|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REFLECTING ON A VOCATIONAL EDUCATOR'S THEORY OF PRACTICE:
A CO-CONSTRUCTED ACCOUNT
|
|
|
Willfred Greyling, Owen Lingard
|
|
|
Waikato Institute of Technology, Hamilton,
New Zealand |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
In this article, we report on how we used personal
construct theory (PCT) methods in reflecting on the second author’s (SA’s)
practices in vocational training for at-risk pre-apprenticeship youth in the
electrical engineering and supply field. Our main aim is to describe the reflective
process, especially how we raised SA’s awareness of his pedagogical constructs
and some of the implicative dilemmas in his pedagogical meaning-making. We
provide a brief outline of a constructs-based approach, and what we mean by
implicative dilemmas. Our method involves a case study to show how we used two
PCT methods, constructs elicitation and repertory grids, in SA’s reflective
work. We found that SA was able to make explicit both his constructs and the
conflicts in his meaning-making. His experiment with small-group learning and
role definitions assisted him in resolving these dilemmas and diversifying his
constructs. We concluded that PCT methods were useful in providing very
specific prompts for reflective practice in this educational context. First author’s
(FA’s) broader interest was to develop a constructs-based reflective approach
for educators at a tertiary institute of technology.
Keywords: Implicative
dilemma, repertory grid, vocational
training, education, tacit knowledge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION
Context
Brophy, Fransella and Reed (2003) observe that personal
construct mentoring typically involves associates who engage in co-operative,
developmental activity aimed at awareness-raising and solution-seeking change. We
report on such a constructs- and evidence-based reflective process between an
academic support staff member (FA) and a vocational trainer in electrical
engineering (SA) in a tertiary institute in New Zealand. We reasoned that
reflective practice would allow us to make explicit educators’ tacit knowledge
(Gascoigne & Thornton, 2013; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Senge, 2006), or
in PCT terms, develop accounts of vocational trainers’ (non-symbolised)
non-verbal know-how (Kelly, 1955).
FA’s broader concern was to illustrate the usefulness
of PCT methods in drawing up individualised agendas for reflective practice in
tertiary vocational training, and how ‘workplace research’ could be used to improve
educator practices and lift outcomes for learners. In this article, our purpose
is to report on how constructs elicitation and repertory grid analysis were
used in reflective practice in vocational training. This article follows on
Greyling, Belcher and McKnight (2013) who explored the usefulness of the
repertory grid in triangulating an educator’s and her learners’ meaning-making
on a pre-apprenticeship hairdressing programme.
A constructs approach
Kelly (1955; 1966/2003) contends that, on the basis of
experience, each person develops a network of bipolar constructs (such as like vs dislike; autonomous vs dependent learning; experiential vs instructional approaches to learning, and the like) to make predictions about the future. The poles of a construct represent an aspect
of difference, while they share an aspect of similarity. For example, the construct experiential vs instructional approaches to
learning
identifies ‘experiential’ and ‘instructional’ as the aspect of difference,
while ‘approaches to learning’ is the aspect of similarity.
Subsequent experiences allow the person to either
validate or disconfirm the predictions. If predictions are validated, the
person is able to assign meanings to the experience that she would deem useful
and adequate in the context. The person
may, but does not have to, improve her constructs and predictions. However, if her
predictions are invalidated, she would be prompted to make one of three moves: use the same constructs to make new
predictions, use different constructs to find more useful predictions, or create
new constructs to make new predictions (Kelly, 1955).
Kelly (1955; 1966/2003) also refers to fragmentation,
pointing out that inconsistencies often exist in a person’s network of
constructs. For example, a vocational trainer may firmly believe in active
learner participation, prompted by his active
vs passive learner roles construct. However, in practice, he may not allow
learners enough time to respond to his tasks or elicitations, mediating their ‘non-responses’
too soon and depriving them of the opportunity to engage. Thus, his notion that learner responses have
to be efficient and immediate turns learners into passive recipients of
information – they are not given enough time to respond. Thus, his efficient
vs inefficient lag in learner response-time in training construct is out of
kilter with his notion of active learner participation and how such learning is
accomplished.
Implicative dilemmas
We were interested not only in SA’s network of
constructs, but also in a specific form of inconsistency in his network, namely
implicative dilemmas. A significant literature exists on the topic and how to
identify conflicts, inconsistencies and implicative dilemmas in repertory grids
(Badzinsky & Anderson, 2012; Bell, 2004; Feixas, Saúl & Ávila-Espada,
2009; Feixas & Saúl, 2004; Feixas, Saúl & Sanchez, 2000; and others).
Feixas and associates (2000; 2004; 2009) link
implicative dilemmas to discrepant and congruent constructs. A discrepant
construct, they point out, refers to an area where a person experiences a level
of dissatisfaction which results in her viewing change as highly desirable,
while a congruent construct denotes an area where the person would see no
reason to want to change (Feixas & Saúl, 2004). Hence, we refer to an
implicative dilemma as more than an inconsistency or ambiguity in a person’s
thinking; rather, it denotes an inconsistency or ambiguity that evokes a level
of discomfort in a person which will prompt her to want to resolve the tension
and ambivalence of not knowing how to act.
