Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-qdpjg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-21T10:25:33.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adopt process-oriented models (if they're more useful)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2025

Brendan A. Schuetze Open the ORCID record for Brendan A. Schuetze [Opens in a new window]  and
Luke D. Rutten Open the ORCID record for Luke D. Rutten [Opens in a new window]
Brendan A. Schuetze*
Affiliation:
Department of Education Science, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany [email protected] https://schu.etze.co Department of Educational Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Luke D. Rutten
Affiliation:
Department of Educational Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA [email protected]
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Though we see the potential for benefits from the development of process-oriented approaches, we argue that it falls prey to many of the same critiques raised about the existing construct level of analysis. The construct-level approach will likely dominate motivation research until we develop computational models that are not only accurate, but also broadly usable.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 48 , 2025 , e43
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, R. (2014). The diminishing criterion model for metacognitive regulation of time investment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3), 1349–1368. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035098CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, J. R. (2002). Spanning seven orders of magnitude: A challenge for cognitive modeling. Cognitive Science, 26(1), 85–112. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2601_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aubé, M. (1997). Toward computational models of motivation: A much needed foundation for social sciences and education. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Learning, 8(1), 43–75.Google Scholar
Bjork, R. A. (1973). Why mathematical models? American Psychologist, 28(5), 426–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64(8), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0161468163064008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donoghue, G. M., & Horvath, J. C. (2016). Translating neuroscience, psychology and education: An abstracted conceptual framework for the learning sciences. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1267422. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1267422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elder-Vass, D. (2022). Pragmatism, critical realism and the study of value. Journal of Critical Realism, 21(3), 261–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2022.2049088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guest, O., & Martin, A. E. (2021). How computational modeling can force theory building in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 789–802. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970585CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harnischfeger, A., & Wiley, D. E. (1978). Conceptual issues in models of school learning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 10(3), 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027780100304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, W. (1907/2001). What pragmatism means. In Delbanco, A. (Ed.), Writing new England (pp. 80–93). Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674335486.c18.Google Scholar
Schuetze, B. A. (2024). A computational model of school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 36, 18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09853-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiede, K. W., & Dunlosky, J. (1999). Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(4), 1024–1037. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.4.1024Google Scholar
van Rooij, I., & Blokpoel, M. (2020). Formalizing verbal theories: A tutorial by dialogue. Social Psychology, 51(5), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, V. X., Sana, F., & Carvalho, P. F. (2024). No simple solutions to complex problems: Cognitive science principles can guide but not prescribe educational decisions. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11(1), 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/23727322231218906CrossRefGoogle Scholar