|
|
| Constructivist assessment
|
|
An
assessment
strategy might be classified as constructivist to the extent that it
| (a) |
elucidates "local", as opposed to
"universal" meanings and practices in
individuals or social groups, |
| (b) |
focuses
upon provisional, rather than 'essential' and unchanging patterns of
meaning
construction, |
| (c) |
considers
knowledge to be the production of social and personal processes of
meaning-making, and |
| (d) |
is
more
concerned with the viability or pragmatic utility of its application,
than
with its validity, per se (Polkinghorne, 1992). |
This
emphasis
on local, provisional, and pragmatic assessment of (inter)personal
meanings
can be illustrated by a closer consideration of two core techniques
associated with a constructivist approach, each of which encompasses
many different
variations.
These include
Although
constructivist assessment methods have a history that dates at least
back to the 1950s, they are currently enjoying a period of rapid
development.
In part, this reflects the growing popularity of constructivist and
narrative
approaches to psychological theory, with their attendant focus on the
unique meaning-making processes of individuals and social groups
(Neimeyer
& Raskin, 2000). In part, their proliferation also reflects
the continued elaboration of human science methodology, which has
developed
along both quantitative lines (as reflected in the range of computer
programs
for administering and analyzing repertory grids) and qualitative lines
(as evidenced in thematic approaches to narrative analysis).
Nonetheless,
users of constructivist assessment methods confront problems as well as
prospects, as they consider how to evaluate the validity and
reliability
of measures that respect the individuality, complexity, and mutability
of the meaning-making processes of their subjects. Preliminary
studies
of the psychometric adequacy of these methods are encouraging, however,
suggesting that the further refinement and application of
constructivist assessment will contribute to a more adequate
psychological science and
practice in the future.
|
| References
|
- Neimeyer,
R. A. & Raskin, J. D. (Eds.) (2000). Constructions of
disorder. Washington, D. C.: American Psychological
Association.
- Polkinghorne,
D. E. (1992). Postmodern epistemology of
practice. In S. Kvale (Ed.), Psychology and postmodernism
(pp. 146-165). Newbury Park: CA: Sage.
|
|
Robert A. Neimeyer & Heidi
Levitt
|
|