For example, a vocational trainer, using the inquiry-based vs teacher-directed learning
construct, prefers inquiry-based learning,
intending to assign learners tasks that require self-directed and independent
learning. However, once she meets the group, she realises that to keep her
learners on-task, she has to intervene, having to activate the opposite pole, teacher-directed learning. Thus, she
cannot pursue the implications of her emergent pole because she perceives
learners as inadequately equipped to deal with the demands of such learning. She
employs a second construct, namely activating
appropriate vs inappropriate learner role definitions. Her emergent pole, inquiry-based learning, prompts her to consider
the negative implications of the opposite pole of the second construct, linking
her learners’ actions to inappropriate
learner role definitions. She therefore feels herself stymied in pursuing
an inquiry-based approach, and grudgingly she retreats into teacher-directedness
as a strategy because it seems to her to be the most appropriate way of dealing
with her learners. For this inconsistency or ambiguity to be an implicative
dilemma, she has to experience a level of ambivalence and tension that will
prompt her to want to change. Her challenge is to implement strategies that
will assist her learners in developing appropriate learner roles to cope with
inquiry-based learning. The question is then whether she perceives the
implicative dilemma as resolvable or not (Badzinski & Anderson, 2012). To
extend the example, a host of other constructs may come into play at this
point, not least of these cost vs benefit
of change (Badzinski & Anderson, 2012), overt vs covert resistance to
change (Marshak, 2006), imposed top-down
vs negotiated bottom-up buy-in to change (Hardy, Palmer & Phillips,
2000), and high vs low urgency change (Kotter, 2008), to name a few.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
Our main aim was to show that constructs elicitation
and repertory grids were useful methods in setting agendas for academic support
staff and vocational trainers to reflect on the latter’s practices in
vocational training. Specifically, we set out to describe and reflect on SA’s
teaching constructs that related to a pre-apprenticeship electrical engineering
programme for at-risk youth.
We defined several objectives which emerged from our
reflective conversations about SA’s teaching. These were: to describe the
process of embedding the two PCT methods in our reflective practice; illustrate
how we arrived at an account of the elements and constructs in SA’s
meaning-making; design a grid; use the findings for reflective conversations between
FA and SA to raise our awareness of his pedagogical meaning-making, including
implicative dilemmas, if any; and collaborate in interpreting the findings.
We also provide a brief account of SA’s self-initiated
experiment with his learners to explore his view of the relationship between scaffolding,
educator control and learner autonomy.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHODS
We provide a brief account of our methodology and
methods. PCT methods became relevant in our reflective conversations in the workplace,
when at the appropriate time, FA suggested to SA that constructs elicitation
and a repertory grid could assist us in going beyond discrete themes in his
meaning-making to reveal the relatedness of clusters of meanings in his
thinking. We outline our methodology to assist anyone wanting
to replicate our process which lasted approximately for 15 hours of conversation
from October 2013 to June 2014. We use the word ‘replicate’ in the knowledge
that no two events are ever the same, and even if we were to ‘replicate’ the
study, we would face newness and difference in our experience (Drummond &
Themessl-Huber, 2007).
Preliminaries: Shared knowledge and experiences
We agreed that we had a well-established and ongoing positive,
high-trust relationship (Dutton & Ragins, 2007) and that such a
relationship was a key factor. We also had at our disposal an informal record
of past conversations, two graphic outlines of key words and symbols (i.e.
mind-maps) of SA’s preferred teaching principles and practices, and a classroom
observation. FA, who has an interest in PCT methods, had used constructs
elicitation in these conversations. As prompts for reflection, FA and SA had discussed
current and future practices; trainers deemed to be, or not to be, role models;
traditional and more innovative approaches; and industry expectations. These became
the elements in our small-scale project.
Step 1: From informal talk to constructs and a
repertory grid
The first step was for FA to request SA to participate
in a constructs-based analysis of his meaning-making. Once he agreed, we had a
brief talk about constructs, how to define them, elements, and repertory grids
as a numerical account of a person’s meaning-making (Kelly, 1955). The
anticipated value, we thought at the time, would be to see how different
constructs were related in SA’s meaning-making. FA pointed out that he had
already captured several constructs from our conversations, the two mind-maps
and a classroom observation.
Step 2: Imposing order on our input data
Using the input available to us, FA identified the
elements, and tentatively, abstracted constructs on the basis of our
conversations, especially SA’s responses to conversational cues, consistent
with dyadic elicitation (Fransella, Bell, & Bannister, 2004), such as: If
you think about your current practices and industry expectations, are they
consistent? How are they the same? How are they different? If you compare training
that will produce innovative, problem-solving learners and your future
practices, how would those be similar? How would they be different?
Step 3: SA validating the formulations
In this step, FA presented his tentative summary of
seven elements and twelve constructs. FA revisited the input data, explaining
the link between dyads of elements and constructs. SA accepted the elements. Although
he agreed with the constructs, he contested the wording of some. We worked on
the wording until SA was satisfied that the verbal labels came as close as they
could to his view. Following Bell (2010), SA identified the emergent of each
construct before FA designed the grid.
Step 4: Designing the grid
Next, FA developed a grid consisting of twelve
constructs and seven elements, with the focus of convenience, as specified
earlier. In the design, FA reversed the poles of six constructs. The grid
consisted of 7 pages, one per element. Each page consisted of an element (see
Table 2) and the twelve constructs (see Table 1), each of which requiring a rating
on a seven-point Likert scale (Feixas & Cornejo, 2002; Fransella, et al.,
2004).
