Affective Domain

This article presents a summary of the affective learning domain. Historically, learning domains have been divided intro three different categories: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. Although the distinction is somewhat arbitrary, and behaviors typically include elements of all three, the division was made to facilitate the study of each independent of the others. Nevertheless, the affective domain has received far less attention in the research literature than the cognitive domain because it has been difficult to define and difficult to measure. In addition, Western culture has typically valued reason over emotion, and many teachers and parents believe values should be taught in the home, not in schools. Even if the affective domain as a single construct has received less research attention, however, its component parts - such as attitudes, values, and motivation - have become increasingly important to educators and researchers. This summary will review historical approaches to the affective domain - such as Krathwohl's taxonomy of the affective domain - as well as more recent research on motivation, values, and attitudes.

Keywords Affective Domain; Attitudes; Bloom, Benjamin; Cognitive Domain; Internalization; Motivation; Psychomotor Domain; Taxonomy; Values

Educational Theory > The Affective Domain

Overview

As Kirk (2007) writes, "In the educational literature, nearly every author introduces their paper by stating that the affective domain is essential for learning, but it is the least studied, most often overlooked, the most nebulous and the hardest to evaluate of…[the three learning] domains" (¶ 9). A quick glance at the literature proves this statement to be true. When Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia (1964) introduced their taxonomy of the affective domain in 1964, for example, they began by describing the challenges they faced given the lack of clarity in the literature. More recently, others have introduced the affective domain by lamenting its inferior status relative to the cognitive domain, and its subsequent neglect in the classroom and in educational research (Bolin, Khramtsova, & Saarnia, 2005; Sonnier, 1982).

Researchers and educators have faced challenges in studying the affective domain and in striving to give it the legitimacy they feel it deserves. The affective domain is a multi-dimensional construct, and that while it may receive less attention as a construct studied in its entirety, a great deal of research attention has been given to its component parts. Motivation, attitudes, and values, for example, all fall under the affective domain, and educators have become increasingly interested in how each impacts the learning process. Before we begin to deconstruct it, however, we'll first define the affective domain, outline the challenges inherent in studying it, and uncover its historical roots.

Learning Domains

Learning domains are typically organized into three categories: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. Such a division is "as ancient as Greek philosophy, and philosophers and psychologists have repeatedly used similar tripartite organizations" (Krathwohl et. al, 1964, p. 7). Nevertheless, many associate the division with the work of Benjamin Bloom and colleagues, who developed a taxonomy of educational objectives for the cognitive and affective domains in the 1950s and 1960s. Bloom and Krathwohl define the three domains as follows:

• Cognitive: The cognitive domain…includes those objectives which deal with the recall or recognition of knowledge and the development of intellectual abilities and skills (Bloom, 1954, p. 7).

• Psychomotor: Objectives which emphasize some muscular or motor skill, some manipulation of material and objects, or some act which requires a neuromuscular co-ordination (Krathwohl et. al, 1964, p. 7).

• Affective: [The affective domain] includes objectives which describe change in interest, attitudes, and values, and the development of appreciations and adequate adjustment (Bloom, 1954, p. 7). We found a large number of such objectives in the literature expressed as interests, attitudes, appreciations, values, and emotional sets or biases (Krathwohl, 1964, p. 7).

Taxonomies & Categorization

While taxonomies and categories help simplify complex phenomenon and arguably make them easier to study, they also misrepresent reality, to some degree. Or, as Krathwohl (1964) explains, "we should note that any classification scheme…does some violence to the phenomena as commonly observed in natural settings" (p. 8). In this instance, the misrepresentation results from creating an artificial where no such distinction in fact exists. In other words, most human behavior includes facets of each domain - cognitive, affective, and psychomotor - and cannot be reduced to one domain alone. As Ringness (1975) states, "It is probably obvious that attitudes and values have a cognitive as well as an affective component. That is, they are not simply composed of feeling for or against something, but include intellectualization as well" (p. 23). Learning about the history of racism, for example, is a cognitive activity that might result in a change in attitude, an element of the affective domain. Similarly, improving a student's motivation to study can create cognitive change.

A distinction that was meant to facilitate the study of each domain may in fact have hindered progress with respect to research in the affective domain in particular. Separating one from the other gave people an opportunity to understand each in isolation from the other, but also to judge each domain relative to the other. In a culture that has tended to value reason over emotion, it is of little surprise that the cognitive domain has outshined its "competitors." Indeed, Krathwohl, et al. almost abandoned efforts to create a second taxonomy for affective objectives, given its poor reception in the education community. He writes, "few of the examiners at the college level were convinced that the development of the affective domain would make much difference in their work or that they would find great use for it, when completed" (Krathwohl, 1964, p. 13).

