f10neuman Affective Learning

8/18/2019 f10neuman Affective Learning

1/12

Affective learning: A taxonomy for teaching social work

values

Karen Neuman Allen, Ph.D., ACSW, LMSW

Associate Professor, Social Work Program Director Oakland ni!ersit"

#ruce D. $riedman, Ph.D., ACSW, CSWM, LCSWProfessor, Social Work Program Director

California State ni!ersit", #akersfield

Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, %olume &, Num'er ( )(*+*Co-"right (*+*, White at Communications

/his te0t ma" 'e freel" shared among indi!iduals, 'ut it ma" not 'e re-u'lished in an" medium

1ithout e0-ress 1ritten consent from the authors and ad!ance notification of White atCommunications.

Abstract

/eaching in the affecti!e domain is re2uired

to facilitate de!elo-ment in the !alues, ethics,

aesthetics, and feelings of social 1orkstudents. 3t is argua'l" the most com-licated

t"-e of teaching as it integrates cognition,

'eha!ior, and feelings. /his -a-er -resents ano!er!ie1 of affecti!e learning as 1ell as a -edagogical ta0onom" for use in designing

and deli!ering instruction in the affecti!e

domain. A sam-le lesson -lan used to teachsocial 4ustice and strategies for e!aluating

affecti!e learning are also re!ie1ed.

Social 1ork educators ha!e long

recogni5ed the res-onsi'ilit" to teach students

in all three domains of learning6 cogniti!e,

'eha!ioral and affecti!e. /he cogniti!edomain refers to learning and recalling

information and is often guided '" #loom7s

ta0onom" of cogniti!e learning )+89:, +8:;./he 'eha!ioral or -s"chomotor domain

descri'es actual 'eha!iors and skills that are

first -racticed and then mastered '" thestudent )Sim-son, +8&(. /he affecti!e

domain, argua'l" the most com-le0, is rooted

in the emotional life of the student and reflectsthe students< 'eliefs, attitudes, im-ressions,

desires, feelings, !alues, -references, and

interests )$riedman, (**=> $riedman ? Neuman, (**+> Picard, et. al., (**;.

Although social 1ork education and

-ractice often stress critical com-onents of theaffecti!e domain, including !alues, attitudes,ethics, and self@a1areness, teaching t"-icall"

relies on cogniti!e learning strategies )#isman,

(**;. /his is due in -art 'ecause the affecti!edomain is -oorl" conce-tuali5ed, highl"

indi!iduali5ed, and difficult to directl" assess.

3n addition, the em-hasis on standardi5edtesting, master" learning, limited research, the

lack of a consistent !oca'ular" and a!aila'le

instrumentation to stud" affecti!e learning has

further contri'uted to its neglect )Ka-lan,+8=:. $urther, affecti!e learning cuts across

all learning domains, incor-orating cogniti!e

and 'eha!ioral learning in addition toe0-loring !alues and feelings )Kraiger, $ord ?

Salas, +88> Me"er ? Bose, (***> Picard, et.

al., (**;> She-hard ? $asko, +888> orks ?Kasl, (**(.

Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, Vol. 7, No. 2, Fall 2010 http:!!!.social!orker.co"#s!$e


2/12

A !alue is a conce-t or an ideal that 1e

feel strongl" a'out, so much so that it

influences the 1a" in 1hich 1e understandother ideas and inter-ret e!ents. %alues are

-references, and 1hen the 1ord is used as a

!er', it means to -ri5e or hold in high esteem)Bokeach, +8&. Man", if not most, social

1ork educators incor-orate content on

-rofessional !alues in their courses, 'ut ano!erarching -edagogical frame1ork is missing

)$riedman, (**=> /"ler, (**(. nderstanding

affecti!e learning -rocesses and the ta0onom"

of affecti!e learning can -ro!ide a usefulframe1ork for -rofessional !alues education.

/his -a-er 1ill -ro!ide an o!er!ie1 of

affecti!e learning, ta0onom" of learning in the

affecti!e domain, a sam-le lesson in teachinga'out social 4ustice and strategies for

e!aluating affecti!e learning.

