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.

Beyond IQ Series #14: "I know I can"--Importance of academic self-efficacy for learning

Current MACM Series Installment

This is the 14th installment in the Beyond IQ series. This installment defines academic self-efficacy and lists a variety of implications for learning. [All installments in this series (and other related posts and research) can be found by clicking here].

___________________________________________________________________
Academic Self-Efficacy: Definition and Conceptual Background

A person’s confidence in their ability to organize, execute, and regulate performance in order to solve a problem or accomplish a task at a designated level of skill and ability. Academic self-efficacy refers to a person's conviction that they can successfully achieve at a designated level in a specific academic subject area.

Individuals typically select tasks and activities in which they feel competent and avoid those in which they do not. Students who are confident in their capability to organize, execute, and regulate their problem-solving or task performance at a designated level of competence are demonstrating high self- efficacy. Self-efficacy is generally regarded as a multidimensional construct differentiated across multiple domains of functioning. The construct of self-efficacy helps explain the finding that the behavior of individuals is not always accurately predicted from their capability to accomplish a specific task. How a person believes they will perform is often more important. Academic self-efficacy refers to an individual's belief (conviction) that they can successfully achieve at a designated level on an academic task or attain a specific academic goal (Bandura, 1997; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Elias & Loomis, 2002; Gresham, 1988; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002a; Schunk & Pajares, 2002).

Academic self-efficacy is grounded in self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977). According to self- efficacy theory, self-efficacy is an “individual’s confidence in their ability to organize and execute a given course of action to solve a problem or accomplish a task” (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002, p. 110). Self-efficacy theory suggests that academic self-efficacy may vary in strength as a function of task difficulty—some individuals may believe they are most efficacious on difficult tasks, while others only on easier tasks. Furthermore, self-efficacy is believed to be situational in nature rather than being viewed as a stable trait (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002a). Students make reliable differentiations between their self-efficacy judgments across different academic domains which, collectively, form a loose hierarchical multidimensional structure. Self- efficacy should not be confused with self-esteem or self- concept. Self-efficacy is a task-specific evaluation while self-esteem and self-concept reflect more general affective evaluations of self (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002a).

Causally, self-efficacy is believed to effect performance via the influence on task perceptions. For example, research suggests high self-efficacy creates a feeling calmness or serenity when approaching difficult tasks while low self-efficacy may result in an individual perceiving a task as more difficult than reality, which, in turn, may create anxiety, stress and a narrower idea on how best to approach the solving of a problem or activity (Eccles, 2005). It is further believed that an individual's interpretation of a successfully completed mastery experience is important to the development of high self-efficacy as individuals use these interpretations to develop perceptions that they then act in concert with. Research also suggest that vicariously observing others perform tasks can facilitate the development of self-efficacy, particularly when individuals are uncertain regarding their abilities or specific tasks and they perceive similar attributes with the observed model.

Two general categories of academic expectancy beliefs have been postulated. Academic outcome expectations are a student’s beliefs that specific behaviors will lead to certain outcomes (e.g., “If I do homework my grades will improve”). Academic efficacy expectations are a student’s beliefs in their ability to perform the necessary behaviors to produce a certain outcome (e.g., “I have enough motivation to study hard for this test”). Understanding the difference between these 2 forms of expectancy beliefs is important as “individuals can believe that a certain behavior will produce a certain outcome (outcome expectation), but may not believe they can perform that behavior (efficacy expectation)” (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002, p. 111).


Academic Self-Efficacy: Implications

The self-efficacy research literature (Bong &Skaalvick, 2003; Eccles, 2005; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Elias & Loomis, 2002; Gresham, 1988; Prout, Marcal, &Marcal, 1992; Schunk & Pajares, 2002; Wentzel, 1999) suggests the following general implications:

Of all the “self” constructs, self-efficacy may be the most important and powerful for predicting and explaining specific behavior and outcomes. Research has demonstrated that self-efficacy is associated with a broad range of positive outcomes, including academic achievements ( r's = .49 to .70), athletic performance, social skills, career choices and aspirations, work performance, efficient study habits, pain tolerance, coping with feared events, and recovery from heart attacks. Eccles (2005) has reported that self-efficacy may account for 25 % of achievement variance above and beyondthe effects of instructional practices.

