131
The Repertory Grid
(Mayo, 2004a). Dividing the course into three instructional units, I generated a list of
bipolar constructs on which students rated the positions of 24 preselected contributors
(8 per unit) to philosophical/prescientific psychology (e.g., Aristotle, René Descartes, John
Locke, and Immanuel Kant); the early years of scientific psychology (e.g., Wilhelm Wundt,
William James, Sigmund Freud, and John B. Watson); and the chronological development
of psychology’s principal specialty areas over the past century (e.g., Kurt Lewin, Gordon
Allport, Noam Chomsky, and Carl Rogers). Using Lundin’s (1996) text as a frame of
reference, I selected the first six constructs to represent deep-rooted issues in the intellectual
history of psychology: mind–body, nature–nurture, subjectivism–objectivism, holism–
elementalism, free will–determinism, and utility–purity. In contrast, I designed the final
two constructs (verity–falsity and major contribution–minor contribution) in an attempt
to ascertain students’ subjective views of each contributor’s work. In rating the degree of
perceived truth embodied in each contributor’s perspective, I asked students to consider
the sociohistorical factors in which each contribution was made. In the case of major
versus minor contribution, I asked students to assess each contributor’s legacy to the
historical evolution of psychology.
I asked students to rate the intellectual, philosophical, or theoretical stance of each
contributor as take-home, paper-and-pencil assignments in each unit of the course.
I employed a series of 11-point rating scales to allow students a wide range of variability in
their rating choices. I required that students work independently in completing each
assignment. In recording their construct-specific ratings on each grid, I asked students to
print an X on the appropriate line within each rating continuum—somewhere between
lines 1 and 11—that most closely approximates the perspective of each contributor.
Different from the more traditional application of the RGT as I described earlier in my
life span development course, I also asked students to provide written justification for each
of their construct ratings. In offering supporting rationale for their ratings, students
became increasingly aware of the value of evidence-based conclusions over unsubstantiated
opinions. Moreover, I allotted 30–45 mins for whole-class discussion immediately after
students completed each of the three rating-grid assignments. During these discussions,
students shared their analyses and critiqued their classmates’ expressed views.
Implications for the Undergraduate Psychology Curriculum
Altogether, the learning outcomes that I have observed in my own undergraduate
psychology classes (Mayo, 2004a, 2004b) suggest that the RGT, as the centerpiece of
assessment in Kelly’s PCT, is a practicable pedagogical strategy. Of benefit to both teachers
and students, the RGT affords an overall framework from which to organize course
content. Consistent with Tobacyk’s (1987) conclusions in evaluating the instructional
value of the RGT, the use of bipolar constructs “helps in achieving a more sophisticated
level of understanding than that obtained by the mere memorization of material” (p. 111).
In particular, the RGT encourages students to evaluate, compare, and contrast competing
intellectual perspectives. When conjoined with opportunities for classroom discussion,
the RGT also invites active participation in the learning process.