Step 5: Eliciting and processing SA’s ratings
SA completed the grid, page by page, without referring
back, in approximately an hour. FA then applied grid-focusing, reversing half
the poles of the constructs in the completed grid to align the emergent poles
on the left side of the grid (Feixas & Cornejo, 2002). FA also converted
the seven-point scale to a zero-point scale where 4 = 0, a rating of 1 = 3 and
a rating of 7 = -3. He then processed the ratings in IBM SPSS (2013, Version
22), computing means, standard deviations, correlations for constructs and
elements; as well as two cluster analyses, producing dendrograms which showed how
ratings were configured for constructs and elements (Fransella, et al., 2004).
Step 6: Identifying implicative dilemmas
We used Feixas, Saúl and Sanchez (2000) as a rough
guide to identify discrepant and congruent constructs. Discrepant constructs showed
negative means located on the opposite poles (means < 0), while congruent
poles would yield positive means located on the emergent poles (means >0). Means
>-1 and <+1, we argued, signalled either conflict or confusion, revealing
that SA was undecided on whether the emergent or opposite pole should apply. In
addition, as specified by Feixas et al. (2000), the opposite pole of a
discrepant construct would be associated with the emergent pole of a congruent
construct, yielding a negative correlation, while the emergent poles of
congruent constructs would show positive correlations. We noted Feixas and Saúl’s
(2004) salience point of 0.35, but then, following Cohen (1988), we opted for
correlations of 0.6 or higher, and probability levels of 0.05 or less. These,
we reasoned, were stringent requirements for identifying meaningful
associations among constructs and among elements.
Step 7: FA’s tentative interpretations and SA’s
response
In our follow-up, we agreed that FA would formulate tentative
interpretations of correlations and the dendrograms. We discussed correlational
pairs which captured congruent and discrepant constructs (6 pairs) and elements
(6 pairs), as well as two dendrograms, one for constructs, and the other for
elements. For this article, we made a selection to illustrate our process.
Step 8 Resolving the implicative dilemmas
Although SA initially labelled his implicative
dilemmas as unresolvable for at-risk pre-apprenticeship students, he
nonetheless embarked upon an experiment. He opted for small-group tasks,
carefully crafting step-by-step vocation-specific problem-solving tasks for
active learner engagement. He also redefined his role as a “questioner and
guide” rather than the traditional provider of information. FA was then invited
to conduct a classroom observation to explore how SA was redefining his view of
his scaffolding construct.
Step 9: Preparing a joint report
Our final step was to prepare a joint report (Greyling
& Lingard, 2014) which was lodged in the institute’s research archive as
evidence of our reflective conversations.
FINDINGS
We report on the following aspects: first, the
selected constructs, elements and focus of convenience for the grid; second, the
means, standard deviations and correlations for both constructs and elements;
third, the dendrograms for constructs and elements (as part of a cluster
analysis), a brief outline of some of the implicative dilemmas, followed by FA’s
tentative interpretations and SA’s comments.
SA’s constructs
Table 1 lists emergent poles on the left, with
congruent or discrepant constructs indicated.
Table 1: Constructs
for the repertory grid
|
Construct:
Emergent Poles
|
Construct:
Opposite Poles
|
|
C1: Develop
multiple role relationships and practices through modelling [Congruent]
|
C1: Develop
authority-based educator role relationships and practices
|
|
C2: Use
scaffolds initially, and then eliminate them [Discrepant]
|
C2: Use
scaffolding consistently throughout the course
|
|
C3: Explicitly
stated sequential and step-by-step experimentation in learning [Congruent]
|
C3: Implicit
and unstated sequence of actions in experimentation in learning
|
|
C4: Socialised
into the community of electrical practitioners’ socio-cultural practices [Congruent]
|
C4: Focusing
on the individual in relation to the community of electrical practitioners’
socio-cultural practices
|
|
C5: Intentionally
create socially meaningful learning spaces for students to learn (from others)
[Discrepant]
|
C5: Remaining
within trainer-dominated learning spaces for students to learn
|
|
C6: Shape
vocation-specific literate reasoning in a vocational context and authentic tasks
[Congruent]
|
C6: Shape
general literate reasoning in general contexts (regardless of context)
|
|
C7: Seek
attention-grabbing instructional strategies [Congruent]
|
C7: Seek
information-driven instructional strategies
|
|
C8: Extrinsic
personal gain as a lever to motivate learners [Congruent]
|
C8: De-emphasising
personal gain as a lever to motivate learners
|
|
C9: Audience-directed
relationship-driven approach [Congruent]
|
C9: Specialist
subject-orientated approach
|
|
C10: Experiential
cycle of learning [Congruent]
|
C10: Instructional
cycle of learning
|
|
C11: Holistic
learning experiences [Mastery as vocation-specific reasoning,
problem-solving, attitudes, values and practices] [Discrepant]
|
C11: Subject-focused
learning experiences (selected theoretical electrical knowledge, reasoning
and knowledge are key)
|
|
C12: Intentionally seeking and using
associations and analogies to promote learner understanding and complexity of
thinking [Congruent]
|
C12: Naturally
allowing learners to make their own associations and analogies in developing
complexity of thinking
|
Elements
and the focus of convenience
We identified elements from earlier conversations (See
Table 2). The focus of convenience of the grid was ‘teaching at-risk pre-apprenticeship students in
electrical engineering’. Kelly’s (1955) guidelines specify that role titles
should be used; however, others have shown that typical practices or scenarios can
also be used profitably as elements (Wright, 2008).