1. Overview of Affective Learning

Affecti!e learning in!ol!es changes in

feelings, attitudes, and !alues that sha-e

thinking and 'eha!ior. /urk )(**( includes

-ersonal and aesthetic de!elo-ment, as 1ell asmeta@learning in the affecti!e domain, as these

relate to creating a desire for lifelong learningand an a--reciation for truth, 'eaut", andkno1ledge. 3n discussing the -rofessional

sociali5ation of -harmaceutical students,

#ro1n, $errill, inton and Shek )(**+e0-lain that, affecti!e characteristics such as

moti!ation, initiati!e, com-assion, ser!ice,

accounta'ilit", em-ath", honest", ad!ocac",commitment, o-timism, res-ect and self@

confidence lead to 'eha!iors that t"-icall"

-roduce -rofessional e0cellenceE )-.(;+. /he

%ode of Ethics of the National Association ofSocial Workers )+88:, +888 is founded on a

-ream'le outlining social 1ork !alues. $or

social 1ork students, internali5ation of -rofessional !alues including ser!ice, social

4ustice, the dignit" and 1orth of the -erson, the

im-ortance of human relationshi-s, integrit",

and com-etence is an integral -art of the

-rofessional sociali5ation -rocess.

/here are t1o as-ects of affecti!elearning. /he first in!ol!es the learner7s

attitude, moti!ation, and feelings a'out the

learning en!ironment, the material, and theinstructor, or conditions e0ternal to the learner.

Much of the research on affecti!e learning has

concerned itself 1ith -ro!iding strategies toenhance e0ternal conditions that -romote

moti!ation, attention, and retention )Ainle",

(**:> #"e, Pushkar, ? Con1a", (**&>

$lo1erda" ? Schra1, (**> Keogh, +88=>Miller, (**9> Stone ? Flascott, +88&. /his is

in -art 1hat the Council on Social Work

Gducation intends in its discussion of the

im-licit curriculum that facilitates studentengagement '" creating a su--orti!e learning

en!ironment )Council on Social WorkGducation, (**=.

o1e!er, this does not descri'e actual

learning> rather it descri'es a student7smoti!ation and attitude a'out a -articular

learning e0-erience. Actual affecti!e learning

relates to feelings, attitudes, and !alues that

are identified, e0-lored, and modified in some1a" 'ecause of the learning e0-erience. 3t is

im-ortant to distinguish 'et1een attitudes

a'out a learning e0-erience and actuallearning, although in much of the literature on

affecti!e learning these are -oorl"

differentiated. $or an" t"-e of learning to take -lace )cogniti!e, 'eha!ioral, or affecti!e, the

student must 'e attenti!e, engaged, and

rece-ti!e. $or social 1ork education, 1e

assume that students are moti!ated in theircourse of stud" and e0-lore the affecti!e

domain to de!elo- 1a"s of designing

instruction that de!elo-s feeling and !aluescongruent to the -rofession.

2. Taxonomies of Learning

/he tri-artite conce-tuali5ation of

learning as cogniti!e, affecti!e, and 'eha!ioralis -articularl" useful in social 1ork education



3/12

as 1e stri!e to teach students the kno1ledge,

skills, and !alues of the -rofession )Gdiger,

(**&> Meni0, +88:> orks ? Kasl, (**(>Himmerman ? Philli-s, (***. While

focusing on affecti!e learning, for a

com-rehensi!e discussion, 1e re!ie1 e0istingta0onomies of learning in all three learning

domains. /hese ta0onomies are also

hierarchical, as each successi!e le!el oflearning 'uilds u-on and e0-ands the -re!ious

le!el. We then com-are and contrast the

traditional ta0onom" of affecti!e learning

de!elo-ed '" Krath1ohl )+8:; 1ith a re!isedta0onom".

Man" educators are familiar 1ith

#en4amin #loom7s ta0onom" of educational

o'4ecti!es )+89:, +8:; in 1hich a hierarch"of learning outcomes is -ortra"ed for the

cogniti!e domain. sing the ta0onom",

students are guided through successi!e stagesof learning through sim-le recall,

com-rehension, a--lication of the material,

s"nthesis 1ith other ideas, and critical thinkingand e!aluation. Although later models in!erted

the fifth and si0th le!els )Anderson ?

Krath1ohl, (**+, 1e -resent #loom7s

original hierarch" of learning in $igure +.

$igure +. #loom7s ierarch" of Learning

(Defines, Lists ) Knowledge

(Predicts ) Comprehension

Application (Demonstrates, Uses)

(Distinguishes) Analysis

(Creates) Synthesis

Evaluation (Justifies, Critiques)

#loom7s seminal 1ork also included a

hierarch" of affecti!e learning )#loom, +89:>

#loom, +8:;> Krath1ohl, #loom, ? Masia,+8:;. Da!id Krath1ohl is credited 1ith the

model that includes fi!e le!els6 recei!ing,

res-onding, !aluing, organi5ing, and

characteri5ation. $igure ( -resents the

ta0onom" of affecti!e learning.