Academic self-efficacy has a significant causal influence on academic motivation, learning, and achievement vis-à-vis a student’s effort, cognitive engagement, use of self-regulatory strategies, goal setting and pursuit, adoption of a learning goal orientation, higher intrinsic motivation, persistence, self-esteem, and expectation of future success.

It is hypothesized that the predictive power of self-efficacy stems from the fact that it is a relatively narrow and pure construct that does not include the intermixing of other “self” constructs (e.g., competence, esteem). Instead of focusing on a global or omnibus view of self, self-efficacy focuses on more circumscribed self-processes (e.g., self-regulation). As a result, research has found that it is easier to change a student’s self-efficacy toward specific academic domains than it is to change a student’s general self- concept.

Students who doubt their ability to successfully complete a task often participate less readily, do not work as hard, and give up quickly when faced with difficulty. Due to repeated failures in the classroom, it is hypothesized that students with disabilities may feel that they cannot adequately perform certain behaviors and tasks to achieve a desired outcome. The resultant negative outcome may be lower academic self-efficacy, which in turn, can generalize to low effectance motivation, feelings of learned helplessness, and difficulties in peer acceptance and interpersonal relationships.

Although important for academic performance, positive self-efficacy by itself will not produce competent performance in the absence of prerequisite skills and knowledge (Wentzel, 1999). If a student anticipates failure due to a lack of abilities and skills (a negative outcome expectation), they are less likely to engage in the learning activities.

A student’s initial sense of academic self-efficacy develops largely via a function of prior learning experiences and perceived ability on similar tasks. Academic self-efficacy is subsequently refined through continued success and/or failure on similar tasks and feedback from the environment (e.g., adults, other students). The early years of academic learning are critical; once a specific domain of academic self- efficacy beliefs are developed, they can be difficult to change.

Success (vs repeated failure) strengthens self-efficacy. Other variables associated with increased positive self-efficacy are peer social models, near-term (proximal) and attainable learning goals, self-regulatory strategy instruction, rewards contingent on performance, tasks calibrated to the student’s instructional level, and evaluative feedback and verbal persuasive communication from a credible other.

Learning environments characterized by high levels of student competition, norm and social-referenced grading, and less emphasis on individual attributional effort-based progress feedback have been associated with detrimental effects on self-efficacy, particularly among low achieving students. Almost all of these instructional and environmental variables share a common focus of providing information to the student about their abilities and progress.

Positive and caring learning environments that provide accurate feedback and praise (vs inaccurate and superfluous praise) foster the development of accurate self-efficacy beliefs. As students move through the school grades, they become more accurate in their self- assessments vis-à-vis repeated task experience and normative peer comparisons. Furthermore, classrooms that allow for extensive social comparisons (with the performance of other students) tend to lower self-efficacy of students whose performances are viewed as deficient when compared to others. In college populations, students with disabilities may report academic self-efficacy equal to or higher than students without disabilities. Blake and Rust (2002) hypothesized that this finding may be a function of the nature of their university sample which was characterized by students with more severe disabilities. The authors hypothesized that these students had historically been unable to hide their disabilities and, thus, may have learned to be more open about their capabilities during their formative years. In addition, the sample was small (n=44) and may represent a select group of students with disabilities (i.e., those with higher skills and abilities).

Research suggests that parents are influential in the development of academic self-efficacy. In general, higher self-efficacy has been linked to parents who provide a warm, supportive and responsive environment that stimulates exploration, curiosity and that allows for mastery experiences. In addition, parents can serve as vicarious role models vis-a-vis the modeling of appropriate methods for coping with difficult tasks and by displaying task persistence.

- 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 Byte # 6: Academic self-efficacy

Here is Byte # 6 from the Beyond IQ project, a project that outlines a proposed Model of Academic Competence and Motivation (MACM). Today's construct spotlight is on "academic self-efficacy."

Academic Self-Efficacy: Definition and Conceptual Background: A person’s confidence in their ability to organize, execute, and regulate performance in order to solve a problem or accomplish a task at a designated level of skill and ability. Academic self-efficacy refers to a person's conviction that they can successfully achieve at a designated level in a specific academic subject area.

