AI Brief: The trilogy-of-the-mind individual difference construct (cognitive, conative, affective) “band is getting back together” as CAMML

I am currently working to expand my skill set by incorporating AI tools. Although adapting to new technologies can be challenging, leveraging these resources offers significant benefits for professional growth.

This AI Brief was produced by requesting Google NotebookLM—recommended by Dr. Adam Lockwood—to generate a narrative summary of my 2022 PDF article describing the Cognitive-Affective-Motivation-Model of Learning (CAMML). While I found the first results promising, I made more edits to enhance its accuracy and informativeness. My next goal is to use AI to summarize multiple articles, find similarities and differences, and potentially create comparative tables (again following guidance graciously provided by Dr. Lockwood).

These incremental steps mark my transition toward utilizing AI to support one of my primary professional interests: producing informative blog and social media posts aimed at professionals such as school psychologists and special education teachers working with students who often are marginalized in educational contexts. The goal is to help bridge the gap between theory, technology, research, and practical application.

 

Feedback is encouraged and may be directed to iqmcgrew@gmail.com or via the social media platform (LinkedIn, Twitter/X, BlueSky) comment feature where this blog post was discovered. I’m hoping to add AI Briefs as a regular feature of IQs Corner Blog and associated social media platforms.

 

 

AI Brief: The trilogy-of-the-mind individual difference construct (cognitive, conative, affective) “band is getting back together” as CAMML

 

Dr. Kevin McGrew with assist from Google NotebookLM

 

The Cognitive-Affective-Motivation Model of Learning (CAMML; McGrew, 2002)[1] is a proposed theoretical framework designed to integrate contemporary motivational, affective, and cognitive constructs into a unified model for the practice of school psychology. The central thesis of the framework is that school psychologists must move beyond a narrow focus on intelligence (general intelligence or psychometric g in particular) to embrace an updated "trilogy-of-the-mind" model, which views intellectual functioning as the inseparable interaction of cognition, conation (motivation/volition), and affect.

Theoretical Foundations and the Rebirth of Conation

 

The CAMML framework is heavily rooted in the seminal work of Richard Snow, specifically his research on aptitude trait complexes. McGrew argues that the field of school psychology has historically neglected Snow’s broader definition of aptitude—which includes personality and motivational differences alongside cognitive abilities—and instead, has favored a restricted view of aptitude as synonymous with IQ or psychometric g.

 

CAMML seeks to resurrect conation (the proactive part of motivation connecting cognition and affect to behavior) as a core pillar of intellectual functioning. By "standing on the shoulders of giants" like Snow, Spearman, and Wechsler, the model asserts that cognitive processes cannot be understood in isolation from the "nonintellectual" (conative) factors that drive and direct them. For example, David Wechsler defined intelligence as "the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment." While this is the core of Wechsler’s definition, he also strongly emphasized this capacity is influenced by non-intellective (conative) variables such as drive, persistence, interest, emotional states, and personality traits.

 

Structural Components of the CAMML Framework

 

The model organizes individual differences characteristics into three functional categories, which could be called the 3-D model.

 

●      Affective “Dispositions”: These are distal-to-learning traits, primarily represented by the Big 5 personality traits (specifically Openness and Conscientiousness) and their associated social-emotional facets (e.g, curiosity, creativity, persistence, focus, determination). These personality traits act as dispositions that indirectly influence learning through more proximal mechanisms.

 

●      Motivational "Drivers": Motivation is conceptualized as the initiation of behavior, formed by achievement orientations (e.g., goals, interests) and self-beliefs (e.g., self-efficacy, self-concept). These constructs are typically domain-specific (e.g., math) and work in synergistic "complexes" to energize a student's readiness to act.[2]

 

●      Volitional "Directors": Volition, or self-regulated learning (SRL), represents the post-decisional phase of action. These are the mechanisms that direct, control, and regulate behavior toward goals once a commitment to learn has been made.

 

A more detailed list of the 3-D CAMML domain constructs and definitions is available here. See figure below for a visual representation of the major affective and conative MACM constructs (click on image to enlarge for easy viewing and reading).

 

The "Crossing the Rubicon" Investment Model

 

The functional heart of CAMML is the "Crossing the Rubicon" model, which illustrates the pathway from initial desire to engaged motivated learning. In this model:

 

1. Pre-decisional Phase: Achievement orientations and self-beliefs drive or prepare the learner to start a wish—>want—> intention sequence, that eventually eventuates in motivated action.

2. Commitment: When the learner "crosses the Rubicon," they are making a firm commitment to motivated action through cognitive engagement.

3. Action Phase: Volitional (SRL) strategies steer the cyclical process via action results feedback while the learner invests cognitive abilities (such as those defined by CHC theory) to acquire knowledge.