Table 2: Elements
|
Role 1: ‘How you anticipate industry would want you
to train your students’
|
|
Role 2: ‘A tutor-trainer in your field who is
currently a role model to you’
|
|
Role 3: ‘How you view your current practices as a
tutor-trainer’
|
|
Role 4: ‘How you would want to teach in future’
|
|
Role 5: ‘A tutor-trainer in your field whose
training practices you reject’
|
|
Scenario 1: ‘Imagine training in which the tutor-trainer’s
ultimate aim is to develop learners’ roles and practices of independent,
innovative, reasoning and responsive electrical engineering practitioners’.
|
|
Scenario 2: ‘Imagine training in which the
tutor-trainer controls all information and activity, and focuses on a limited
range of topics to achieve limited, yet complete mastery of the so-identified
content in teacher-controlled exchanges’.
|
Legend: Roles 1 to 4 & Scenario 1 = Positive and emergent elements. Role 5
& Scenario 2 = Contrastive, dispreferred roles and scenario
Means and
standard deviations
We report the means and standard deviations for both
constructs and elements.
Table 3: Means
and standard deviations for SA’s constructs-based ratings of elements
|
Constructs
|
N
(Elements)
|
Minimum
|
Maximum
|
Mean
|
Std dev
|
Construct 1
Construct 2
Construct 3
Construct 4
Construct 5
Construct 6
Construct 7
Construct 8
Construct 9
Construct 10
Construct 11
Construct 12
|
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
|
-2
-3
-2
-2
-3
0
-2
0
-2
-3
-3
2
|
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
|
0.43
-1.00
0.57
1.29
-0.86
1.14
1.00
1.43
0.00
0.43
-0.14
2.14
|
2.07
2.09
1.62
1.80
2.04
0.69
1.83
0.98
1.92
2.07
2.19
0.39
|
Positive means indicate ratings congruent with
emergent poles, while negative means signal meanings located on the opposite
poles. The standard deviations signal variability on SA’s ratings. However, we realise
that these means mask significant meanings captured in individual ratings.
Table 4: Means
and standard deviations for SA’s elements-related ratings
|
Elements
|
N
(Constructs)
|
Minimum
|
Maximum
|
Mean
|
Std dev
|
Role 1
Role 2
Role 3
Role 4
Role 5
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
|
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
|
-2
-2
-2
-3
-3
-2
-2
|
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
|
0.17
0.50
1.08
1.75
-0.75
1.67
-0.67
|
1.80
1.24
1.51
1.60
2.01
1.23
1.97
|
The means for elements (based on 12 ratings on each)
signal that negative means are associated with the negative and rejected role
definitions of a teacher-centred approach and the undesirable scenario.
Correlations
among constructs and among elements
We computed two correlation matrices, one for
constructs and the other for elements. We report the matrix of Pearson
correlations for the 12 constructs in Table 5, and for elements in Table 6.
Table 5: Pearson correlations for selected constructs
|
Constructs
|
C1
|
C2
|
C3
|
C4
|
C5
|
C6
|
C7
|
C8
|
C9
|
C10
|
C11
|
|
C1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C2
|
-.85**
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C3
|
.76*
|
-.89**
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C4
|
.77*
|
-.89**
|
.97**
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C5
|
.81*
|
-.63
|
-.63
|
.67
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C6
|
-.63
|
.35
|
-.26
|
-.31
|
-.25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C7
|
.93**
|
-.97**
|
.90**
|
.91**
|
.67*
|
-.53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C8
|
.14
|
-.33
|
.45
|
.30
|
.38
|
.64
|
.19
|
|
|
|
|
|
C9
|
.97**
|
-.75*
|
.75*
|
.73*
|
.81*
|
-.63
|
.86**
|
.18
|
|
|
|
|
C10
|
.84**
|
-.97**
|
.91**
|
.87*
|
.66
|
-.28
|
.93**
|
.47
|
.80*
|
|
|
|
C11
|
.90**
|
-.77*
|
.83*
|
.73*
|
.75*
|
-.43
|
.83*
|
.42
|
.95**
|
.86**
|
|
|
C12
|
-.53
|
.64
|
-.43
|
-.36
|
-.46
|
-.09
|
-.48
|
-.65
|
-.46
|
-.73*
|
-.57
|
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
(1-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
(1-tailed).
Table 6: Pearson correlation matrix for elements
|
Elements
|
Role 1
|
Role 2
|
Role 3
|
Role 4
|
Role 5
|
Scenario 1
|
|
Role 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Role 2
|
0.41
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Role 3
|
0.63*
|
0.71**
|
|
|
|
|
|
Role 4
|
0.33
|
0.75**
|
0.65*
|
|
|
|
|
Role 5
|
0.47
|
-0.06
|
-0.04
|
-0.46
|
|
|
|
Scenario 1
|
0.36
|
0.65*
|
0.65*
|
0.97**
|
-0.44
|
|
|
Scenario 2
|
0.34
|
-0.30
|
-0.16
|
-0.58*
|
0.83**
|
-0.55
|
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
(1-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
(1-tailed).