Individuals typically select tasks and activities in which they feel competent and avoid those in which they do not. Students who are confident in their capability to organize, execute, and regulate their problem-solving or task performance at a designated level of competence are demonstrating high self- efficacy. Self-efficacy is generally regarded as a multidimensional construct differentiated across multiple domains of functioning. The construct of self-efficacy helps explain the finding that the behavior of individuals is not always accurately predicted from their capability to accomplish a specific task. How a person believes they will perform is often more important. Academic self-efficacy refers to an individual's belief (conviction) that they can successfully achieve at a designated level on an academic task or attain a specific academic goal (Bandura, 1997; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Elias & Loomis, 2002; Gresham, 1988; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002a; Schunk & Pajares, 2002).

Academic self-efficacy is grounded in self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977). According to self- efficacy theory, self-efficacy is an “individual’s confidence in their ability to organize and execute a given course of action to solve a problem or accomplish a task” (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002, p. 110). Self-efficacy theory suggests that academic self-efficacy may vary in strength as a function of task difficulty—some individuals may believe they are most efficacious on difficult tasks, while others only on easier tasks. Furthermore, self- efficacy is believed to be situational in nature rather than being viewed as a stable trait (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002a). Students make reliable differentiations between their self-efficacy judgments across different academic domains which, collectively, form a loose hierarchical multidimensional structure. Self- efficacy should not be confused with self-esteem or self- concept. Self-efficacy is a task-specific evaluation while self-esteem and self-concept reflect more general affective evaluations of self (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002a).

Causally, self-efficacy is believed to effect performance via the influence on task perceptions. For example, research suggests high self-efficacy creates a feeling calmness or serenity when approaching difficult tasks while low self-efficacy may result in an individual perceiving a task as more difficult than reality, which, in turn, may create anxiety, stress and a narrower idea on how best to approach the solving of a problem or activity (Eccles, 2005). It is further believed that an individual's interpretation of a successfully completed mastery experience is important to the development of high self-efficacy as individuals use these interpretations to develop perceptions that they then act in concert with. Research also suggest that vicariously observing others perform tasks can facilitate the development of self-efficacy, particularly when individuals are uncertain regarding their abilities or specific tasks and they perceive similar attributes with the observed model.

Two general categories of academic expectancy beliefs have been postulated. Academic outcome expectations are a student’s beliefs that specific behaviors will lead to certain outcomes (e.g., “If I do homework my grades will improve”). Academic efficacy expectations are a student’s beliefs in their ability to perform the necessary behaviors to produce a certain outcome (e.g., “I have enough motivation to study hard for this test”). Understanding the difference between these 2 forms of expectancy beliefs is important as “individuals can believe that a certain behavior will produce a certain outcome (outcome expectation), but may not believe they can perform that behavior (efficacy expectation)” (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002, p. 111).


Educational Implications: The self-efficacy research literature (Bong &Skaalvick, 2003; Eccles, 2005; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Elias & Loomis, 2002; Gresham, 1988; Prout, Marcal, &Marcal, 1992; Schunk & Pajares, 2002; Wentzel, 1999) suggests the following general implications:

• Of all the “self” constructs, self-efficacy may be the most important and powerful for predicting and explaining specific behavior and outcomes. Research has demonstrated that self-efficacy is associated with a broad range of positive outcomes, including academic achievements ( r's = .49 to .70), athletic performance, social skills, career choices and aspirations, work performance, efficient study habits, pain tolerance, coping with feared events, and recovery from heart attacks. Eccles (2005) has reported that self-efficacy may account for 25 % of achievement variance above and beyondthe effects of instructional practices.

• Academic self-efficacy has a significant causal influence on academic motivation, learning, and achievement vis-à-vis a student’s effort, cognitive engagement, use of self-regulatory strategies, goal setting and pursuit, adoption of a learning goal orientation, higher intrinsic motivation, persistence, self-esteem, and expectation of future success.