4. Outcomes: This personal investment of fluid cognitive processes (Cattell's general gf that subsumes broad Gf, Gv, Ga, Gwm, Gl, Gr, and Gs abilities) during learning results in the development of crystallized knowledge systems (Cattell’s general gc that subsumes broad Gc, Grw, Gq, and Gkn abilities).

 

See figure below for visual representation of “the CAMML crossing the Rubicon model of motivated learning” (click on image to enlarge for easy viewing and reading).

 

Implications for School Psychology Practice

 

CAMML advocates for a paradigm shift in assessment and intervention. It suggests that school psychologists should transition from routine, comprehensive cognitive testing toward more time-efficient selective, referral-focused cognitive assessments combined with the assessment of key conative (non-cognitive) characteristics that contribute to learning aptitude complexes. This approach prioritizes identifying manipulable instructional levers, such as a student's motivational orientation (e.g., intrinsic motivation, interests, goal orientation), self-beliefs (e.g., locus of control, self-efficacy, growth or competence mindset), rather than relying exclusively on cognitive ability scores (especially full-scale IQ or g) that have proven hard to modify.

 

The framework provides a "whole-child" perspective to better address the nuances of individual differences, particularly as students move from the traditional “industrial” model of education (i.e., regularly scheduled, structured, in-class teacher-directed learning) to more of an “information-age” paradigm of education—a paradigm that requires a fuller expression of independent motivated self-regulated learning (SRL).

PS - other CAMML related posts on this blog can be found by clicking here.

[1] All relevant references can be found in McGrew (2022).

[2] The motivation constructs included in the CAMML framework are drawn from earlier efforts to develop the McGrew Model of Achievement Competence Motivation (MACM). A detailed explanation of the evolution and development of the MACM model is available elsewhere (McGrew et al., 2004). A series of recent MACM PowerPoint® modules is available here.

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

Beyond IQ Series # 7: Academic motivation defined and learning implications

Background comment regarding this series

Interest in social-emotional learning and resiliency training (click here and here for just two examples) in education has shown a recent uptick on activity. Given this activity, IQs Corner is starting a series to explain the previously articulated Model of Academic Competence and Motivation (MACM), which was a model ahead of it's time (IMHO). The imporance of non-cognitive (conative) characteristics in learning have been articulated since the days of Spearman, the father of the construct of general intelligence. Richard Snow's work on the concept of "aptitude," which integrates cognitive and conative individual difference variables, is the foundation of the Beyond IQ MACM. Non-cognitive (cognitive) characteristics of learners are important for learning and are more manipulable (more likely to be modified via intervention) than intelligence. Thus, the MACM components make sense as potential levers for improving school learning and pursuing more well rounded life-long learners. This material comes a larger set of materials on the web (click here).

Current MACM Series Installment

This seventh installment in the Beyond IQ series provides a definition of academic motivation and general learning implications. [All installments in this series (and other related posts and research) can be found by clicking here].

___________________________________________________________________


Academic Motivation: Definition and Conceptual Background

Academic motivation is a person’s desire (as reflected in approach, persistence, and level of interest) regarding academic subjects when competence is judged against a standard of performance or excellence.

Academic motivation is a student’s desire (as reflected in approach, persistence, and level of interest) regarding academic subjects when the student’s competence is judged against a standard of performance or excellence (DiPerna & Elliott, 1999; McClelland, 1961; Wigfield & Eccles, 2002). Academic motivation is a subtype of the general construct of effectance motivation, which is defined as the “need” to be successful or effective in dealing with ones environment (Gresham, 1988).


Academic Motivation: Implications

Although much has been written about academic motivation (and its conceptual grandfather/mother—Need for Achievement), until recently little long-term developmental research had been conducted (Covington & Dray, 2002). Longitudinal research helps to answer the question of “which factors, singly and in combination, influence the willingness to learn for its own sake, and whether these factors change in number and saliency as individuals move from one level of schooling to another throughout their educational careers” (Covington & Dray, 2002, p. 34). A review of the relevant literature (Gresham, 1988, 1987; Reschly, 1987; Rivera et al., 1988; Wigfield and Eccles, 2002) suggests that:

Most students begin school with a global sense of competence and interest/motivation in learning. As early as first grade, students begin developing a more differentiated and complex set of goals, values, and beliefs that influence their academic achievement motivation. Children, in general, do not come to school lacking academic motivation.