4/12

$igure (. Krath1ohl7s /a0onom" of Affecti!e Learning

(Chooses) Receiving

(Conforms, Reacts) Responding

(Initiates, Reports) Valuing

(Orders, Snthesi!es) Organizing

Characterizing

by a value(Inf"uences, #uestions)

/he first t1o le!els confuse thelearner7s attitude, res-onsi!eness, and

attenti!eness to the learning material 1ith

actual learning or changes in the student thatare the result of instruction )learning. 3t is not

until the third le!el, !aluing, that students

actuall" 'egin the -rocess of learning as the"com-are and contrast ne1 material 1ith their

e0isting ideas, 'eliefs, and attitudes. Students

at this le!el can articulate a !alue, defend it,and descri'e its origin and rationale. /he" can

also make 4udgments on the 'asis of thisorientation. /he fourth le!el that Krath1ohl

identified, organi5ation, descri'es the learner7s -rocess of conce-tuali5ing and organi5ing

their !alue s"stems in light of the affecti!e

learning that has taken -lace. A suita'lemeta-hor might 'e to consider the 1a" in

1hich a constellation is reconfigured 1hen a

ne1 star is disco!ered. /he fifth and final le!elof the ta0onom", characteri5ation, refers to the

1a" in 1hich an indi!idual is no1

characteri5ed '" a generali5ed, com-rehensi!eset of !alues and a -hiloso-h" of life and

learning. /his is 1hat /urk )(**( 1as, in

-art, alluding to 1hen he referenced meta@

learning and -ersonal and aestheticde!elo-ment.

At this le!el, the indi!idual7s 1orld

!ie1, the 1a" in 1hich he or she e0-lores,

learns, and 'uilds understandings, has 'eenchanged rather than 4ust isolated attitudes and

'eliefs. We think of it as the character of the

indi!idual is no1 different. 3ndi!iduals 1hoare characteri5ed '" an integrated, tested, and

4ustified s"stem of attitudes and 'eliefs seek

out e!idence 'efore reaching a conclusion,follo1 a s"stematic -rocess of in2uir", !alue

lifelong learning, -ut effort into enriching their

understandings, and are often leaders 'ecausethe" !alue contri'uting to others.

#loom and his colleagues 1ere notoriginall" concerned 1ith 'eha!ioral or

-s"chomotor domain 'elie!ing that as collegeeducators the" had little e0-erience in teaching

manual skills. o1e!er, e!aluating an"

learning re2uires o'ser!ing 'eha!ioral changesin the student and most learning o'4ecti!es are

'eha!iorall" 'ased. Sim-son7s )+8&(

ta0onom" of -s"chomotor learning descri'e 'eha!ioral changes from + -erce-tion and

o'ser!ation> ( readiness and -re-aration to

res-ond> guided res-onse through -racticeand demonstration 1hile su-er!ised>

mechanistic or automatic res-onses> ;

com-le0 organi5ation in 1hich 'eha!iors are

linked together into more intricate res-onses>and finall", 9 ada-tion in 1hich the learner is

a'le to a--ro-riatel" modif" 1hat has 'een

learned for use in no!el situations.



5/12

3. An Alternative Affective Learning

ierarchy

/here is much here for educators in

Krath1ohl7s model. o1e!er, to our 1a" ofthinking there are limitations in its usefulness

for designing instruction largel" due in -art, to

a failure to distinguish 'et1een the learner7sattitudes a'out the learning e0-erience and

actual affecti!e learning. $urther, the model

does not directl" suggest teaching strategies tofacilitate mo!ement through the se2uence.

/herefore, 1e -ro-ose an alternati!e

ta0onom" de!elo-ed '" Neuman )Neuman ?

$riedman, (**=. /his model, -resented

'elo1, assumes that the issue of gaining

attention and assuring rece-ti!it" andmoti!ation is a se-arate teaching concern that

occurs in an" and all learning situations.

Whether teaching for cogniti!e, 'eha!ioral, oraffecti!e change, the teacher must em-lo"

strategies to get and maintain the students7

moti!ation and attention. We ha!e remo!edthis from the ta0onom" of affecti!e learning

altogether and -resent it in $igure . 3n our

e0-erience, this model more easil" lends itself

to designing instruction that mo!es throughsuccessi!el" more com-le0 le!els of affecti!e

learning.

