Beyond cognitive abilities: An integrative model of learning-related personal competencies and...

Dr. Kevin S. McGrew

Institute for Applied Psychometrics & University of Minnesota

Beyond Cognitive Abilities: An Integrative Model of Learning-related Personal

Competences and Aptitude Trait Complexes

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 10-13-16

Going “beyond cognitive abilities” has been an area of study in education and psychology for decades

Spearman on “conative” abilities (1927)

“The process of cognition cannot possibly be treated apart

from those of conation and affection, seeing that all these are but inseparable aspects in the instincts and behavior of a single individual, who himself,

as the vary name implies, is essentially indivisible” (p. 2)

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 10-13-16

Conation: the proactive (as

opposed to habitual) part of motivation

that connects knowledge, affect, drives, desires, and

instincts to behavior

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 10-13-16

“The tendency to take and maintain a definite direction; the capacity to make adaptations for the purpose of attaining a desired end; and the power of auto-criticism” (translation by Terman, 1916, p.

45). All three of these phrases refer at least as much to conative processes and attitudes as to

reasoning powers.

Binet's concept of intelligence was much like Snow's concept of aptitudes (p. 5).

Alfred Binet’s definition of Intelligence (Corno et al., 2002 translation by Terman, 1916)

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 10-13-16

“When our scales measure the non-intellective as well as the intellectual factors

in intelligence, they will more nearly measure what in actual life corresponds to

intelligent behavior” (p. 103)

Important distinction: Intelligence vs. intelligent performance

David Wechsler (1944) on “non-intellective factors”

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 10-13-16

Messick (1979) on “non-cognitive factors”

It is important to not target “feel good” faddish variables that have good face or consumer

validity— and that have little empirical validity

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 10-13-16

Back to the Future: Non-cognitive factors are again being revisited with different terminology

• Social-emotional learning• Cognitive engagement

• Self-determination• Growth mindset• Habits of Mind

• Self-beliefs• Grit• …..

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 10-13-16

“Students' engagement with school, the belief that they can achieve at high levels, and their ability and willingness to do what it takes to reach their goals not only play a central role shaping students' ability to master academic

subjects, they are also valuable attributes that will enable students to lead full lives, meeting challenges and making the most of available

opportunities along the way (Schunk and Mullen, 2013). In order to effectively meet the

economic, political and social demands for competencies, much more is required of students and adults than just cognitive

proficiency (Levin, 2012).”

Cognitive engagement

literature

A “big picture” model (taxonomy; working heuristic model), even if provisional, is needed to

guide research and development regarding the assessment of student competencies and learning

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 10-13-16

We have an embarrassment of riches in search of order

• Social-emotional learning• Cognitive & student engagement• Self-determination• Habits of Mind• Growth mindset• Self-beliefs• Grit• …..

• Need for Achievement Theory• Intrinsic Motivation Theory• Goal Setting Theory• Attribution Theory• Achievement Goal Theory• Interest Theory• Self-efficacy Theory• Self-worth Theory• Self-regulation Theory• Self-determination theory• ……

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 10-13-16

Physical Competence

Social-Emotional

IntelligenceConceptualIntelligence

Practical Intelligence

Personal Competence

Greenspan’s Model(s) of Personal Competence

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 10-13-16

Physical Cognitive Conative Affective

Personality

Adapted Snow (Corno et al., 2002) model of aptitude

Intellect

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 10-13-16

• Aptitude – “a predisposition to respond in a way that fits, or does not fit, a particular situation or class of situations. The common thread is potentiality” (Corno et al., 2002, p. 3)

• “Aspects of personality—achievement motivation, freedom from anxiety, appropriately positive self-concept, control of impulses, and others—are aptitudes as well, contributing importantly to copy with some challenges” (Snow, et al., 1996, p. 4)

Aptitude intelligence

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 10-13-16

A proposed “big picture” heuristic conceptual framework (a meta-taxonomy model): Integrate these two broad stroke models*

* Plus information fromrecent related research

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 10-13-16

Despite the explosion of discussions regarding social-emotional learning (SEL) by policy-makers and educators, well validated

models of social and emotional competencies are not available. The conceptual research in these areas is in the formative stages.

• Lots of conceptual clutter• The jingle-jangle jungle fallacy

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 10-13-16

Physical

Physical abilities

Psycho-motor

abilities

Sensory-perceptual

abilities

Cognitive

Cognitive processes

Acquired knowledge

systems

Conative

Motivations

Volitional controls

Affective

Temper-ament traits

Character-istic moods

Intellect

Personality

The big picture: An adapted Snow (Corno et al., 2002) model of aptitude (MACM revised; 10-13-16)

Knowing FeelingWilling

Cool intelligences Hot intelligences

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr.