A student’s motivation changes across the school years. Although most young students enter school with an optimistic view of their personal abilities, and are generally positively motivated to learn, academic achievement motivation decreases over time due to child- specific and school environment changes. For most students this change is normative and not problematic. However, students “at risk” for, or actually experiencing frustration with learning (e.g., students with disabilities), are at greater risk for decreased academic motivation. For example, Gresham (1997) concluded that “the effects of repeatedly failed mastery attempts are increased dependence on external approval, a perceived lack of competence of self-esteem, anxiety in mastery situations, and decrements in effectance motivation. By the time a learner with learning disabilities is identified and labeled, he or she has a well- established pattern of responding to mastery situations”(p. 288). The consequences of decreased academic achievement (effectance) motivation can result in a variety of nonproductive behaviors (e.g., noncompliance on new tasks, self-doubt, dependency on others, loss of interest). Researchers have also demonstrated that a lack of motivation plays a critical role in the achievement of students with learning disabilities. According to Reschly (1987), “there is considerable agreement, supported by reasonably strong, but not definitive, evidence, that mildly retarded persons are more subject to failure- set phenomena (involving reduced motivation and less efficient learning even on simple tasks subsequent to experiencing failures…” (p. 43)

A student’s motivation and behavior become more closely linked with age. As students mature, the goals they set and their academic-related beliefs and values begin to mesh with their actual performance—they become more reality-based. Questions still remain regarding the direction (unidirectional or bi-directional/reciprocal) of the “cause” of this change. Nevertheless, it is clear that a student’s academic motivation and actual academic performance cannot be treated separately.

Utilization of evaluative feedback improves with age. As students move through school they develop more accurate and sophisticated understandings of the evaluative feedback received from their educational environment. Concurrently, the environmental feedback changes as reflected by transitions to letter grades, differentiated group instruction, and more frequent standardized testing. A student’s greater sensitivity (with increasing age) to direct and indirect sources of performance feedback can influence a student’s motivations in a number of positive and/or negative ways.

- iPost using BlogPress from Kevin McGrew's iPad

intelligence IQ tests IQ testing IQ scores CHC intelligence theory CHC theory Cattell-Horn-Carroll human cognitive abilities psychology school psychology individual differences cognitive psychology neuropsychology neuroscience psychology special education educational psychology psychometrics psychological assessment psychological measurement IQs Corner general intelligence Beyond IQ aptitude school learning social emotional learning resiliency training CASEL motivation

Generated by: Tag Generator

Beyond IQ - Ability conception as an important school learning aptitude

As I've mused about on numerous occassions (click here, here, here, here, here, here), I'm a huge fan of the work of the late Richard Snow regarding the notion of "aptitude" versus "intelligence." I believe that Richard Snow was on the correct path regarding the widening of the variables individual difference psychologists need to examine to better understand a person's aptitude(s) for school learning.

My passion for Snow's concept of aptitude is based on a review of the empirical research and personal experience.....long story short.....if one believed that what is measured by intelligence tests is all one needs to know to understand a person's aptitude for school learning (and other domains -- occupations, vocational, etc.) I, based on my measured WAIS IQ as a psychology undergraduate student at Moorhead State University (now called Minnesota State University-Moorhead), should not have accomplished what I have in my field. Why have I enjoyed a reasonable degree of professional success and accomplishment above my IQ score?........largely because I've developed domain-specific expertise vis-a-vis 20+ years of sustained, passionate motivated practice in my profession, a drive due largely to variety of non-cognitive (conative) factors.

I provide the above as an introduction re: the current post, which is about one (of many) non-cognitive (conative) characteristics that contemporary social cognitive psychology has identified as important in understanding an individual's set of aptitude complexes. I stumbled across an article (burred on my hard drive) by Perkins et al (2000) that I would like to share. The reference (and link to the article) is below, followed by select tidbits regarding one of the three thinking dispostions they cover (a person's implicit view of intelligence, or, what is typically referred to as ability conception)

Perkins, D., Tishman, S., Ritchhart, R., Donis, K., & Andrade, A. (2000). Intelligence in the wild: A dispositional view of intellectual traits. Educational Psychology Review, 12(3), 269-293. (click here to view/download)

A few select comments/conclusions from the article (emphasis is mine):

• "Anotherlook at the dispositional side of cognitive engagement comes from the work of Bandura and Dweck (1985) and Elliott and Dweck (1985). Their research findings suggested that a person's view of how intelligence works determines how persistently the person will invest in a challenging intellectual task (Dweck, 1986). Entity learners believe that intelligence is fixed and nonchanging. They are motivated by successful displays of ability and attaining favorable judgments. They may quit when problems prove difficult, assuming they are not smart enough. In contrast, incremental learners see intelligence as learnable. They are motivated to increase their knowledge and abilities approaching challenging situations with persistence a desire to learn (Bandura and Dweck, 1985; Elliottand Dweck. 1988, as cited in Dweck, 1986)" (p. 285)

• "An incremental mindset has been shown to contribute to cognitive performance." (p. 285)

I will follow-up this post with additional information regarding ability conceptions later today, or early this week. Stay tunned.