (116 children) who participated in a specially designed programme of science teaching for six weeks. From this group, children on the SEN register who met particular criteria defined by me for the study:

Year 3 children assessed at National Curriculum Level 1 or below in reading and writing but Level 3 in science identified at the assessments recorded at the end of KS 1 (12 children identified)

Year 2 children that teachers believed would, at the end of the academic year, attain Level 1 or below in reading and writing but at least Level 2 in science (12 children identified).

Observation of science lessons in the classrooms before the intervention revealed that no investigative work by the children took place which the teachers explained by describing the children as too naughty or unable for such work.

During the study I taught science for six weeks in each of these classes where I established mixed ability groups working collaboratively. During these lessons the identified children, alongside the others, were heard to discuss complex concepts, provide reasonable hypotheses, participate fully in investigations and orally explain findings. The children also engaged in research by reading non-fiction texts in pairs. The children agreed ways to record the results both from their reading and from their investigations. Each group then explained their findings to the class.

As each group had a different aspect to work on, investigations having been chosen from children’s questions, all children learnt something new from listening to the other groups within their class. Opportunities were provided for children to ask questions of other children and for them to discuss possible ways to take investigations further.

The last part of each lesson was devoted to discussing the method of work and the thinking involved in the lesson so as to allow for the possibility of developing children’s metacognitive abilities and to evaluate the teaching strategies with a view to these being adjusted for subsequent lessons if children reported anything particularly helpful or unhelpful. The teachers and the classroom assistants observed and listened to the children throughout the lessons.

At the end of the six weeks, I interviewed individually each of the 24 identified children. The interviews focused on the children’s views of learning during the programme, any awareness of differences in pedagogical strategies being used and their own progress during the programme. PCT was the underpinning basis of these interviews. This approach allowed children to identify and explore their constructs regarding the science learning they had experienced during the half term and compare it with previous science learning experiences.

Constructs mentioned by more than half of the children are summarised in Table 3.1. The positive pole only of the constructs is given here but the children provided the opposite pole. For example, one child said that she could talk and share ideas and identified the opposite pole as not allowed to talk in other lessons so I cannot get ideas from other children to help me learn.

Construct Frequency

I am able to talk during lessons and share ideas. 24

I do not have to read and write so I can think about the science and learn more. This makes me like the others and the teacher can forget I am stupid.

24

It’s good I do not have to sit on the dummy table. 24

Teachers think that reading is the most important thing to be good at. 20

Enjoy the new kind of teaching better than old kind. 23

Construct Frequency

Everybody has good and bad things but if you cannot read teachers think you’re stupid and

that’s bad. 15

Table 3.1: Most frequently mentioned constructs provided by 24 pupils (Unpublished work for MA study, 1998)

Using the constructs as the basis of a conversation, 23 children could offer explanations regarding how they experienced some of the differences in teaching. The constructs provided by the children in this small study demonstrated how they experienced teaching and learning and identified key aspects that directly affected progress. All the children were clearly able to express their constructs: their views and feelings regarding the learning experiences afforded to them.

The final aspect of the investigation was establishing a focus group of the four teachers involved. During these sessions, the participant teachers shared their reflections of observing the children working during the science lessons and I shared the constructs, anonymised, provided during child interviews. The participant teachers reported that by listening to the children’s constructs and elaborations of what these meant, they realised that children required opportunities to learn in groups where they could share ideas orally in order to have positive self-esteem, that children had a view about what helped and hindered learning and that listening to children was invaluable, a skill that they had been giving scant attention. By observing and listening to children working, the participant teachers saw children in a new way and this in turn prompted them to reflect on their assessment of children. They reported that they generally assessed children by their reading and writing skills and had not taken opportunities to listen to the children

expressing themselves. One of the teachers commented that if her children had said that she thought they were stupid she would entirely understand. In fact, she had thought that the identified children in her class lacked intelligence before the programme but that her view had radically altered as a result of listening to