Kevin McGrew 10-13-16

Cool intelligences

Abilities involving perceptual

processing and logical reasoning

Hot intelligences:

Abilities involving emotionally-salient

information

(Note. The cognitive aspects of social intelligence [Gei]

have provisionally been added to the CHC taxonomy)

Note. Cognitive processes are similar to procedural knowledge or “intelligence-as-

process” (Ackerman PPIK model)

Acquired knowledge systems can also be labeled as declarative knowledge or

“intelligence as knowledge” (Ackerman PPIK)

Personal competence domain

Cognitive

Cognitive processes

Acquired knowledge

systems

Cognitive taxonomy: Best evidence-based consensus model:Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model of cognitive abilities

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 10-13-16

Gc Gkn Grw Gq Gf Gwm Gv Ga Gl Gr Gs Gt

g

The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) taxonomy of human abilities (v 2.4) A higher-order conceptualization based on MDS of the WJ IV norm data (McGrew & Schneider, 06-20-16)

(The tentative broad abilities of Gh, Gk, Go, Gk, Gp, Gps & Gei and all broad domain level I narrow abilities omitted for

readability purposes.)

Intelligence-as-Knowledge (Ackerman)

Acquired knowledge systems

gc Cattell

Intelligence-as-Process (Ackerman)

System 2 (controlled deliberate cognitive operations/processes)

(Kahneman)

gf Cattell

Intelligence-as-Process: Speed/fluency (Ackerman)

System 1 (automatic rapid cognitive processes)

(Kahneman)

gs – General speed factor

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 10-13-16

Trait-complexes (combinations, mixtures, compounds, etc.)

Ackerman PPIK model

“Intelligence-as-Process“Personality”

“Interests”“Intelligence-as-Knowledge”

Affective

Temper-ament traits

Character-istic moods

AffectiveConative

Motivations

Volitional controls

Temper-ament traits

Character-istic moods

Personality

Personal competence domain

E C AES OE

Personality taxonomy: Best evidence-based consensus model: The Big Five

E = ExtraversionC = ConscientiousnessES = Emotional stability (aka, neuroticism)A = AgreeablenessOE = Openness to experience

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 10-13-16

Factor analysis of 209 items in

very large samples

The SENNA 1.0 SEMS (social

emotional skills) empirically

based model

The SENNA 1.0 SEMS dimensions correspond (subsume and go

beyond) the Big Five +

E = ExtraversionC = ConscientiousnessES = Emotional stability (aka, neuroticism)A = AgreeablenessOE = Openness to experienceLC = Locus of control

E C AES OE LC

Conscientiousness (C): Working Hard and Persevering at Tasks at School

Emotional Stability (ES): Managing Negative Emotions Versus Experiencing

Negative Affect

Agreeableness (A): Prosocial Skills in Peer Relationships

Open-Mindedness (OE): Curiosity, Imagination, and Invention

External Locus of Control/Negative Valence (LC): Ineffective Coping and

Hopeless Beliefs

Extraversion (E): Energetic Approach to the Social World

The SENNA 1.0 SEMS empirically based model

The SENNA 2.0 SEMS empirically based model

The SENNA 2.0 SEMS dimensions correspond

(subsume and go beyond) the Big Five +

E A CN O

Engaging with Others (vs Withdrawal and Avoidance) - E

Conscientious Task Performance (or Goal Orientation) - C

Negative-Emotion Regulation (or Emotional Resilience = ER) - N

Amity (vs Enmity): “Tending and Befriending” Others - A

Open-Mindedness: Interest and devotion to matters of the mind - O

The SENNA 2.0 SEMS empirically based model

The SENNA 2.0 SEMS dimensions correspond to dimensions, or combinations of dimensions, from these

domains from the adapted Snow model

E A CN O

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 10-13-16

Conative

Motivations

Volitional controls

Personal competence

domain

Conative taxonomy: A “working” heuristic framework:The Model of Academic Competence and Motivation

(MACM; Revised 09-26-16; K. McGrew)*

Self-Regulation

Cognitive styles & lrng approaches

Volitional controls

Motivational orientation

Interests & Attitudes Self-beliefs

Motivations

(Note: Self-regulation is most likely closely tied to the concept of executive

functions

* The MACM domains are very similar to cognitive engagement action

patterns and dispositions and drivers of engagement

• “Do I want to do this activity and why?”

• “Is this activity of interest to me…is it worth the effort?”

• “Can I do this activity?

• “Am I capable?”• “What do I need to do to succeed?”

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 10-13-16

The background information and white paper that

outlines the Model of Academic

Competence and Motivation

(MACM) is available online.

http://tinyurl.com/cf7uj2

Dispositions concern not what abilities people have, but how people are disposed to use and invest their abilities and capabilities — what they are disposed to do.

Passions, motivations, sensitivities, and values all seem likely to play a role in intelligence. To define intelligence as a matter of ability without also honoring the other elements that enliven it is to fail to capture its human spark.

Thinking dispositions & drivers of cognitive engagement. The human spark

of learning and intelligence

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr.

