The McGrew (2022) Cognitive-Affective-Motivation Model of Learning (CAMML) article update - “something is happening here, what it is ain’t exactly clear” - #cognitive #intelligence #affective #motivation #intelligence #CHC #CAMMl #schoolpsychology #schoolpsychologists

In 2022 I published an invited big-picture “thought piece” on a proposed CAMML (cognitive-affective-motivation model of learning) in the Canadian Journal of School Psychology   The title wasThe Cognitive-Affective-Motivation Model of Learning (CAMML): Standing on the Shoulders of Giants.

I had hoped that by challenging existing narrow assessment practices in school psychology (SP), and proposing a more whole-child assessment model approach (where cognitive testing would be more limited and selective…not the knee jerk practice of most all referred kids for learning problems being administered a complete intelligence test battery), it would gain traction in some SP circles. From the informal and formal professional media sources I monitor, it has not..at least not yet.

The article was deliberately provocative and challenged the field of SP (especially trainers and leaders) to consider new assessment ideas and paradigms.  I fully recognized that the inertia of tradition and the constraints imposed by vested interest groups makes drastic paradigm changes in education difficult.  But as an invited tought piece one has more degree’s of freedom 😉. 

Recognizing how difficult it is to change established assessment practices, and recognizing the “ivory tower” orientation of the article, I stated: 

Integrating CAMML aptitude-trait complexes, which emphasize that motivation and SRL constructs are the focal personal investment learning mechanisms, in contemporary SP practice is an aspirational goal. The constraints of regulatory frameworks and the understandable skepticism of disability-specific advocacy groups will make such a paradigm-shift difficult. However, embracing the model of CAMML aptitude complexes may be what SP and education need to better address the complex nuances of individual differences in student learning. Snow's concept of aptitude, if embraced in reborn form as the CAMML framework, could reduce the unbalanced emphasis on intelligence testing in SPs assessment practices. However, the greatest impediment to change may be the inertia of tradition in SP”

Several weeks ago I completed a Google Scholar search to ascertain how frequently this article had been cited.  I was curious as I had seen no references to the article in traditional SP or assessment-related sources.  It is clear that the CAMML model (or any parts of it) have not yet resonated in SP or closely related education fields.  Perhaps it never will. Or………

To my surprise the search revealed 28 citations, most (but not all) outside of SP or related assessment publication outlets (except for another article I authored in 2023 and, of course, the motivation special issue introduction to that specific journal volume).  Here is a link to the results of this search.  The graph below shows a slow but increasing annual rate of reference citations.  Hmmmm….

Click on images to enlarge

Most references provide links to PDF articles if you want to skim the wide variety of non-SP contexts where the CAMML article has been cited.  It is a very interesting mix of professional topics and outlets. In my 45+ years of scholarship, I’ve never had a journal publication recognized almost exclusively outside of the intended professional audience.  Perhaps this is good…perhaps not.  I find it fascinating. Perhaps the diversity of professional outlet citations might foreshadow more wide-ranging (yet more gradual) future impact.  Below is the abstract and keywords from the article.  The CAMML article can be downloaded from my professional web page here. Below are colorized versions of the two figures from the article.

Abstract: The Cognitive-Affective-Motivation Model of Learning (CAMML) is a proposed framework for integrating contemporary motivation, affective (Big 5 personality) and cognitive (CHC theory) constructs in the practice of school psychologists (SPs). The central tenet of this article is that SPs need to integrate motivation alongside affective and cognitive constructs vis-à-vis an updated trilogy-of-the-mind (cognitive, conative, affective) model of intellectual functioning. CAMML builds on Richard Snow's seminal research on academic aptitudes—which are not synonymous with cognitive abilities. Learning aptitude complexes are academic domain-specific cognitive abilities and personal investment mechanisms (motivation and self-regulation) that collectively produce a student's readiness to learn in a specific domain. CAMML incorporates the “crossing the Rubicon” commitment pathway model of motivated self-regulated learning. It is recommended SPs take a fresh look at motivation theory, constructs, and research, embedded in the CAMML aptitude framework, by going back-to-the-future guided by the wisdom of giants from the field of cognition, intelligence, and educational psychology.

Keywords:  motivation, self-regulated learning, aptitudes, domain-specific, aptitude complexes, crossing the Rubicon, taxonomies, individual differences, readiness, CHC theory, Big 5, Gf-Gc theory

Click on images to enlarge

Research alert: Intriguing new “adaptive habits” executive function framework differentiating EF capacity and willingness to engage EF - #cognitive #intelligence #schoolpsychologists #schoolpsychology

Click on images to enlarge

 

This thought-provoking article, which proposes and explains the “adaptive habits” executive functioning framework, is an open access article (free download and read) 

 

Abstract

Executive functions (EFs) develop dramatically across childhood and predict important outcomes, including academic achievement. These links are often attributed to individual differences in EF capacities. However, individual difference accounts underemphasize contextual influences on EF. We propose a complementary perspective, the adaptive habits framework, which emphasizes how contextual factors support or hinder EF engagement in children. Contexts that support repeated EF engagement establish habits for engaging EF in similar contexts and in similar ways. Such habits, in turn, reduce the effort associated with engaging EF and thus increase the likelihood of deciding to en-gage EF in the future. We interpret empirical findings through the lens of adaptive habits, discuss the implications of this framework, and propose novel research approaches and interventions to support EF in children.

From Conclusion

Why do children (such as the two in our opening example) differ in their academic and EF task performance? The reviewed evidence demonstrates that such differences should be viewed as a product of distinct learning histories, sociocultural influences, and environmental contexts in-stead of solely as differences in EF capacities. The adaptive habits framework emphasizes how contextual factors influence children's decisions to engage EF and how such engagement (or its absence) supports the development of habits that make it easier (or harder) to engage EF in similar contexts or for similar rewards in the future. Thus, two children may have the same EF capacities; however, one child may perform better on standard measures of EF because these measures better align with how the child has practiced engaging EF in the real world and how their behaviors have been rewarded and reinforced, which in turn reduces the mental effort needed for engaging EF. The adaptive habits framework thus identifies these contextual factors as promising targets for future research on EF as well as for interventions to support the EF and academic achievement of children.

Interesting, reasonably accurate recent video on IQ/intelligence testing

I just stumbled across a relatively new video covering the history and several major issues regarding intelligence testing and IQ scores.  Two scholars that I respect (Dr. Cecil Reynolds; Dr. Stuart Ritchie) are featured in the video.  I did see some spelling errors in the subtitles (Dr. Ian Dearie instead of Dr. Ian Deary; Benet instead of Binet; using capital G when referencing Spearman's concept of general intelligence, which is always noted with an italic font small g; etc) and heard several statements that made me cringe slightly.  

Also, it left the impression that fluid and crystallized intelligence (and a lessor extent quantitative ability) are the primary recognized broad cognitive abilities measured by intelligence tests.  It did not acknowledge contemporary CHC theory as the consensus taxonomy of human cognitive abilities.  Also, it left the impression that IQ tests are "bubble in" multiple choice tests.  This may be true for group tests, but it is not the case with individually administered intelligence tests.

Overall, it is a reasonable video to share with others as an introduction, possibly in college courses where the concept of intelligence and IQ testing is being introduced.  It did a good job of covering the historical bad uses of IQ tests (e.g., discrimination; cultural bias, eugenics movement, etc.) 

The complete video is approximately 35 minutes.  It did freeze up for me at the 17 minute mark when it was going to display an ad....but I simply restarted the video and quickly moved to that point and then it continued.