$igure . Neuman7s /a0onom" of Affecti!e Learning

/he first le!el, identification, re2uires

students to 'egin to identif" and articulate

their o1n 'eliefs, !alues, and attitudes.According to a"nes )+888, the de!elo-ment

of !alues starts 1hen students 'egin to

criticall" e0amine their -ersonal assum-tions./herefore, it is necessar" to teach students to

distinguish 'et1een ideas, cognitions, -roofs,

and feelings and to recogni5e the uni2uenessof their -ers-ecti!e as contrasted 1ith others.

At the second le!el, students clarif" their

feelings and !alues and consider their sourcesand im-lications. At these first t1o stages of

affecti!e learning, it is a--ro-riate to

ree0amine earlier 1ork in !alues clarification

at this stage, 1hich 1ere -rominent in the+8&*s and =*s.

%alues clarification is a -rocess

originall" descri'ed '" Simon, o1e, andKirschen'aum )+8&(, +8&. According to the

authors, to ha!e full" e0-ressed and

internali5ed a !alue an indi!idual must6 chooseit freel" from alternati!es, -ri5e and affirm the

choice, act u-on the choice, and 'eha!e

consistentl" 1ith the choice re-eatedl" o!ertime. Krath1ohl7s hierarch" does not



6/12

s-ecificall" address the identification and

clarification of !alues, im-l"ing that this

-rocess is im-licit in the learning -rocess, -erha-s occurring at the higher le!els of

!aluing, organi5ation and characteri5ation.

o1e!er, if 1e consider identification andclarification as discrete ste-s in the -rocess,

teaching strategies are easil" suggested.

3n the third le!el, students e0-lore theim-lications and limitations of their

!ie1-oints and com-are and contrast them

1ith others. $or e0am-le, if a student

ackno1ledges that the" might ha!e difficult"1orking 1ith an indi!idual 1ho 'eha!es in a

certain 1a", 1e e0-lore the sources and

im-lications of this -osition. o1 does this fit

1ithin the -rofession7s !alue of res-ecting thedignit" and 1orth of the -ersonI Will the

student 'e a'le to treat this indi!idual in acaring and res-ect fashion mindful of

indi!idual differences and cultural and ethnic

di!ersit"E 1hile 1orking to -romote sociall"res-onsi'le self@determination in the clientEI

3n the fourth le!el, modification

occurs. Gither the student alters in some 1a"

their 'eliefs, !alues, or attitudes or the"modif" the alternati!e -osition in such a 1a"

as to 'e acce-ta'le to them. Piaget )+89(

descri'ed these t1o -rocesses as assimilationand accommodation. 3n assimilation, ne1 or

e0ternal information generated in the

en!ironment is modified to fit an e0istinginternal, cogniti!e structure of the learner. 3n

accommodation, the internal structure itself is

modified to acce-t the incoming information.

Working 1ith the e0am-le a'o!e, ifthe student is to assimilate the -rofession7s

!alues regarding the !alue of the inherent

dignit" and 1orth of each indi!idual, sJhe mustinter-ret this ne1 material so that it is

consistent 1ith ideas alread" held. SJhe ma"

inter-ret the Code of Gthics to suggest that aslong as the client is treated 1ith res-ect and

dignit", sJhe ma" continue to 1ork 1ith the

client in making more sociall" res-onsi'le

choices. 3f the student accommodates, sJhe

modifies their original attitudes and 'eliefs

a'out this t"-e of client and the 'eha!ior so

that the student feels more -ositi!el" to1ardthe client and is more a'le to treat them 1ith

res-ect and dignit". Which is -refera'le

accommodation or assimilationI Althoughsome inter-retation and -ersonali5ation occurs

in -rofessional education, the standardi5ation,

consensus and regulation that defines a -rofession set real limits to the e0tent to 1hich

an indi!idual ma" assimilate and modif"

defining -rinci-les of the disci-line.

/he final le!el, characteri5ation, issimilar to the last t1o le!els in Krath1ohl7s

model. /he student has de!elo-ed an

understanding of their attitudes, !alues,

'eliefs, and feelings, and has organi5ed theminto a coherent structure that no1 characteri5es

the learner. /he e0tent to 1hich 'eha!ioralconsistenc" is demonstrated is a reflection of

the e0tent of internali5ation as 1ell as

maturit".