Tentative
interpretations and collaborative discussion
As noted, we had reflective conversations about 6
pairs of constructs and 6 pairs of elements, which were summarised in the
institutional report, lodged in the institute’s research archive and SA’s
personal portfolio of reflections. The correlations below include a congruent
pair (Table 7) and a discrepant/congruent pair (Table 8), selected to
illustrate the process.
Table 7: Correlation
of constructs 3 and 4
|
Emergent
x Opposite poles: Correlation: 0.97** [Congruent
constructs]
|
|
C3: Explicitly
stated sequential, step-by-step experimentation in learning
|
C3: Implicit
and unstated sequence of actions in experimentation in learning
|
|
C4: Socialised
into the community of electrical practitioners’ socio-cultural practices
|
C4: Focusing
on the individual as a future member of the community of electrical
practitioners’ socio-cultural practices
|
FA asked SA whether he could validate and clarify the
level of association between the emergent poles on the left. SA confirmed that
explicit communication was key in learning in the electrical engineering field.
This included explicitness about learner roles, practices and rules of
engagement. Often, he stated, vocational practitioners would have to apply
step-by-step routines involving thinking and doing. Such mastery was required to
be deemed socialised into the practices of the community of electrical
practitioners. Thus, he agreed that the emergent poles of C3 and C4 were
associated.
Table 8: Correlation
of constructs 2 and 7
|
Constructs
2 and 7: Pole A x Pole B Correlation: -0.97** [A discrepant x A
congruent construct]
|
|
C2: Use
scaffolds initially, and then eliminate them [Emergent, yet aspirational
pole]
|
C2: Use
scaffolding consistently throughout the course [Opposite pole, discrepant]
|
|
C7: Seek
attention-grabbing instructional strategies [Emergent pole][Congruent]
|
C7: Seek
information-driven instructional strategies [Opposite pole]
|
We agreed that initially we had worked on the
assumption that C2 Pole A would be associated with C7 Pole A 9 (both on the
left). FA’s question was whether there was a reason for the change from the emergent
to the opposite pole of the construct (Opposite C2 Pole B) and C7 (Emergent Pole
A). SA confirmed that his ratings changed when we narrowed the focus of
convenience of the grid from mainstream to at-risk students. These students, he
said, had major backlogs in their skills and knowledge. Often, they had
misperceptions, acting in ways that posed significant health and safety risks.
He would rather scaffold their learning, ensuring he offered them systematic
learning of the basics required at that level, while at the same time he could
assist them in clarifying their roles. SA associated pervasive scaffolding with
very tight teacher control over classroom exchanges which typically exhibited tutor-dominated
statement-question-answer-evaluation sequences (Bax, 2011; Greyling, 1995; Sinclair
& Coulthard, 1992). It was this restrictive account of scaffolding for
at-risk learners SA had to re-define.
Once he was certain that they had mastered the basics,
he could give them more autonomy. In his
view, this would most probably occur at higher levels once they had mastered
the basics and had been socialised to act responsibly within their roles. Thus,
the idea to eliminate scaffolded learning at all during the pre-apprenticeship phase
of the training was aspirational. Scaffolded practice, SA argued, had to be
supplemented by memorable, attention-grabbing instructional methods to ensure
the at-risk cohort engaged in learning.
Correlations
of elements
In this section, we report on three relatively high
correlations among the elements in the grid (correlations>0.6). We selected the
correlations below to illustrate the reflective process. We selected these
correlations to show how SA viewed his tutor role in terms of ‘his current
versus future practices’, ‘current vs innovative practices’ (scenario 1), and ‘his
anticipated future practices vs innovative practices’ (scenario 1) elements.
Table 9: Elements
- correlation of role titles 3 and 4
|
Role
title 3: ‘How you view your current practices as a
tutor-trainer’ Correlation: 0.65*
|
|
Role
title 4: ‘How you would want to teach in future’
|
FA asked SA to agree or disagree with the claim that
his current practices were associated with what he wanted them to be. SA
responded that he felt himself firmly on the path, albeit that he sometimes
experienced doubts, especially when he realised some students could not be
rescued from failure.
Table 10:
Correlations of role title 3 and scenario 1
|
Role
title 3: ‘How you view your current practices as a
tutor-trainer’ Correlation: 0.65*
|
|
Scenario
1: ‘Imagine training in which the tutor-trainer’s
ultimate aim is to develop learners’ roles and practices of independent,
innovative, reasoning and responsive electrical engineering practitioners.
|
FA’s question was whether SA agreed or disagreed with FA’s
claim that his current training practices came relatively close to those in a
training context that replicated scenario 1. SA agreed, stating that he judged the direction of his practices to
be consistent with this scenario. Another iteration of his teaching would be
closer still to these practices. SA viewed his role as motion, movement on a
path, an evolving process and a journey.
Table 11:
Correlation between role title 4 and scenario 1
|
Role
title 4: ‘How you would want to teach in future’ Correlation: 0.97**
|
|
Scenario
1: ‘Imagine training in which the tutor-trainer’s
ultimate aim is to develop learners’ roles and practices of independent,
innovative, reasoning and responsive electrical engineering practitioners’.
|
FA’s question was whether SA agreed or disagreed with
the following claim: If SA had to imagine a future scenario (such as scenario
1), he would want his future practices to achieve those outcomes (i.e. the role
definition and practices described in scenario 1. SA agreed, confirming the desired direction of his practices. It was
clear that he viewed industry-ready learners to exhibit the skills, knowledge
and attitudes referred to in scenario 1.
