Constructs and their use
Educational constructs are mental tools for measuring abstract concepts, getting meaning from how educators use them in practice
In education, we often talk about things we can't directly see or touch - like "student motivation," "mathematical reasoning," or "teacher effectiveness." These invisible but important concepts are called constructs. Think of constructs as mental toolboxes we create to make sense of complex educational realities that can't be observed directly with our eyes but must be inferred from behaviors, responses, or performances we can see.
Understanding constructs is crucial for anyone involved in education, especially when making decisions based on testing and assessment. When a teacher evaluates "reading comprehension" or a principal assesses "school climate," they're working with constructs. These concepts help us organize our thinking about education, but they aren't simple or straightforward like measuring height or weight (Uher, 2022).
Educational leaders need to understand both what constructs are and how to use them wisely. This understanding becomes especially important when making decisions that affect students, teachers, and schools. The quality of these decisions depends greatly on how well we understand the constructs we're using and the limitations of how we measure them.
The nature of constructs
Constructs are mental creations - they exist in our minds as ways to organize and make sense of complex realities. Unlike concrete objects like desks or books, constructs like "creativity" or "leadership potential" can't be directly observed. Instead, they represent patterns we've noticed across many different situations and behaviors that we've grouped together because they seem related for some purpose we care about (Uher, 2022).
Wittgenstein, an influential philosopher, suggested that the meaning of words comes from how we use them, not from what they represent. As he stated in his Philosophical Investigations, "the meaning of a word is its use in the language" (Biletzki & Matar, 2021). This insight helps us understand constructs better. The construct of "reading fluency," for example, gets its meaning from how educators use it in practice - to describe a set of related reading behaviors like speed, accuracy, and expression that we've decided to consider together based on our educational purposes.
Constructs often exist in families, with broader constructs (like "academic achievement") containing more specific ones (like "mathematics proficiency"). The meaning of a construct comes from considering all its parts together, not just adding them up. This is why reducing a complex construct like "teacher effectiveness" to just a few measurable behaviors often feels inadequate - the whole construct means more than just the sum of the observable parts we can easily measure.
Construct validity
When we create tests or assessments to measure constructs, we need to ensure they actually measure what we claim they measure - this is called construct validity (Brown, 2000). For example, if we create a test claiming to measure "scientific literacy," we need evidence that it truly captures this complex understanding rather than just measuring vocabulary or factual recall. Traditionally, researchers looked at different types of validity (content, criterion-related, and construct), but modern thinking views these as different aspects of the same concept - construct validity.
There's no single perfect way to demonstrate construct validity. Instead, we need to gather multiple types of evidence. For a mathematical reasoning assessment, we might examine whether the problems reflect expert definitions of mathematical reasoning (content evidence), whether scores correlate with other measures of mathematical ability (criterion evidence), and whether the test can distinguish between groups expected to differ in mathematical reasoning ability (construct evidence). The more diverse evidence we collect, the stronger our case that the assessment truly measures the construct (Brown, 2000).
Beyond just measuring accurately, we also need to consider the consequences of using assessments. Messick, an influential testing expert, emphasized that validity involves both accurate measurement (the evidence) and appropriate use (the consequences). When a school adopts a new writing assessment, leaders should consider not just whether it accurately measures writing ability, but also how using it might affect teaching practices, student motivation, and educational equity. This expanded view recognizes that assessments aren't just technical tools but have real impacts on educational experiences.
Challenges and misunderstandings
One common mistake in education is treating constructs as if they were real, concrete things rather than mental tools we've created. For instance, when we talk about "grit" or "motivation" as if they exist independently in the world rather than as concepts we've developed to organize our observations (Uher, 2022). This can lead to circular reasoning: creating a construct called "reading readiness" to describe certain behaviors, then using that same construct to explain those behaviors without adding any new information.
Measuring constructs presents special challenges. When we create operational definitions (specific ways to measure a construct), we inevitably capture only part of the rich concept. This is why different assessments of the same construct often yield different results. For example, measuring "classroom engagement" through observation, student surveys, and work samples will each capture different aspects of this complex construct. Furthermore, combining scores from qualitatively different indicators (like adding behavioral observations to emotional self-reports) raises questions about what the combined numbers actually mean.
Wittgenstein's philosophy illuminates how language shapes our understanding of constructs. He argued that meaning emerges from use within specific contexts or "language-games" rather than from fixed definitions or representations (Biletzki & Matar, 2021). This helps explain why educational constructs often have fuzzy boundaries - their meaning shifts based on how they're used in different educational contexts. For example, "student achievement" might mean standardized test scores in one context but project-based demonstrations in another. Wittgenstein's insights suggest we should examine how constructs function within specific educational practices rather than seeking universal definitions. This view of language as fundamentally tied to practice helps explain why achieving perfect agreement on construct meanings is difficult and perhaps unnecessary.
Implications for educational practice
For educational leaders, understanding constructs means approaching educational frameworks with appropriate humility. Recognizing that concepts like "student engagement," "college readiness," or "effective leadership" are human creations designed for specific purposes - not objective truths about education - helps us use them more wisely. This perspective encourages us to continually examine and refine the constructs that guide our educational policies and practices rather than treating them as fixed and unchangeable.
When selecting or developing assessments, leaders should look beyond surface appearances to examine multiple sources of evidence (Brown, 2000). Instead of asking "Does this test look like it measures scientific literacy?" ask tougher questions: "How well do the items represent different aspects of scientific understanding?" "Do scores correlate with other indicators of scientific literacy?" "Does the assessment work equally well for all student groups?" Additionally, consider both the technical quality of assessments and their potential impacts - how might using this assessment affect teaching practices, student motivation, and educational equity?
Finally, educational leaders should be transparent about the constructed nature of educational concepts. Rather than presenting constructs as absolute truths, acknowledge them as useful tools that evolve through ongoing conversation. This approach combines intellectual honesty with practical usefulness - we can use constructs to guide our work while remaining open to refining them. By being clear about what our constructs can and cannot tell us, we use them more responsibly while remaining open to better understanding the complex realities of teaching and learning.
References
Biletzki, A., & Matar, A. (2021). Ludwig Wittgenstein. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/
Brown, J. D. (2000). Questions and answers about language testing statistics: What is construct validity? Shiken: JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 4(2), 8-12.
Uher, J. (2022). What are constructs? Ontological nature, epistemological challenges, theoretical foundations and key sources of misunderstandings and confusions. School of Human Sciences, University of Greenwich.