The Snow Academic Aptitude Model
(SAAM)
Psychologists (educational psychologists in
particular) have been actively studying educationally- related
individual difference characteristics for decades. Based on a
systematic program of educational research, the integration of the
extant literature (which included a review of four existing
taxonomies; Snow, 1973), and an emphasis on the relatively stable
constructs causally related to educational performance, Richard
Snow ventured a provisional taxonomy (Corno et al., 2002; Snow, et
al., 1996). I believe the Snow taxonomy holds promise as a
formative structure from which to begin to “see the forest
and the major trees”.
Briefly, the Snow Academic Aptitude Model (SAAM)
focuses on human aptitudes which represent “the
characteristics of human beings that make for success or failure in
life's important pursuits. Individual differences in aptitudes are
displayed every time performance in challenging activities is
assessed” (Corno, et al., 2002, p. xxiii). Contrary to many
current erroneous assumptions, “aptitude” is not the
same as with “ability.” According to Corno et al.
(2002), ability is the power to carry out some type of specific
task and comes in many forms—reading comprehension,
mathematical reasoning, spatial ability, perceptual speed,
domain-specific knowledge (e.g., humanities), physical
coordination, etc. According to Snow and colleagues, aptitude
is more aligned with the concepts of readiness, suitability,
susceptibility, and proneness, all which suggest 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—a latent quality that enables the
development or production, given specified conditions, of some more
advanced performance” (Corno et al., 2002, p. 3; see
Scheffler, 1985). Academic aptitudes represent the
multivariate repertoire of a learner’s degree of readiness
(propensities) to learn and to perform well in general and
domain-specific learning settings. Pivotal to the notion of
academic aptitude is the recognition that aptitude is more than
ability. As per the SAAM model (Snow et al.,
1996):
-
Aspects
of personality—achievement motivation, freedom from anxiety,
appropriately positive self-concept, control of impulses, and
others—are aptitudes as well, contributing importantly to
coping with some challenges. The opposite qualities—anxious
caution or impulsiveness, for example—can also be assets
(i.e., aptitude) at certain moments (p. 4).
Mirroring a message articulated by prominent
psychologists for decades (for examples, see Spearman, 1927;
Wechsler, 1944), a complete theory and taxonomy of academic
aptitudes must include affective and conative processes in addition
to cognitive and achievement abilities. There is more to
knowing about an individual's propensity for academic learning than
simply knowing their IQ scores! Even Alfred Binet, who is
considered the father of the modern day intelligence test,
recognized the importance of “non- intellectual”
factors in cognitive or intellectual performance. According
to Corno et al. (2002):
-
"Binet
summed up his investigations in a famous description of
intelligence: ‘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)
Contemporary calls for a more comprehensive school
learning aptitude model/framework is illustrated viz-a-viz the
presentation of an "opportunity-propensity" model of school
achievement (Byrnes & Miller, 2007). The rationale for
Byrnes and Miller's model was grounded, in part, on the
following:
-
"As any
comprehensive handbook of educational research illustrates (e.g.,
Alexander & Winne, 2006), the field of educational psychology
is subdivided into distinct research areas such as motivation,
instruction, reading achievement, math achievement, and so on.
Scholars who specialize in one of these areas tend not to
specialize in others. In addition, researchers within each of these
areas often focus on specific components of some predictor of
achievement (e.g., motivational goals) to the exclusion of other
components of that same predictor (e.g., motivational
attributions), and also rarely include constructs from other
research areas in their studies (e.g., domain-specific skills and
aptitudes). Because the problem of student achievement is so
complex, it makes sense that various subgroups of researchers would
try to make this problem initially more tractable by examining
individual or small sets of factors in their studies of
achievement. Indeed, much has been learned about these aspects of
achievement in the process. However, the continued tendency to
focus on a limited number of predictors within each study of
achievement has led to two related problems. One is that scientists
and policy makers do not have a sense of how all of the various
pieces of the achievement puzzle fit together. A second problem is
that the relative importance of various predictors is still largely
unknown because researchers have not typically included adequate
controls in their studies." (p. 599- 600).