• It is hypothesized that the predictive power of self-efficacy stems from the fact that it is a relatively narrow and pure construct that does not include the intermixing of other “self” constructs (e.g., competence, esteem). Instead of focusing on a global or omnibus view of self, self-efficacy focuses on more circumscribed self-processes (e.g., self-regulation). As a result, research has found that it is easier to change a student’s self-efficacy toward specific academic domains than it is to change a student’s general self- concept.

• Students who doubt their ability to successfully complete a task often participate less readily, do not work as hard, and give up quickly when faced with difficulty. Due to repeated failures in the classroom, it is hypothesized that students with disabilities may feel that they cannot adequately perform certain behaviors and tasks to achieve a desired outcome. The resultant negative outcome may be lower academic self-efficacy, which in turn, can generalize to low effectance motivation, feelings of learned helplessness, and difficulties in peer acceptance and interpersonal relationships.

• Although important for academic performance, positive self-efficacy by itself will not produce competent performance in the absence of prerequisite skills and knowledge (Wentzel, 1999). If a student anticipates failure due to a lack of abilities and skills (a negative outcome expectation), they are less likely to engage in the learning activities.

• A student’s initial sense of academic self-efficacy develops largely via a function of prior learning experiences and perceived ability on similar tasks. Academic self-efficacy is subsequently refined through continued success and/or failure on similar tasks and feedback from the environment (e.g., adults, other students). The early years of academic learning are critical; once a specific domain of academic self- efficacy beliefs are developed, they can be difficult to change.

• Success (vs repeated failure) strengthens self-efficacy. Other variables associated with increased positive self-efficacy are peer social models, near-term (proximal) and attainable learning goals, self-regulatory strategy instruction, rewards contingent on performance, tasks calibrated to the student’s instructional level, and evaluative feedback and verbal persuasive communication from a credible other. Learning environments characterized by high levels of student competition, norm and social-referenced grading, and less emphasis on individual attributional effort-based progress feedback have been associated with detrimental effects on self-efficacy, particularly among low achieving students. Almost all of these instructional and environmental variables share a common focus of providing information to the student about their abilities and progress.

• Positive and caring learning environments that provide accurate feedback and praise (vs inaccurate and superfluous praise) foster the development of accurate self-efficacy beliefs. As students move through the school grades, they become more accurate in their self- assessments vis-à-vis repeated task experience and normative peer comparisons. Furthermore, classrooms that allow for extensive social comparisons (with the performance of other students) tend to lower self-efficacy of students whose performances are viewed as deficient when compared to others. In college populations, students with disabilities may report academic self-efficacy equal to or higher than students without disabilities.

• Blake and Rust (2002) hypothesized that this finding may be a function of the nature of their university sample which was characterized by students with more severe disabilities. The authors hypothesized that these students had historically been unable to hide their disabilities and, thus, may have learned to be more open about their capabilities during their formative years. In addition, the sample was small (n=44) and may represent a select group of students with disabilities (i.e., those with higher skills and abilities).

• Research suggests that parents are influential in the development of academic self-efficacy. In general, higher self-efficacy has been linked to parents who provide a warm, supportive and responsive environment that stimulates exploration, curiosity and that allows for mastery experiences. In addition, parents can serve as vicarious role models vis-a-vis the modeling of appropriate methods for coping with difficult tasks and by displaying task persistence.

Technorati Tags: psychology, educational psychology, school psychology, neuropsychology, motivation, MACM, Beyond IQ, self-efficacy, conative, aptitude

Beyond IQ Project: Ed Psych article abstracts

A recent issue of the Journal of Educational Psychology (2008, Vol. 100, 8) had a number of articles dealing with constructs included in the Beyond IQ projects Model of Academic Competence and Motivation (MACMM). Below are the iAbstracts (images captured and emailed from myiPhone). If any reader would like to read one of the articles (I would provide a copy of the pdf file), in exchange for a guest blog post summary to this bog, please contact the blogmaster (iapsych@charter.net)

MACMM Self-concept and Self-beliefs

MACMM Self-efficacy and Self-Regulated Learning

MACMM Achievement goal-orientation (next three)

Technorati Tags: psychology, educational psychology, school psychology, neuropsychology, Journal of Educational Psychology, motivation, self-beliefs, self-efficacy, self-confidence, goal orientation, MACMM, Beyond IQ, IQs Corner, academic competence