Cultural Norms & Classrooms

Even if emotion were valued to the same degree as reason, other cultural norms suggest the classroom is an inappropriate venue for teaching to the affective domain. Educators are comfortable evaluating students on achievement in intellectual matters, for example, but less comfortable evaluating students on their attitudes, values and motivation. As Krathwohl et al (1964) writes, "teachers don't think it's appropriate to grade with respect to interests, attitude, and character development" (p. 17). And some parents tend to agree; Farley (2001) notes that many believe it's the responsibility of the home and community - not the schools - to teach values and develop appropriate attitudes. What Krathwohl (1964) calls the "public-private status of cognitive vs. affective behaviors" is deeply ingrained in our culture. "Achievement, competence, productivity, etc. are regarded as public matters. In contrast, one's beliefs, attitudes, values, and personality characteristics are more likely to be regarded as private matters" (Krathwohl et al, 1964, p. 18).

Despite that notion, however, an interest in incorporating the affective domain into classroom experiences and instruction does exist. Dunn and Stinson (2012), for example, wrote about a case for which drama pedagogy was used “to create a set of learning experiences designed specifically to simultaneously tap into both the cognitive and the affective domains.” The work, the authors explain, sought to intentionally stimulate a broad “spectrum of emotions, from relief to resentment, fondness to frustration” (Dunn & Stinson, 2012).

Similarly, Kok-Siang, Chong Yong, and Shuhui reported on three school-based trial lessons in which students from two Singapore secondary schools were taught science concepts and skills “in the usual way,” but with follow-up reflective activities requiring them to “draw from their learning experiences parallel scenarios in their daily lives,” thereby addressing the affective domain. The students were taught chemistry topics, and at the end of each lesson, students were asked to discuss, reflect on, and respond to an everyday event or scenario that shared characteristics similar to the chemistry topic or skill they had just learned (Kok-Siang, Chong Yong, & Shuhui, 2013).

Defining the Affective Domain

Apart from the issues previously described, the most significant challenge faced by those studying the affective domain is one of definition - the affective domain has never been clearly defined. As Krathwohl et al noted in 1964, "there was a lack of clarity in the statements of affective objectives that we found in the literature" (p. 13). More recently, in a report produced by the Department of Labor in the 1990s regarding the preparedness of students entering the workforce, "personal qualities" were emphasized, yet not clearly articulated. "An essential problem arises when attempts are made to implement the third area mentioned in [the report]: teaching personal qualities. This problem concerns failure of the report to define in a functional manner the nature of personal qualities. Specifically, a workable definition of the affective domain was not included" (McNabb & Mills, 1995, p. 589). Assuming the domain itself were more clearly defined, educators and researchers would then need to reach consensus regarding which attitudes, or which values, should be taught. McNabb and Mills (1995) suggest this might be the most difficult task of all, since these are influenced by local cultures, parenting styles, and religious beliefs.

As one might suspect, given the lack of a clear definition, the affective domain has suffered from measurement issues as well. Krathwohl et al (1964) found little information in the research literature about how to assess affect, and suggested it was not practiced in the classroom in any systematic fashion. Indeed, because attitudes and values are not directly observable in the way that changes in cognition are, assessing affect is difficult. Teachers and researchers must often rely on self-reports, which many worry are susceptible to response bias, with students intentionally portraying themselves more favorably (Dettmer, 2006).

While most agree that measuring affect is difficult, opinions diverge on whether measurement should be a goal at all. Farley (2001) argues, "we seem preoccupied with the observable, the measurable, the testable aspects of human behavior, while we ignore the significance of feeling, aspirations, hopes, fears, beliefs, values, and perceptions" (p. 180). He continues, "the humanities…have dehumanized themselves in order to specify bits and pieces of measurable substance and in the process have lost their unique potential for man" (p. 181). On the other hand, Krathwohl et al (1964) believe "there must be some systematic method for appraising the extent to which students grow in the desired ways" (p. 23).

Krathwohl's Taxonomy of the Affective Domain

The idea for an educational taxonomy of the three learning domains was first discussed at an informal meeting of university examiners at the 1948 annual conference of the American Psychological Association. The group's original intention was to create a common framework of educational objectives that would facilitate the exchange of test items and materials among university examiners, and stimulate research on the relationship between education and evaluation. The taxonomy of educational objectives for the cognitive domain was completed in 1956, while the taxonomy of the affective domain followed in 1964. The group never completed a taxonomy for the psychomotor domain.

