No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
How Do K-12 Teachers Apply the Affective Domain in their Classrooms?
Abstract
Explores the importance that teachers place on affective goals, how they integrate them into their teaching, and how they plan the integration process, based on interviews during inservice teacher training. Instructional goals relating to students' motivation, anxiety, attitudes, and values are discussed, and implications for further research are suggested. (LRW)
... Several studies on affective learning such as that of Bohlin (1998), Eshun (2003 and Adetayo (2014) The findings of other scholars such as Petrosyan and Khachatryan (2005) and about the importance of affective domain and that its absence could result into achieving unbalanced holistic learning outcomes are exhaustive. ...
... A study conducted by Bohlin (1998) Conducting a research entitled ‗learning with invisible others' Russo and Benson (2005) came out with facts that show the importance of affective learning where students feel good to learn in the presence of others. They discovered that, affective learning represents the attitudes students develop about the course, the topic, and the instructor. ...
... Generally, from the results, it appeared teachers were partially-trained and therefore are not able to deliver the same as expected. Several studies on affective learning such as that of Bohlin (1998) and Adetayo (2014) also admit that teachers lack knowledge in dealing with affective learning to make clear judgments about their effectiveness in helping students meet objectives in the affective domain. Therefore, to a large extent, teachers' preparedness for the integration of affective learning objectives in the curriculum is clear with little rectification of the items observed. ...
This study investigated teachers‘ assessment of the affective domain integration
towards holistic learning in community-based secondary schools, Arusha, Tanzania. A
sample of 25 schools and 236 teachers were involved in the study. Schools were
purposeful sampled depending on the big number of population out of 51 schools
available in the selected area of the study. Before administering the questionnaire, a pilot
study was conducted to two schools which involved 36 teachers. The schools and
respondents of the pilot were not made part of the research to ensure validity and
reliability. For validity, the researcher sought help from expert groups to see to it that the
instruments have items that measure the variables appropriately and for reliability of the
variables a Cronbach‘s Alfa was tested which showed the following results: importance
of affective domain integration .71; teachers‘ practice of affective domain .84; and
teachers‘ readiness to learn .71.To ascertain results of this study, the researcher used an
SPSS software version 16to determine descriptive statistics such as mean, frequencies,
percentage and standard deviations to determine the general scores among different
variables. An Independent t-test and Mann- Whitney U were also employed to determine
different significances among variables. Pearson-product Moment Correlation Coefficient
(rho) was also used to determine relationships. The overall results of the findings
discovered that teachers are aware of the affective domain learning objectives but have
little knowledge on how to integrate it in the curriculum. The results indicated that there
is need to re-define the concept of affective domain as a core educational value to
guarantee holistic learning and also encourage further experimental studies on affective
domain integration.
... Several studies on affective learning such as that of Bohlin (1998), Eshun (2003 and Adetayo (2014) The findings of other scholars such as Petrosyan and Khachatryan (2005) and about the importance of affective domain and that its absence could result into achieving unbalanced holistic learning outcomes are exhaustive. ...
... A study conducted by Bohlin (1998) Conducting a research entitled ‗learning with invisible others' Russo and Benson (2005) came out with facts that show the importance of affective learning where students feel good to learn in the presence of others. They discovered that, affective learning represents the attitudes students develop about the course, the topic, and the instructor. ...
... Generally, from the results, it appeared teachers were partially-trained and therefore are not able to deliver the same as expected. Several studies on affective learning such as that of Bohlin (1998) and Adetayo (2014) also admit that teachers lack knowledge in dealing with affective learning to make clear judgments about their effectiveness in helping students meet objectives in the affective domain. Therefore, to a large extent, teachers' preparedness for the integration of affective learning objectives in the curriculum is clear with little rectification of the items observed. ...
This study investigated teachers‘ assessment of the affective domain integration
towards holistic learning in community-based secondary schools, Arusha, Tanzania. A
sample of 25 schools and 236 teachers were involved in the study. Schools were
purposeful sampled depending on the big number of population out of 51 schools
available in the selected area of the study. Before administering the questionnaire, a pilot
study was conducted to two schools which involved 36 teachers. The schools and
respondents of the pilot were not made part of the research to ensure validity and
reliability. For validity, the researcher sought help from expert groups to see to it that the
instruments have items that measure the variables appropriately and for reliability of the
variables a Cronbach‘s Alfa was tested which showed the following results: importance
of affective domain integration .71; teachers‘ practice of affective domain .84; and
teachers‘ readiness to learn .71.To ascertain results of this study, the researcher used an
SPSS software version 16to determine descriptive statistics such as mean, frequencies,
percentage and standard deviations to determine the general scores among different
variables. An Independent t-test and Mann- Whitney U were also employed to determine
different significances among variables. Pearson-product Moment Correlation Coefficient
(rho) was also used to determine relationships. The overall results of the findings
discovered that teachers are aware of the affective domain learning objectives but have
little knowledge on how to integrate it in the curriculum. The results indicated that there
is need to re-define the concept of affective domain as a core educational value to
guarantee holistic learning and also encourage further experimental studies on affective
domain integration.