!. Teaching in the Affective "omain

/he re!ised ta0onom" easil" lendsitself to guiding instruction to create learning

e0-eriences. We used the re!ised ta0onom"for affecti!e learning to create a learninge0-erience around social 4ustice. 3n the second

session of a social 1elfare -olic" class, 4unior

students 1ere asked to define 1hat social 4ustice means to them. /his is the first ste- of

the ta0onom" identification. /he" 1ere

asked to e0-lore 1here the" learned thisnotion, the sources of this orientation, ho1

the" came to 'elie!e it, and ho1 strongl" the"

feel a'out it. /his is the second le!el of the

ta0onom" clarification, 1hich often includessourcingE 1here and ho1 'eliefs and !alues

de!elo-ed. Students 1ere then gi!en articles

on the to-ic, -ro!iding formalconce-tuali5ations of social 4ustice such as

distri'uti!e and restorati!e 4ustice. /he

instructor facilitated a discussion to identif",clarif" and e0-lore ke" conce-ts. /he" then



7/12

1rote a ne1 definition. /his is the fourth le!el

modification. /he students then 1orked in

grou-s to com-are and contrast the !ariousdefinitions )Le!el G0-loration. /he"

concluded the e0ercise '" discussing their

'eliefs and !alues a'out social 4ustice and ho1these 'eliefs and !alues are im-ortant to social

1ork and influence -ractice )Le!el %@

Characteri5ation. /o highlight this e0ercise1e -resent t1o definitions from t1o students.

#tu$ent A: "efinition One

&Social #ustice, o$erall to

"e !ould "ean that people

ha$e the a'ilit( to 'e free to

sa( and feel an(thin) the(!ant a'out societ( 'ut if

the( took action to!ards so"eone or so"ethin) then

ha$in) la!s a'out actions

or !ord !ould 'e nice

'ecause people need'oundaries so people can*t

)o too far !ith so"ethin).+

#tu$ent A: "efinition Two

&Social #ustice is

ad$ocatin) for eual ri)hts

and opportunities for all people, no "atter !hat

race, ethnicit( or )ender. -t

is connected to social !ork

'ecause social !orkers fi)ht in#ustice, not 'ecause

the( epect to eli"inate it

'ut si"pl( 'ecause it is!ron) and should not 'e

tolerated.+

#tu$ent %. "efinition One

&Social #ustice "eans /to "e

correctin) and eli"inatin) all

for"s of oppression for persons

!ho face hardships.+

#tu$ent %. "efinition Two

&Social #ustice is ad$ocatin)

for and o'tainin) for

disad$anta)ed )roups and persons eual access to

resource, 'oth "onetar( and

other!ise '( challen)in),

!orkin) !ith and !orkin) tochan)e the po!er structures

and institutions that throu)h

their $er( eistence create

and perpetuate $arious for"sof in#ustice and ineualit(. s

a social !orker, it is "(desire to nullif( these

forces.+

/hese e0am-les -ro!ide tentati!e

definitions of social 4ustice. One set of

definitions descri'e characteri5ations of social

4ustice, one can see that affecti!e learning isstill 'eing measured through cogniti!e means.

/he -ro'lem 1ith affecti!e learning is that it is

difficult or nearl" im-ossi'le to outrightmeasure it 1ithout using either cogniti!e or

-s"chomotor means.

&. 'valuation of Affective Learning

We recogni5e that it is easier toe!aluate cogniti!e and -s"chomotor learning

domains than it is to e!aluate the affecti!e

domain. Affecti!e learning cannot occur

a'sent ideas of cognition and cannot 'e kno1ne0ce-t '" o'ser!ing 'eha!ior. We also

'elie!e it is the most com-le0 and dee-est

kind of learning. Like cogniti!e learning, themost effecti!e 1a" to e!aluate affecti!e

learning is through assessing o'4ecti!e,

o'ser!ed 'eha!iors and e0-ressions of thelearner. o1e!er, the difference is that one



8/12

e!aluates 1ithin the conte0t of a -articular

!alues orientation )in the case, that of social

1ork rather than 4ust looking at -erformanceof a s-ecific skill.

Gducational assessment t"-icall"

'egins 1ith the articulation of learningo'4ecti!es or outcomes )Anderson ?