Cluster
analyses of constructs and elements
We triangulated our interpretations of the correlated
pairs, analysing dendrograms for the clusters of constructs and elements. The closer
the distance between variables on the horizontal axis, the closer they are
associated (i.e. Euclidean distances).
Dendrogram
for constructs
The dendrogram indicates that the following
relationships exist within the data set, and the discussion of the clusters
appear after the dendrogram in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Dendrogram for contructs
Constructs
1, 5, 9 and 11 as implicative dilemmas
We noted that SA felt torn between the emergent and
opposite poles of these constructs. This is reflected in the means for C1
(0.43), C5 (-0.86), C9 (0) and C11 (-0.14) signalling either confusion or tension
in his construing. These are grouped in the range >-1 and <+1, hence the high correlations among
these constructs. Using means and correlations, as well as SA’s judgement of
feeling torn between the poles of these constructs, he interpreted the cluster
as follows:
SA felt that the challenges posed by at-risk
pre-apprenticeship students forced him to revert to an undesirable tutor-centred
role instead of collaboratively enacting multiple mentoring-type roles (C1); re-establish
teacher-dominated learning spaces instead of intentionally creating socially
meaningful spaces for students to learn (among themselves and with him as the
trainer) (C5); and retreat into his expert specialist subject-matter role (C9
and C11).
In contrast, the emergent poles related to SA creating
socially meaningful learning spaces and relationships in which learners could take
initiative in their learning. The implicative dilemma was that group
characteristics associated with at-risk students prompted SA to act in terms of
the implications of opposite poles (bound together by the notion of teacher
control) which conflicted with his emergent poles (of wanting to assign them tasks
requiring initiative and responsibility).
Constructs
3, 4, 7 and 10
We concluded that SA was
committed to the idea of explicitness in dealing with step-by-step learning
processes (C3). This cluster was associated with the notion that if learners
had to be socialised into the community of electrical practitioners (C4), they
systematically had to master vocation-specific reasoning. This objective, SA
reasoned, could be achieved by employing attention-grabbing instructional
strategies (C7), and adopting hands-on experiential cycles of learning (C10).
Constructs
6, 8 and 12
This cluster shows the
anticipated association between shape
vocation-specific literate reasoning and actions in a vocational context and
authentic tasks (C6) and the view that learners responded to extrinsic personal gain as a lever to
motivate them (C8). SA viewed learners as motivated by tangible positive
results and personal gain. A tangible and immediate benefit had to be clear for
learners to engage. One of his strategies was to assist learners in developing
their competence deliberately to seek and use associations and analogies that
supported learner understanding (C12).
Construct
2
As seen in Table 8, SA insisted
that for the target group scaffolding had to be pervasive in the course (C2). SA
viewed such scaffolded support and control as key in dealing with the target
group who, in his view, lacked the maturity to be assigned any autonomy.
Construct 2 is isolated from the rest of the constructs in the grid, confirming
that this is a focal point in SA’s experience of an implicative dilemma. The
negative implication of pervasive scaffolding was that his learners might not
meet the industry’s and institute’s work-readiness requirement. Instead, his pervasive
scaffolding would lead to dependency, unemployability, and learned helplessness
(Seligman, 2012).
SA associated the pole pervasive scaffolding with tutor-directedness,
manifested as tightly controlled initiation-response-feedback (IRF) exchanges
in tutor-student interactions (Bax, 2011; Greyling, 1995; Sinclair &
Coulthard, 1992). Relevant information would be transferred to the group in a
brief lecture followed by students completing relevant workbook activities, and
then proceeding to practical application. His emergent pole, scaffold at first, then gradually reduce
support, implied that students would receive progressively less support so
that by the end of the module, they worked on their own, as he generally experienced
with mainstream students.
Alongside our reflections, SA
experimented with tutor and learner role definitions, task requirements, and
different interactional configurations in his classes. These experiments assisted
him in changing his views of his delivery practices. We refer to the outcomes
of his experiment in the discussion section.
Figure 2: Dendrogram of elements
We included the dendrogram for elements to
show that in SA’s meaning-making, captured in his ratings, the elements were
associated as follows:
Role 4 (Element 4) and scenario 1 (element 6)
SA’s ratings
showed a positive correlation (correlation = 0.97**) which means that ‘how SA would want to teach in future’ is strongly
associated with the positive scenario described in scenario 1.
Role 2 (Element 2) and Role 3 (Element)
In SA’s ratings,
there was a high level of association between how he perceived ‘a tutor-trainer
in his field who currently serves as a role model to him’ and ‘how he views his
current practices as a tutor-trainer’ (correlation = 0.71*).
Role 1 (Element 1) was moderately associated with Elements 2 and 3
SA’s ratings
suggest that his perceptions of ‘how he anticipated industry would want him to
train his students’ were related to the ‘tutor role as a role model’ and his ‘current
practices’ (elements 2 and 3). Although role 1 was associated with elements 2
and 3, we noted in Table 6 that the correlations between role 1 and these two
elements were relatively low (with element 2, correlation = 0.41) and the only
significant result the correlation with element 3 (correlation = 0.63*). SA’s interpretation was that he perceived industry expectations as
somewhat inconsistent with his perception of his and his colleagues’ roles and
practices.