... A study conducted by Bohlin (1998) about the use of the affective learning found that teachers plan instruction that focuses on the affective domain usually in the categories of motivation, attitudes, anxiety, and values. He admits, however, that teachers in his study apparently had insufficient backgrounds in dealing with affective learning to make clear judgments about their effectiveness in helping students meet objectives in the affective domain. ...
This study investigated on the place of affective learning on cognitive learning improvement in two schools located in Arusha, Tanzania. The study established that there is a great need to balance the assessment of learning outcomes in learners by including all the domains associated with behavioral changes instead of assessing the cognitive achievement in the learner alone. The study has also found out that most teachers apply affective knowledge through experience but have little knowledge whether affective learning has any significant contribution towards improving cognitive skills. To reach the conclusion 41 teachers from two schools were involved in the study through questionnaire instrument. The study employed descriptive and inferential statistics (t-test and ANOVA) by the aid of SPSS. The overall results have shown that regardless of gender and teaching experience, teachers have a similar understanding of the concept in many dimensions.
... While the taxonomies are helpful in suggesting categories of affective components of educational curriculum, there is also empirical evidence of how teachers actually form constructs of affect in the classroom. Bohlin (1998) discovered that teachers reported, in order of most important to least, that they used motivation, anxiety (reduction), attitudes, and values/valuing as affective aspects of their formal and informal in-class teaching. ...
The increasing use of computer-mediated instruction in recent years has spawned a revolution in learning and has caused educational practitioners to measure this new mode of learning against the theoretical underpinnings of traditional classroom education. This study specifically looked to find evidence of behaviorally based affective components inside computer-mediated instructional (CMI) experiences, as a first step to determining if the affective domain can exist anywhere there is not a live human teacher present. In education, the affective domain comprises those elements in which students are encouraged to form valuative, emotional, attitudinal, aesthetic, and/or integrational judgments about the cognitive learning processes undertaken. Previous CMI studies involving the affective component centered mainly on gender-related issues and on computer anxiety and self-efficacy, and so individual gender and anxiety scales were added to reflect these issues. The study used the Semantic Differential inventory tool to examine students' perceptions through their meaning-derived reactions to a series of twelve behaviorally based activities, chosen to represent (1) computer-mediated learning, (2) traditional classroom activities, (3) affectively laden activities, and (4) non-classroom uses of computers. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) produced two-dimensional mappings of students' meaning-derived perceptions of these activities. The study found evidence that CMI is least associated with the affective activities, that it is also dissociated with oral portions of traditional classroom learning (e.g., giving an oral report, class discussion, and classroom lectures), and that it is most closely associated with written aspects of the traditional classroom (e.g., taking an exam or writing a paper). Non-classroom uses of computers (e.g., use of e-mail, use of Internet) seem to be dissociated with all of the above. Both MDS mappings and ANOVA demonstrated no gender-related differences in any of these perceptions except on the individual Gender scale. On the Anxiety scale, participants showed low levels of correlation between CMI and affective activities, but high correlation between CMI and both traditional classroom activities and non-classroom uses of computers. In sum, not only were gender differences on computer usage debunked, but the study's findings of the wide gap in students' mappings of affect and CMI provides new evidence that curricularists wishing to integrate affective domain into CMI have challenges in bringing the two concepts together—if in fact that is possible in a learning environment where there is no live human teacher. ^
This paper, which is based on the author's doctoral dissertation, deals with the affective dimension in the teaching relationship from the perspective of the social representations held by faculty members of a public university in the state of Bahia. Data were collected through three methods: 1) free associations, starting from the term "affectivity"; 2) semi-structured interviews; and 3) hierarchical groupings. Data deriving from the first of these methods were provided by a hundred participants. The other methods were applied to fifteen participants. The final results show how important the affective dimension is for teachers as far as students' learning is concerned. They also show the existence of a possible central dimension in the participants' representation of affectivity.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.