Kevin McGrew 10-13-16

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 10-13-16

More information available at the MindHub™ web portal

Commitment to action

“Crossing the Rubicon”

Reciprocalinteractions & feedback

Orientations Towards Self (Motivations)

Phrases used to describe this stage

-Arena of planning and decision-making-Contemplating and deliberating over options-Processes involved in decision to pursue goals-WishWantIntentions

Self-Beliefs

Motivationalorientations

Interests &Attitudes

• Can I do this task?• Do I want to do this task & why?

Volitional Controls(Cognitive Styles & Lrng.

Approaches)

Phrases used to describe this stage

-Arena of Implementation and management-Carrying out plans and intentions-Action orientation (state or action oriented)-Mindfulness (mindful effort investment)-Self-regulation of cognition and emotions

Self-RegulatedLearning

Strategies

Conativestyles

• What do I need to do to succeed?

OutcomesCOMMITMENT PATHWAY TO ENGAGED LEARNINGContemplate & plan Decide & Commit Implement & monitor

Cognitive engagement

Feedback loop© Institute for Applied

Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 10-13-16

• Academic motivation• Intrinsic motivation• Academic goal orientation• ….

• Academic interests, attitudes & values• ….

• Locus of control• Academic self-efficacy• Academic self-concept• Academic ability conception• ….

• Planning & activation• Monitoring• Control & regulation• Reaction & reflection• ….

• Cognitive styles• Approaches to learning• Defensive styles• ….

Motivational orientation

Interests & Attitudes

Self-RegulationSelf-beliefs

Cognitive styles & lrng. approaches

Motivations Volitional controls

Conative© Institute for Applied

Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 10-13-16

Many current educational initiatives are emphasizing abilities such as creative thinking, creativity,

and complex problem solving.

How can one conceptualize these type of valued educational

outcomes?

CHCMACM

Proposal

The CHC, MACM,& SENNA SEMS

taxonomies can be used to understand

important constructs and can be used as

blueprints for evaluating and

developing instruments SENNA SEMS (Big 5+)

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin

McGrew 10-13-16

Constructs such as critical thinking, creativity, and complex problem solving might be conceptualized as combinations (amalgams) of cognitive, conative and affective characteristics

Other models of “intelligence” (Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences) might be considered as a model that combines characteristics across cognitive, physical, conative and affective domains

Think about these constructs as trait-complexes (combinations, mixtures, compounds, amalgams, etc.)

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin

McGrew 10-13-16

Think about these constructs as trait-complexes (combinations, compounds, etc.; see Ackerman’s PPIK model as illustrative example)

Intellectual or cognitive“performance”

A hypothesized model forunderstanding various

cognitive constructs

Intended to help minimize the jingle-jangle fallacy and

amount of conceptual clutter

Exampletrait complexes

Relative strengthRelative weakness © Institute for Applied

Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 10-13-16

A hypothesized model forunderstanding various

cognitive constructs

Intended to help minimize the jingle-jangle fallacy and

amount of conceptual clutter

• Expertise/ach in math• Critical thinking in math• Creativity in math• Gardner’s logical- mathematical intelligence

• Expertise/ach in science• Critical thinking in science• Creativity in science

© Institute for Applied

Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew

10-13-16

A hypothesized model forunderstanding various

cognitive constructs

Intended to help minimize the jingle-jangle fallacy and

amount of conceptual clutter

• Expertise/ach in dance• Critical thinking in dance• Creativity in dance• Gardner’s bodily-kinesthetic intelligence

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin

McGrew 10-13-16

Cognitive(Knowing)

Conative (Willing)

Affecting (Feeling)

Or, think of these constructs in the following manner

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin

McGrew 10-13-16

Cognitive(Knowing)

Conative (Willing)

Affective(Feeling)

The constructs of critical thinking, complex problem solving, creativity, etc.can be thought of as trait complexes (mixtures, compounds, amalgams, constellations)

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin

McGrew 10-13-16

Cognitive(Knowing)

Conative (Willing)

Conative (Feeling)

Critical thinking ???

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin

McGrew 10-13-16

Affective (Feeling)

Conative (Willing)

Cognitive(Knowing)

Critical thinking ???

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin

McGrew 10-13-16

Cognitive(Knowing)

Conative (Willing)

Conative (Feeling)

Complex problem solving ???

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin

McGrew 10-13-16

Conative (Feeling)

Cognitive(Knowing)

Conative (Willing)

Complex problem solving ???

Cognitive(Knowing)

Conative (Willing)

Affective (Feeling)

Social intelligence?????

Cognitive(Knowing)

Conative (Willing)

Affective (Feeling)

Social intelligence?????

Critical thinking Complex problem solving Social intelligence

Think of these constructs (and others) as different combinations of personal characteristics (complexes,

amalgams, combinations, constellations, etc.)© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 10-13-16

CHCMACM

Proposal

The CHC, MACM,& SENNA SEMS

taxonomies can be used to

understand important

constructs and to be used as

blueprints for evaluating and

developing instruments

SENNA SEMS (Big 5+)© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin

McGrew 10-13-16