Role 5 (Element 5) and Scenario 2 (Element 7)
For purposes of
contrast, we included a negative role (‘A tutor-trainer in your field you
reject’) and a negative scenario (‘Imagine a training context
in which the tutor-trainer controlled all information and activity, and focused
on a limited range of topics to achieve limited, yet complete mastery of the
so-identified content in teacher-controlled exchanges’). As expected, these two
elements were highly correlated (correlation 0.83**); however, they contrasted
with the other elements in the grid, as can be seen by the distance (25)
between the negative pair and the rest of the elements, as well as negative
correlations with other elements (See Table 6).
DISCUSSION
Eliciting
an agenda for reflective practice
The findings of our small-scale intervention showed
that constructs elicitation and repertory grid analysis were useful in
identifying an agenda for reflective practice in a vocational context. These
methods were valuable because they allowed us not only to elicit SA’s
constructs and implicative dilemmas (Table 1) in relation to various elements
(Table 2), but also to explore how various poles of SA’s constructs interacted.
See, for example, the discussion of constructs 1, 5, 9 and 11 in Figure 1, and
several pairs of interacting meanings in Tables 7-11.
Constructs
are part of networks of meaning
What we noticed from our conversations was that any
discussion of a construct led to our activating the implications of several related
constructs. We made the link with tacit and explicit knowledge (Gascoigne &
Thornton, 2013; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1996), or in Kellyian terms “non-symbolised
constructs” (Kelly, 1955: 198). We realised that recordings and transcriptions
of conversational data, when analysed, could serve as a valuable source of
evidence of implicitly held constructs that evaded our attention in the immediacy
of the
From
implicative dilemmas to experimenting with new approaches
SA’s construing of scaffolding was a very restrictive
view of teacher-directed support. Such support was manifested mainly as tutor-dominated
initiation-response-feedback (IRF) cycles of interaction, controlling content
and learner actions, which is typical of such classroom discourse (Bax, 2011; Greyling,
1995; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1992). His experiment allowed him to begin to
explore other options: he became a questioner, using extended sequences of IRF exchanges
(White & Lightbown, 1984), guiding learners to use vocational reasoning in
problem-solving tasks. He outlined the tasks, listing achievable steps for
completing them, and the resources (capacitors, circuit components, and technology-enhanced
course materials) needed. SA also used small groups of mixed ability, one per
task, and imposed time limits for completion. SA worked the room, going from
group to group, asking questions to check on learner reasoning. He responded to
learner-initiated questions.
What SA discovered was that as the tutor, he was able
to scaffold learning, provide firm task-related supports, and re-define his
role as a questioner and guide. Tutor control and autonomous learner
participation are not mutually exclusive: a tutor can control the design of activities
and interactional spaces, yet secure a significant level of learner
participation far beyond restrictive traditional IRF exchanges.
CONCLUSION
We concluded that our joint effort had shown that PCT methods were
useful in supporting reflective processes. Vocational trainers’ meaning-making
systems, we contend, impact on their instructional choices. These methods are
appealing because they honour the meaning-making of the individual, yielding opportunities
for academic advisors and educators to create, abandon, reject or embrace
meaning. We viewed the dendrograms from the cluster analyses as a valuable
source of conversational prompts to explore the relatedness of multiple
constructs and elements in SA’s meaning-making.
We also noted four orders of reflective practice:
first, eliciting SA’s pedagogical constructs; second, co-designing,
administering and processing the repertory grid; next, collaboratively
interpreting means, correlations and dendrograms for constructs and elements; and
finally, experimenting with new tasks and roles for both himself and his
learners while co-writing this article.
In hindsight, FA believes that constructs should be
defined in relation to observed classroom practices and activities. This would
tie the reflective component directly to teaching acts. These, in turn, could be
linked to meanings tutors deem to be critical in lifting outcomes for learners.
This could be supported by laddering up, asking successive why questions, and
laddering down, exploring the how of constructs (Fransella, et al., 2004) Second,
the process was time-consuming. Although we agreed that our process offered valuable
reflective opportunities, we concluded that applying repertory grids institution-wide
had to be considered with care. The challenge would be how to extend the use of
the repertory grid and other PCT methods across the organisation in ways that were
meaningful, sustainable, effective and efficient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
REFERENCES |
|
|
Badzinski, S.I. & Anderson, J.A. (2012). An
exploration of the identification of implicative dilemmas and their
relationship to personal construct theory-congruent measures of psychological
well-being in nonclinical samples. Journal
of Constructivist Psychology, 25, 1-33.
Bax, S. (2011). Discourse and genre: Analysing language in
context. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bell, R.C. (2004). A new
approach to measuring inconsistency or conflict in grids. Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 1, 53-59. Retrieved from http://www.pcp-net.org/journal/pctp04/bell042.pdf.
Bell, R.C. (2010). A note on
aligning constructs. Personal Construct
Theory & Practice, 7, 42-48. Retrieved from http://www.pcp-net.org/journal/ptcp10/bell10.pdf.