Hierarchical Organization of the Cognitive Domain

Just as the taxonomy of objectives in the cognitive domain was organized hierarchically, Krathwohl et al (1964) believed the taxonomy for the affective domain should be organized hierarchically as well. The principle they adopted to organize the hierarchy was the notion of internalization, a process whereby values and attitudes are acquired, first as a result of external influences, and gradually, as a result of internal ones. The continuum, as they describe it, is multi-dimensional, increasing in emotional intensity, the level of internal control, and the degree of conscious awareness. The levels of the taxonomy are introduced below.

Receiving (Attending): The lowest level of the taxonomy, separated into three sub-categories: awareness, willingness to receive, and controlled or selected attention. At this level, the student is sensitized to the existence of certain phenomena or stimuli. A teacher might help students become aware of various characteristics of art, for example, and assess his awareness by asking him to describe various paintings (Krathwohl, 1964).

Responding: The second lowest level of the taxonomy, also separated into three subcategories: acquiescence in responding, willingness to respond, and satisfaction in response. A student at this level is doing more than merely noticing a phenomena; Krathwohl et al (1964) describe the student as "actively attending."

Valuing: The phenomenon a student attends to is perceived by her/him to have worth. "Behavior categorized at this level is sufficiently consistent and stable to have taken on the characteristics of a belief or an attitude" (Krathwohl, 1964, p. 139). The subcategories of this level of the domain are acceptance of a value, preference for a value, and commitment to a value.

Organization: As a student internalizes more values, he/she must develop a system to organize them and establish relationships among them. The building of a value system develops over time. Children make changes to their value system much more easily than adults.

Characterization by a Value or Value Complex: The final level of the taxonomy in which an individual's values are integrated in a life philosophy or worldview. The individual acts consistently with values, so much so that he/she is described as "being controlled by" his/her values. According to Krathwohl (1964), "Realistically, formal education generally cannot reach this level, at least in our society…the maturity and personal integration required at this level are not attained until at least some years after the individual has completed his formal education" (p. 165). Someone who has attained the highest level of the affective taxonomy is typically also operating at the highest level of the cognitive domain.

Internalization and the Affective Taxonomy

Given the significance of the concept of internalization to the affective taxonomy, it might be wise to end with the authors' own comments on the relationships between internalization and education in general, as distinct from training. As Krathwohl (1964) points out, the taxonomy accounts for the development of conformity - those behaviors represented by the lower end of the taxonomy, externally motivated by authority figures, social mores, etc. - as well as the development of individuality - those behaviors represented by the upper end of the taxonomy, internally motivated and consistent with a personal life philosophy. The former behaviors are typically elicited through training, the latter, education. "Education demands inner direction and controls. [It] implies a progression from activities directed by others to self-direction and acceptance of one's unique characteristics. It implies learning to develop one's own talents, to become self-actualizing, and to be aware of the conflicts among one's values and within society" (Ringness, 1975, p. 11).

Further Insights

As mentioned previously, efforts to define and/or study the affective domain in its entirety have diminished significantly in the last few decades. Krathwohl's 1964 taxonomy was followed by Ringness' 1975 work titled "The Affective Domain in Education" but very little substantial work has addressed the entire domain since then. Instead, researchers have focused on its component parts - attitudes, motivation, and values, for example.

Attitudes

Attitudes are defined as systems or constructs composed of four interrelated components:

• Affective Responses,

• Cognitions

• Behavioral Intentions

• Behaviors

Attitudes can be either positive or negative, and vary with regard to their intensity or amount (Miller, 2005). Most classroom activities - even those with a primarily cognitive focus - have an affective/attitudinal component. A lesson on the 19th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, for example, teaches students U.S. history, but might also influence attitudes with respect to participation in democracy and/or the struggle of underrepresented groups (Miller, 2005). At other times, the affective domain may be the focus of instruction, as when educators conduct anti-drug campaigns. A number of different theories - ranging from cognitive dissonance theory to social judgment theory to functional theories - have been proposed to explain attitude formation and change. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) developed one of the best known models to explain the relationship of attitudes to behavior.

