i-manager Publications

Theoretical Basis for Evolving Taxonomy of the Affective Domain

Sachin Datt*

Sushant University, Gurugram, Haryana.

Periodicity:August - October'2021
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jpsy.15.2.17982

Abstract

One of the central problems in curriculum design is to find a rational basis for the selection of subject content and the assessment of student progression. Without good reasoning, decisions about the selection of content according to various levels of complexity would be left to personal opinion of the faculty members and a reasoned debate among peers about what to choose and what to omit in a curriculum would not be possible on a logical basis. In 1956, celebrated educationist Benjamin Bloom along with his associates introduced the revolutionary Taxonomy of Educational objectives (popularly known as the Bloom's Taxonomy) as a resolution to the above problem. Since then, the Bloom's taxonomy has become the cornerstone of curriculum design across the world, particularly in the context of outcome-based education. Taxonomy of educational objectives are composed of three parts, Taxonomy of Cognitive domain, Affective domain and Psychomotor domain. However, only taxonomy of cognitive domain (popularly known as the Bloom's taxonomy) was adopted rapidly by educationists across the globe. Several Accreditation agencies require an educational program to align their curriculum to Bloom's taxonomy (cognitive domain) for ranking and grading of curriculum aspects of educational programs at school and university level. However, the graduate attributes which are outlined by educational administrations not only make cognitive aspects as part of learning objectives, but also affective and psychomotor aspects, since cognition, affective and psychomotor development complete all dimensions of a student's development process. While the theoretical basis for Bloom's taxonomy of cognitive domain can be traced to classification of knowledge structures itself, the theoretical basis for Taxonomy of affective domain is still ambiguous. It could be one of the reasons for its meagre adaptability in educational curriculum. This paper is an attempt to research for a theoretical basis for evolving taxonomy of the affective domain by tracing developments in the field of Axiology.

Keywords

Curriculum Design, Bloom's Taxonomy, Affective Domain, Cognitive Domain, Value theory, Axiology, Outcome Based Education (OBE).

How to Cite this Article?

Datt, S. (2021). Theoretical Basis for Evolving Taxonomy of the Affective Domain. i-manager's Journal on Educational Psychology, 15(2), 10-18. https://doi.org/10.26634/jpsy.15.2.17982

References

[1]. Allen, K. N., & Friedman, B. D. (2010). Affective learning: A taxonomy for teaching social work values. Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 7(2), 1-12.

[2]. Coelho, G. L. D. H., Hanel, P. H., Johansen, M. K., & Maio, G. R. (2019). Mapping the structure of human values through conceptual representations. European Journal of Personality, 33(1), 34-51.

[3]. Enders, J., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2011). The Bologna Process: From the national to the regional to the global, and back. In Handbook on Globalization and Higher Education. Edward Elgar Publishing.

[4]. Evers, F., & Wolstenholme, J. (2007). Integrating knowledge, skills, and values into the curriculum development process at the University of Guelph-Humber. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2007(112), 83-91.

[5]. Hanel, P. H., Litzellachner, L. F., & Maio, G. R. (2018). An empirical comparison of human value models. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1643.

[6]. Hart, S. L. (1971). Axiology--theory of values. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 32(1), 29-41.

[7]. Hartman, R. (1967). The structure of value: Foundation of scientific Axiology. Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.

[8]. Hartman, R. (2006). Hartman Value Profile. Manual of Interpretation. Knoxville, TN.: Robert S. Hartman Institute.

[9]. Krathwohl, D. R., Masia, B. B., & Bloom, B. S. (1965). Affective domain: The classification of educational goals (Taxonomy of educational objectives.). Longman Publishers.

[10]. McKay, D. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Benjamin Samuel Bloom, (pp. 1-403).

[11]. Moalosi, R., Molokwane, S., & Mothibedi, G. (2017). Using a design-orientated project to attain graduate attributes. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 17(1), 30-43.

[12]. NAAC. (2019). National Workshop on Outcome Based Education - A Paradigm Shift. Bangalore.

[13]. Potts, D. (2015). The Schwartz theory of basic values and some implications for political philosophy. Policy of truth.

[14]. Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1).

[15]. Tyler, R. W. (1973). Assessing Educational Achievement in the Affective Domain. NCME Measurement in Education, East Lansing, MI, 4(3), Spring.

[16]. Vukić, D., Martinčić-Ipšić, S., & Meštrović, A. (2020). Structural Analysis of Factual, Conceptual, Procedural, and Metacognitive Knowledge in a Multidimensional Knowledge Network. Hindawi.

[17]. Wu, W. H., Kao, H. Y., Wu, S. H., & Wei, C. W. (2019). Development and evaluation of affective domain using student's feedback in entrepreneurial massive open online courses. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1109.

If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Single Article

	North Americas,UK, Middle East,Europe		India	Rest of world
	USD	EUR	INR	USD-ROW
Online	15	15

ADD TO CART

Options for accessing this content:

If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.