ITAIS Newsletter - November 2016 (Plain Text Version)
|
||||
|
In this issue: |
BLOOM'S AFFECTIVE DOMAIN & ESOL EDUCATORS IN HIGHER ED AND ADULT ED
A version of this article has appeared in TESOL MWIS and TexTESOL IV Fourth Estate. Over the last 30 years, a growing body of neuroscience, psychoanalysis, behavioral psychology, cross-cultural psychology, and evolutionary psychology literature highlights the importance of a learner’s affective domain as developed by Bloom in the learning process (Krashen, 1981, 1982; Lewis & Haviland-Jones, 2004; Nesse, 1997; Norton Peirce, 1995; Oatley, 1992). This study explored four characteristics related to ESOL educators’ use of Bloom’s affective domain to answer the following questions:
Researchers created a web-based electronic survey to collect educator self-report data using Google Forms. The survey consisted of 12 sections using yes/no, short-answer, drop-down, and Likert-scale questions and was posted in several TESOL Interest Sections as well as ESL-related social media sites. Seventy-four educators responded to the survey. The study participants were diverse regarding their education level, roles, fields of study, and locales; 72% (n = 53) of participants were female, and 28% (n = 21) were male, with the majority choosing ESOL as their primary field of study. Other participants chose education, linguistics, English, or communication as their major field of study. Twenty percent (n = 15) of participants had a PhD or an EdD, 69% (n = 58) had a master’s degree, and 11% (n = 8) had an undergraduate degree. Finally, the majority of participants in the study (68%) taught intensive English program or English for academic purposes college or university students transitioning to the college level. Fourteen percent of participants taught college or university students, and 18% taught pre-college adult education courses. Affective Domain Knowledge Base The survey examined participant affective domain knowledge. One question asked, “Based on your understanding, what does the affective domain refer to?” Twenty-eight participants wrote that the affective domain referred to the emotions involved in the learning process. Other responses included comfort level, a supportive learning environment, and how students learn. Thirty-six of the 74 participants did not respond to the question. The second question asked, “Based on your understanding, the affective domain includes which key concepts?” Participants were to choose all that applied from a given list. Most participants included on their lists the following as key affective domain concepts: analysis, appreciation, enthusiasm, evaluation, and values. Although some of these are correct (e.g., appreciation, enthusiasm, values), the others (e.g., analysis, evaluation) are tenets of Bloom’s cognitive domain. Researchers noted that previous survey sections had delineated a definition and key concepts of the affective domain. However, these data illustrate educators’ reluctance to formulate affective domain definitions or to differentiate between Bloom’s cognitive and affective domain key concepts, thus validating the need for training initiatives to help educators better differentiate and understand Bloom’s cognitive and affective domains. Affective Domain Training Research question 2 examined educators’ affective domain training and comfort in discussing or teaching the affective domain in a professional setting. Eleven percent (n = 8) of the 74 participants had formal training on Bloom’s affective domain, whereas 89% (n =66) of participants did not have any formal training. The formal training reported by the eight participants widely varied and included reading professional articles, attending conference sessions, and continuing education course work. Only one participant had taken a graduate course in education psychology. A mere four participants, having formal training, felt comfortable discussing Bloom’s affective domain in a professional setting. These data offer strong evidence verifying the need to build educators’ affective domain (construct and uses) knowledge base. Without this basic knowledge of the affective domain, educators cannot hope to become proficient in its use. Perceptions of Affective Domain Usefulness Research question 3 examined educators’ perceptions of affective domain usefulness through the five taxonomical levels. Educators indicated a strong agreement with the use of lower taxonomical affective domain use, but demonstrated a decreasing perception of the affective domain’s usefulness in the higher taxonomic levels, including valuing (67%), conceptualizing (60%), and characterizing (63%). Conceptualizing and enabling beliefs systematization received the lowest subscore (49%). Overall, most participants felt that the affective domain either may be useful (score of 4) or is useful (score of 5). Specifically, a closer examination of the frequencies revealed that approximately 20% felt the affective domain was definitely useful by choosing a score of 5 on the Likert scale of the survey. These data reflect educator knowledge and comfort limits regarding the affective domain. It seems instructors are willing to accept the two lower levels of the taxonomy, receiving and responding, but are uncertain about the three deeper levels of the taxonomy. These data leave questions concerning educator responses and reveal a need for further research on educator perception of Bloom’s affective domain. Affective Domain Use Research question 4 examined affective domain use in the class. Despite the fact that a majority of participants report no formal training and only 20% found the affective domain a useful tool for measuring student progress, 81% (n = 60) claimed to reflect on affective changes on students concerning the course. Further, most participants indicated that they spend time reflecting on students’ affective domain each class or weekly. Researchers found this to be surprising because these data reflected a limited knowledge base regarding affective domain tenets, key concepts, and perceptions of its usefulness. Researchers were left to question, “Upon what exactly are educators reflecting?” Conclusions Current research points to the use and evaluation of the affective domain as being critical to the learning process (Krashen, 1981, 1982; Lewis & Haviland-Jones, 2004; Nesse, 1997; Norton Peirce, 1995; Oatley, 1992); however, this study highlights the lack of knowledge and training, and the presence of uncertainty surrounding the affective domain and its effectiveness to aid in learning. The findings support the work of Nuhfer (2005) in that academia was found lacking with regard to knowledge affective domain’s influence on cognitive growth; however, the educators were found to be willing to attempt use of the affective domain without training, knowledge, or understanding in spite of their uncertainties. Thus, researchers found a need does exist for educator training on the affective domain’s constructs and uses. Teachers may consider implementing strategic questions throughout a lesson to help students gauge, monitor, and actively face challenges during the learning process. Following are five generalized Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) for the affective domain.
The real learning occurs in the metacognition of students’ attitudinal change, which could move bilaterally (positive to negative) as well as increase in intensity (weaker to stronger, more informed belief). References Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford, England: Pergamon. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Pergamon. Lewis, M., & Haviland-Jones, J. M. (2004). Handbook of emotions. New York : Guildford Press. Nesse, R. M. (1997). Evolutionary explanations of emotions. Human Nature, 1, 261–289. doi:10.1007/BF02733986 Norton Peirce, B. N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 9–31. doi:10.2307/3587803 Nuhfer, E. (2005). De Bono's red hat on Krathwohl's head: Irrational means to rational ends - more fractal thoughts on the forbidden affective: Educating in fractal patterns XIII. National Teaching and Learning Forum, 15(5), pp. 7-11. Oatley, K. (1992). Best laid schemes: The psychology of emotions. UK : Cambridge University Press. Alex Monceaux, MA, Med, is an instructor at TIEP at Lamar, Lamar University. Jahnette Wilson, EdD, is a clinical associate professor at the University of Houston in the Curriculum and Instruction Department of the College of Education. |
|||