Motivation

Motivation is generally defined as an internal state that activates behavior and gives it direction toward a goal. As such, research on motivation has included a number of different facets, including goal setting, self-efficacy, attributions, self-regulation, and intrinsic and extrinsic factors (Wang, 2005). Researchers distinguish between performance and mastery goals, for example, with success defined as either 'outperforming others' or 'developing new skills', respectively (Wang, 2005). Educators typically attempt to facilitate mastery learning. Self-efficacy theory is based on the work of Bandura (1982). Defined as a self-judgment of one's ability to perform a task in a specific domain, self-efficacy has a significant impact on motivation. Attributions are the explanations an individual gives for success or failure. Weiner (1979) proposed that attributions have three characteristics - a locus of control, stability, and controllability. A student who attributes performance to luck, for example - an external, unstable, uncontrollable source - may be less motivated to put forth effort in future endeavors. Finally, researchers distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation; intrinsically motivated people invest time in activities without reward, because they find such activities rewarding in and of themselves. Extrinsic motivators engage in activities for the rewards themselves; grades, for example, are extrinsic motivators.

Regarding the relationship between intrinsic and external motivations, Cooper (2013) proposes a “hierarchy of wants, in which extrinsic motivations and goals are seen as attempts—albeit often unsuccessful ones—to reach the highest order, most intrinsic goals.” His model also suggests that human beings are most likely to achieve a state of well-being when their goals are “synergetically related: determined both by the internal configuration of goals and external resources” (Cooper, 2013).

Values

Huitt (2004) defines values as "affectively-laden thoughts about objects, ideas, behavior, etc, that guide behavior, but do not necessarily require it" (p. 1). The act of valuing, he continues, is one of making judgments, expressing feeling, or adhering to a set of principles. According to Superka, Ahrens, and Hedstrom (1976), there are five basic approaches to values education (as cited in Huitt, 2004, p. 1):

• Inculcation

• Moral Development

• Analysis

• Values Clarification

• Action Learning

Inculcation occurs when students identify with culturally accepted norms and behaviors; the individual is viewed as a recipient, rather than an initiator of values. The moral development perspective proposes that moral thinking - especially with respect to concepts such as justice, equity, fairness, and dignity - develops in stages; the work of Lawrence Kohlberg (1984) is central to this perspective. The analysis approach emphasizes the role of reason and logic - as opposed to emotion and conscience - in the development of values. Those who advocate values clarification, based on the humanistic philosophy of Maslow (1970) and others, believe values arise from within the individual as he/she strives to self-actualize. Finally, the action learning approach, as its name implies, advocates combining feeling and acting. Students need opportunities to act on their values, which arise through interactions between individuals and society, rather than from one or the other alone.

Viewpoints

If the impact of the affective domain on teaching and learning were measured in terms of the 'popularity' of Krathwohl's (1964) domain - arguably the most well-known conceptualization of the affective domain - one might conclude that it had no impact at all. As Nuhfer (2005) writes, "in comparison to Volume 1 [the taxonomy of the cognitive domain], the second is so rarely cited that application of the affective domain appears to suffer arrested development" (p. 7). In reality, however, the affective domain has had a tremendous impact, when redefined in terms of its component parts. As McNabb and Mills (2005) argue, "Defining 'affective' has become increasingly more complex. Early attempts, such as those made by Bloom…[provided]…a starting point; however, it represented a view much too broad" (p. 591). Educators may continue to argue about the importance of the affective domain relative to the cognitive one, and parents and teachers will undoubtedly continue to argue about which values and/or attitudes should be taught, but the proliferation of research on motivation, self-efficacy, attribution, and values education suggest that the affective domain has contributed significantly to what we know about teaching and learning.

Terms & Concepts

Affective Domain: Learning domains have historically been divided into three different types: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. The affective domain includes objectives which describe change in interest, attitudes, and values, and the development of appreciations and adequate adjustment (Bloom, 1954, p. 7). We found a large number of such objectives in the literature expressed as interests, attitudes, appreciations, values, and emotional sets or biases (Krathwohl, 1964, p. 7).

Attitudes: Attitudes are defined as systems or constructs composed of four interrelated components: affective responses, cognitions, behavioral intentions, and behaviors. Attitudes can be either positive or negative, and vary with regard to their intensity or amount (Miller, 2005).

Cognitive Domain: Learning domains have historically been divided into three different categories: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. The cognitive domain…includes those objectives which deal with the recall or recognition of knowledge and the development of intellectual abilities and skills (Bloom, 1954, p. 7).

Internalization: The construct used by Krathwohl et. al (1964) to order their hierarchy of the affective domain. Internalization refers to a process whereby values and attitudes are acquired first as a result of external influences, and gradually, as a result of internal ones.