Brophy, S., Fransella, F & Reed, N. (2003). The power of a good
theory. In F. Fransella (2003) (Ed.) International handbook of personal construct
psychology (pp. 329-338). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical
power analysis for the behavioural sciences (Second edition). Hillsdale,
New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Drummond, J.S. & Themessl-Huber, M. (2007). The cyclical process of
action research: The contribution of Gilles Deleuze. Action Research, 5, 430-448.
Dutton, J.E. & Ragins, B.R. (2007). Exploring positive relationships at work. Mahwah, New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Feixas, G. & Cornejo, J.M. (2002). A manual for
the repertory grid. Using the GRIDCOR programme (Version 4.0). Retrieved on
July, 23, 2012 from http://www.terapiacognitiva.net/record/pag/contents.htm\
Feixas, G., Saúl, L.Á. & Ávila-Espada, A. (2009). Viewing cognitive
conflicts as dilemmas: Implications for Mental Health. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 22, 141-169.
Feixas, G. & Saúl, L.Á. (2004). The Multi-Center Dilemma Project: An
investigation on the role of cognitive conflicts in Health. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 7(1),
69-78.
Feixas, G., Saūl, L.A. & Sanchez, V. (2000). Detection and analysis
of cognitive conflicts: Implications for case formulations and the therapy
process. In J.W. Scheer (Ed.) The person
in society: Challenges to a constructivist theory (pp. 391-399). Giessen,
Germany: Psychosozial-Verlag. Retrieved on 19 January 2015 from http://www.ub.edu/personal/protocolo%20Ingl%e9s/Protocolo-INGL%c9S-corregido1.htm.
Fransella, F., Bell, R.
& Bannister, D. (2004). A manual for
repertory grid technique (2nd
Gascoigne, N. &
Thornton, T. (2013). Tacit knowledge.
Durham, UK: Acumen.
Greyling, W.J. (1995). Sinclair
& Coulthard revisited: Global- and local-allocational turn-taking
mechanisms in the language classroom. In Pragmatics
and Language Learning. Monograph Series Volume 6 (pp. 19-46). Urbana-Champaign:
University of Illinois.
Greyling, W., Belcher, C.,
McKnight, E. (2013). Triangulating a vocational tutor’s and her learners’
meaning-making on a pre-apprenticeship hairdressing programme in the tertiary
sector
Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 10, 1-14, 2013. Retrieved from
http://www.pcp-net.org/journal/pctp13/greyling13.html
Greyling, W.J. &
Lingard, O. (2014). Describing a vocational educator’s pedagogical constructs:
A co-constructed account (24 pages). Confidential institutional report. Lodged
in July 2014. Waikato Institute of Technology, New Zealand.
Hardy, C. Palmer, I.
& Phillips, N. (2000). Discourse as a strategic resource. Human Relations, 53/9, 1227-1248. Sage:
London.
IBM Corp. (2013). IBM SPSS
Statistics for Windows. Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Kelly, G.A. (1955). A theory of personality. The
psychology of personal constructs. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Kelly, G.A. (1966/2003). A brief introduction to
personal construct theory. In F. Fransella (Ed.) (2003). International
Handbook of personal construct psychology (pp. 3-20). Chichester: Wiley.
Kotter, J. (2008). A
sense of urgency. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Marshak, R. (2006). Covert processes at work. Managing the five hidden dimensions of
organizational change. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi,
H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company, New York, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice
of the learning organization. London: Random House.
Seligman, M. (2012). Flourish [eBook]. Sydney: William
Heinemann.
Sinclair, J. &
Coulthard, M. (1992). Towards an analysis of discourse. In M. Coulthard (ed.)
(1992). Advances in spoken discourse
analysis (pp. 1-34). London: Routledge.
White, J., & Lightbown, P.
M. (1984). Asking and answering in ESLclasses. The Canadian Modern Language
Review, 40,228-244.
Wright, R.P. (2008).
Eliciting cognitions of strategizing using advanced repertory grids in a world
constructed and reconstructed. Organizational
research methods, 11, 753-769.
ed.). Chichester: John Wiley &
Sons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AUTHORS' NOTE |
|
|
We would
like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their detailed comments and
guidance.This version of the paper is substantially different from the version
submitted for review. FA would also like to acknowledge Owen Lingard, who left
the organisation recently for greener pastures, for his commitment and contribution. FA takes full responsibility for
the final version of the article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ABOUT
THE
AUTHORS
|
|
|
 Willfred
Greyling has worked as a literacy-embedding manager at Waikato Institute of
Technology, Hamilton, New Zealand, from 2009 when he emigrated from South
Africa. He continues to work as a research associate in the Department of
English, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
Email: Wilfred.Greyling@wintec.ac.nz
Owen
Lingard worked as a contract project manager on Waikato Institute of
Technology’s Trades & Engineering Modernisation project. He procured and
integrated teaching equipment and technology into teaching delivery to support
a shift towards inquiry-based and student-centric delivery methodologies.
Correspondence address: Wilfred.Greyling@wintec.ac.nz
|
|
|
|
|
|
REFERENCE
Greyling, W., Lingard, O. (2015). Reflecting
on a vocational educator’s theory of practice: a co-constructed account.
Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 12, 18-33, 2015
(Retrieved from http://www.pcp-net.org/journal/pctp15/greyling15.html)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Received: 7 July 2014 – Accepted: 5 February 2015 – Published: 31 March 2015
|
|
|
|
|
|