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-Ã -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