Krath1ohl, (**+> #loom, +89:> +8:;>

Freenland, +88+. #eha!iorall"@'asedo'4ecti!es for affecti!e learning can 'e

1ritten. Possi'le !er's to use 1hen 1riting

affecti!e learning o'4ecti!es include6 defends,

4ustifies, ad!ocates, argues, acce-ts,challenges, -romotes, re4ects, shares,

su'scri'es, !erifies, and dis-utes. $or

e0am-le, -on com-letion of the course,

students 1ill dis-ute the claim that -o!ert" isal1a"s the result of character fla1s or moral

failings.E Another e0am-le is, -oncom-letion of the course, students 1ill

ad!ocate -olic" changes that assure a

mechanism for financing afforda'le healthcare for all indi!iduals.E

Anderson and Krath1ohl )(**+

identified four com-onents necessar" to

e!aluate learning in the affecti!e domain. /hefirst com-onent is the emotional 2ualit"

o'ser!ed in the student. $or e0am-le, does the

student7s tone of !oice con!e" com-assionIWhen ad!ocating, is the student forcefulI

Does the emotional 2ualit" of the student7s

!er'al e0-ressions con!e" disma" 1henconfronted 1ith an in4usticeI

/he second com-onent is the student7s

1illingness to attend or sensiti!it" and

a1areness to the conce-t. $or e0am-le, doesthe student consistentl" and 2uickl" recogni5e

em-ath" or insensiti!it"I /he third com-onent

in!ol!es the increasing automaticit" ofres-onses. Students at this stage ha!e

incor-orated the conce-t and skills into their

schema of -ractice and are 'eginning tointernali5e the conce-t. $or Krath1ohl, the

fourth and most essential dimension for

e!aluation of affecti!e learning is

internali5ation. e defines internali5ation as

the consistenc" 1ith 1hich one7s 'eha!ior

matches an internal code of conduct or

schema.E/his is a critical notion for social 1ork.

When considering the e0tent to 1hich a no!ice

is sociali5ed to the -rofession, 1e are, inessence, e!aluating the consistenc" in 1hich

their 'eha!ior matches an esta'lished code of

conduct )#isman, (**;> a"nes, +888.Ka-lan )+8=: ela'orated on

Krath1ohl, com'ining 1ith #loom7s cogniti!e

and -s"chomotor domains to de!elo- the

/a0onom" of Affecti!e #eha!ior or /A#. emodified the le!els of affecti!e learning

slightl" and created a com-le0 set of

1orksheets in 1hich to e!aluate the e0tent to

1hich students 1ere demonstrating affecti!echanges. $or each of Krath1ohl7s le!els,

'eha!iors indicati!e of affecti!e learning areidentified and checked off 1hen demonstrated.

$or Ka-lan, affecti!e changes in!ol!ed

cogniti!e and 'eha!ior com-onents and alsothe fre2uenc" and intensit" in 1hich students

demonstrated the desired 'eha!ior. #o"d,

Doole" and $elton )(**9 modified this

a--roach '" doing a content anal"sis 'ased onKrath1ohl7s le!els to e!aluate students7

reflecti!e 1ritings after -artici-ating in an

online simulation a'out glo'al -o!ert".Although Krath1ohl and Ka-lan 1ere

-rimaril" de!elo-ing their models of affecti!e

learning for use in teacher education, theira--roaches ha!e considera'le a--lica'ilit" for

social 1ork and 1e -ull from 'oth models to

create our o1n s"stem for assessment. Fi!en

the com-le0it" of affecti!e learning,assessment must in!ol!e e!aluating cogniti!e,

emotional and 'eha!ioral demonstrations or

e0-ressions on the -art of the student. #ecausethis is a -rofessional degree -rogram, 1e can

look at the degree to 1hich the student

com-rehends ke" conce-ts of a -rofessional!alue, the 1a" in 1hich the" feel a'out it

)Krath1ohl7s com-assion and sensiti!it" and

the recognition that -rofessional 'eha!ior is



9/12

determined in s-ecific 1a"s '" this

understanding.

Beturning to the e0am-le -ro!ideda'o!e on the student7s conce-tuali5ations and

feelings a'out social 4ustice, 1e can create a

general ru'ric that can 'e used for assessment.3f 1e com-are the first and second definitions

)-articularl" those of Student A, 1e can see

that the second definitions more full" reflectan understanding of ad!ocating for e2ual

o--ortunities and resources for -o-ulations at

risk ke" conce-ts in social 1ork7s a--roach

to social 4ustice. /his is the cogniti!ecom-onent. #oth of the students< second

definitions incor-orate an affecti!e or, in this

case, moral com-onent. Student A talks a'out

fighting in4ustice 'ecause it is 1rong,E 1hileStudent # stri!es to nullif"E the forces of

in4ustice. #oth definitions connect social 4ustice to the -rofession and indicate that

ad!ocac" 'eha!ior is e0-ected on the -art of

the social 1orker. Whereas 1e might not 'ea'le to o'4ecti!el" scoreE such an e0ercise,

1e could generall" assess it '" looking at the

e0tent to 1hich the student correctl" identified

ke" conce-ts and -rinci-les )cognition,

demonstrates com-assion, sensiti!it" andJor

other a--ro-riate e0-ressions of affect, and

identifies -rofessional 'eha!iors that areconse2uentl" e0-ected.