Motivation: Motivation is generally defined as an internal state that activates behavior and gives it direction toward some goal. As such, research on motivation has included a number of different facets, including goal setting, self-efficacy, attributions, self-regulation, and intrinsic and extrinsic factors (Wang, 2005).

Psychomotor Domain: Learning domains have historically been divided into three different categories: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. The psychomotor domain includes objectives which emphasize some muscular or motor skill, some manipulation of material and objects, or some act which requires a neuromuscular co-ordination (Krathwohl et. al, 1964, p. 7).

Values: Huitt (2004) defines values as "affectively-laden thoughts about objects, ideas, behavior, etc, that guide behavior, but do not necessarily require it" (p. 1). The act of valuing, he continues, is one of making judgments, expressing feeling, or adhering to a set of principles. Values are typically believed to be 'taught' using one of five methods: inculcation, moral development, analysis, values clarification, and action learning.

Bibliography

Bloom, B. S., Englelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1954). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York, NY: Longman, Inc.

Bolin, A. U., Khramtsova, I., & Saarnio, D. (2005). Using student journals to stimulate authentic learning: Balancing Bloom's cognitive and affective domains. Teaching of Psychology, 32 , 154-159. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=17753471&site=ehost-live

Cooper, M. (2013). the intrinsic foundations of extrinsic motivations and goals: toward a unified humanistic theory of well-being and change. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 53, 153–171. Retrieved December 17, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=86861428&site=ehost-live

Dettmer, P. (2006). New blooms in established fields: Four domains of learning and doing. Roeper Review, 28, 70-78. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19508228&site=ehost-live

Dunn, J., & Stinson, M. (2012). Learning through emotion: Moving the affective in from the margins. International Journal of Early Childhood, 44, 203–218. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=78163611&site=ehost-live

Ediger, M. (1993). The affective domain, science, and the middle school student. Instructional Psychology, 20 , 314-318. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9508010367&site=ehost-live

Farley, J. (2001). Perceiving the student: Enriching the Social Studies through the Affective Domain. Theory into Practice, 20 , 179-187. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=5203233&site=ehost-live

Griffin, K.G., & Nguyen, A.D. (2006). Are educators prepared to affect the affective

Griffin, K.G., & Nguyen, A.D. (2006). Are educators prepared to affect the affective domain? National Forum of Teacher Education Journal Electronic, 16, 3E. Retrieved July 1, 2007, from http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/Griffith,%20Kimberly%20G%20Are%20Educators%20Prepared%20to%20Affect%20the%20Affective%20Domain.pdf

Huitt, W. (2004). Values. Retrieved July 1, 2007, from Valdosta State University http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/affsys/values.htm

Kirk, K. (2007) What is the affective domain anyway? Retrieved July 1, 2007, from http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/affective/intro.html

Koballa, T. (2007). Framework for the affective domain in science education. Retrieved July 1, 2007, from http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/affective/framework.html

Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., & Masia, B.B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York, NY: David McKay Company, Inc.

Kok Siang, T., Chong Yong, H., & Shuhui, T. (2013). Teaching school science within the cognitive and affective domains. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning & Teaching, 14, 1–16. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=91886079&site=ehost-live

McNabb, J. G., & Mills, R. (1995). Tech prep and the development of personal qualities: Defining the affective domain. Education, 115 , 589-592. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9510054538&site=ehost-live

Miller, M. (2005). Learning and teaching in the affective domain. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved July 1, 2007, from http://www.coe.uga.edu/epitt/affective.

Nuhfer, E.B. (2005). De Bon's red hat on Krathwohl's head: Irrational means to rational ends. National Teaching and Learning Forum, 14, 7-11. Retrieved July 1, 2007, from http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:efuPuTsyquMJ:serc.carleton.edu/files/NAGTWorkshops/affective/nuhfer_2005.doc+Edward+Nuhfer,+Red+Hat&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Ringness, T.A., (1975). The affective domain in education. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.

Sonnier, I. (1982). Holistic education: Teaching in the affective domain. Education, 103, 11-15. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=4730143&site=ehost-live

Wang, S. (2005). Motivation: A general overview of theories. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved July 1, 2007, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=motivation

Suggested Reading

Adkins, S. (2004). Beneath the tip of the iceberg: Technology plumbs the affective domain. TD, 58 , 28-33. Retrieved August 1, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=12206662&site=ehost-live

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development. San Francisco: Harper and Row.

Maslow (1970). Toward a psychology of being. Princeton, NJ: Viking Press.

Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71 , 3-25.