#uchard )+88+ used a Likert scale to

assess nursing students7 attitudes 'efore andafter instruction as measured '" -erformance

on affecti!e learning o'4ecti!es s-ecified for

the course. #ecause 1e think affecti!elearning includes cogniti!e and 'eha!ioral

elements in addition to affect, 1e are

e0-erimenting 1ith a sim-le ru'ric for

assessment. /he student is assessed on the2ualit" of the cogniti!e content of their

1ritings and comments, the e0tent to 1hich a

course of action or 'eha!iors are suggested or

demonstrated, as 1ell as the identification offeelings, !alues, ethics and moral o'ligations.

Students are assessed as 'eing 1eak, fair, orstrong along all three dimensions. Like

#ucher, 1e recogni5e the real limitations of

this kind of scale 'ut are finding it hel-ful inencouraging students to1ard a more integrated

and com-rehensi!e understanding of the

material. We are currentl" -iloting the use of

the follo1ing grading ru'ric.

Table 1. Affective Learning Assignment (ra$ing )ubric

Domain Minimall" meets

e0-ectations

Meets e0-ectations G0ceeds e0-ectations

ualit" of cogniti!e

com-onent

Course of action, 'eha!iors identified

Articulation of feelings,!alues, ethics andJor

moral o'ligations

Congruenc" 1ith

-rofessional ethics and

!alues.

Another e0am-le in social 1ork that

in!ol!es the affecti!e domain is the teachingof em-ath" listening skills, 1hich also

includes cogniti!e and 'eha!ioral dimensions.

When 1e teach em-ath", 1e e0-lain the

conce-t, as 1ell as the research and theor"

'ehind it. We e0-lain the im-ortance of 'eing

su--orti!e and acce-ting of our clients, 1hile1orking to -romote -ositi!e changes. We

re!ie1 research studies e!aluating the results

of em-atheticall"@'ased inter!entions and

e0-ect students to 'e a'le to list and define the



10/12

ke" characteristics of em-ath". /his is

teaching in the cogniti!e domain. We e0-lore

the affecti!e com-onent of em-ath". We can 'egin '" asking students to reflect on times

1hen -eo-le 1ere em-athetic and not

em-athetic or su--orti!e to them. What did itfeel likeI What 'eha!iors made them feel this

1a"I o1 did the" kno1 the -erson 1as or

1as not 'eing em-atheticI o1 do the" sho1em-ath" in their li!esI What does it feel like

1hen the" are 'eing em-atheticI We ask

students to reflect u-on and descri'e their

feelings a'out the client and e0-ect them toidentif" areas 1here the" ha!e difficulties.

$inall", 1e teach a set of 'eha!iorall"@'ased

skills that include the use of o-en ended

2uestions, !er'al -rom-ts, and non!er'al 'eha!iors that hel- students demonstrate their

a'ilit" to listen em-atheticall" to their clients./hus, the a--lication of learning ta0onomies

can guide instruction and facilitate the

assessment of learning outcomes, -articularl"1hen teaching com-le0 material such as

!alues, ethics, and aesthetics.

*. +onclusions

/o hel- 1ith sociali5ing students to the -rofession, it is im-ortant to address acom-rehensi!e a--roach to education. /o

accom-lish this, the educator cannot solel"

focus on cogniti!e kno1ledge, 'ut needs toincor-orate all the learning domains into

learning. Affecti!e learning is consistent 1ith

social 1ork -rinci-les of conscience use ofself, recognition of the art and science of

social 1ork -ractice, the im-ortance of

thera-eutic relationshi-s, and the integration of

!alues in the -rofession. More full"a--reciating affecti!e learning hel-s to

understand -ro'lem students 1ho ma"

understand cogniti!el" social 1ork -rinci-lesand ma" 'e a'le to demonstrate some of the

skills, 'ut fall short 1hen demonstrating full

affecti!e learning. O-timum social 1orkeducation necessitates achie!ing com-etence

in all three domains6 cogniti!e, 'eha!ioral, and

affecti!e.

,. )eferences

Ainle", M. )(**:. Connecting 1ith learning6Moti!ation, affect and cognition in

interest -rocesses. Educational

s(cholo)( 3e$ie!, 14);, 8+@;*9.

Anderson, L.W., ? Krath1ohl, D. )Gds..

)(**+. Taxonomy for Learning,

Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of

Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational

Obectives. Ne1 ork6 Longman.

#isman, C. )(**;. Social 1ork !alues6 /hemoral code of the -rofession. 5ritish

Journal of Social Work, /6, +*8 +(.

#loom, #.S. )Gd.. )+89:. 8aono"( of

educational o'#ecti$es: 8heclassification of educational )oals '( a

co""ittee of colle)e and uni$ersit(

ea"iners. Ne1 ork6 McKa".

#loom, #.S. )Gd. )+8:;. 8aono"( ofeducational o'#ecti$es: 8heclassification of educational

o'#ecti$es. 9and'ook -: 8he co)niti$e

do"ain. Ne1 ork6 McKa".

#o"d, #.L. Doole", K.G., ? $elton, S. )(**9.

Measuring learning in the affecti!e

domain using reflecti!e 1riting a'out a!irtual learning e0-erience.

roceedin)s of the 21 st nnual

%onference on )ricultural Education,San Antonio, /, 9&; 9=(.

#ro1n, D.L., $errill, M. ., inton, A. #. ?Shek, A. )(**+. Self@directed

-rofessional de!elo-ment6 /he -ursuit

of affecti!e learning. "erican



11/12

Journal of har"aceutical Education,

;, (;*(;:.

#uchard, L. )+88+, Se-tJOct.. G!aluating the

affecti!e domain6 Considering a Likert

scale. Journal of Nursin) Staff


12/12

National Association of Social Workers.

)+88:, re!ised +888. %ode of Ethics of

the National ssociation of SocialWorkers. Washington, DC6 Author.

Neuman, K. ? $riedman, #. )(**=, Octo'er.8he art of effecti$el( facilitatin)

professional socialiAation in students

throu)h affecti$e learnin) . Pa-er -resented at the Annual Program

Meeting of the Council on Social Work

Gducation. Philadel-hia, PA.

Piaget, . )+89(. /he origins of intelligence

in children. Ne1 ork6 3nternational

ni!ersities Press.

Picard, B. W., Pa-ert, S., #ender, W.,

#lum'erg, #., #rea5eal, C., Ca!allo,D., Macho!er, /., Besnick, M., Bo", D.

? Strohecker, D. Affecti!e learning

A manifesto. )(**+. 8echnolo)(

Journal, 22);, (9@ (:8.

Bokeach, M. )+8&. 8he nature of hu"an

$alues. Ne1 ork6 /he $ree Press.She-hard, B., ? $asko, D. )+888.

3ntra-ersonal intelligence6 Affecti!e factors in

thinking. Education, 11>);, :@:;(.

Simon, S., o1e, L., ? Kirschen'aum, .)+8&(. Values clarification:

hand'ook of practical strate)ies for

teachers and students. Ne1 ork6art.

Simon, S., ? Kirschen'aum, . )Gds.. )+8&.

3eadin)s in $alues clarifications.

Minnea-olis, MN6 Winston.

Sim-son, G. )+8&(. 8he classification ofeducational o'#ecti$es in the

ps(cho"otor do"ain: 8he

ps(cho"otor do"ain. Washington,

DC6 Fr"-hon ouse.

Stone, S., ., ? Flascott, K.P. )+88&. /heaffecti!e side of science instruction.

%hildhood Education, 7, +*(@+*;.

/urk, M. )(**(. Case stud"6 Learning in the

affecti!e domain 1ith t1o

undergraduate 3/ su'4ects. Broup C@r)aniAational Dana)e"ent, /1+, 88@

++:.

/"ler, W.M. )(**(. /eaching social 1ork!alues 1ithin their historical conte0t.

Journal of 5accalaureate Social

Work ,/7(, @;&.

orks, L., ? Kasl, G., S. )(**(. /o1ard a

theor" and -ractice for 1hole@-ersonlearning6 reconce-tuali5ing e0-erience

and the role of affect. dult Education

=uarterl(, ;2), +&:@+8(.

Himmerman, #.., ? Philli-s, #.. )(***.

Affecti!e learning6 Stimulus to critical

thinking and caring -ractice. Journalof Nursin) Education, 6>)8, ;((@;(9.

Originall" -resented at the Annual ProgramMeeting, Council on Social Work Gducation,

No!em'er +, (**=, Philadel-hia, PA.


f10neuman Affective Learning

Documents

Transcript of f10neuman Affective Learning