Affective objectives are problematic in instructional design practice. I recognize that there are taxonomies that elaborate on the development of affective objectives, but I will use the definition that most resonates when I hear the term “affective objectives”:

Affective Learning Domain Objectives emphasize a feeling, a tone, an emotion, or a degree of acceptance or rejection. Affective objectives vary from simple attention to selected phenomena to complex but internally consistent qualities of character and conscience. In other words, affective objectives deal with how a student should feel about something (e.g., listen attentively, enjoy music, appreciate literature). From http://classweb.gmu.edu/ndabbagh/Resources/IDKB/learning_domains.htm

My own emphasis is added above. It doesn’t matter so much that you think and reflect on what is being studied so much as you value it. When I read that description, brainwashing comes to mind. Therein lies the problem with affective objectives–they are values that we wish to impose on learners. Aren’t affective objectives implicit in the educational process? We already chose the subject areas that would be offered, designed the curriculum, picked who would be read or specifically what would be studied. If it weren’t something that a number of people felt was valued, why would we be asking someone else to learn it? We can write them into program goals, add them to mission statements and so forth, but they are not learning objectives.

A student in class tonight suggested that the way we can start to measure an affective objective was by asking the student to reflect and apply the subject at hand to one’s own life. I’m not convinced that this measures the fulfillment of an affective objective. Why? Because I still don’t know if the student appreciates, values, cherishes the subject/object that I set out for them to develop emotion toward. The student may not know, even as they are doing it. Even if they tell me they do, how can I trust that their sentiment is valid, particularly if I start trying to attach a grade to it.
Requiring critical reflection and application of a subject to one’s own life is more effective than starting out with affective objectives in the first place. It doesn’t measure those affective intentions of the educational process, but it is far more powerful a tool. First, it is the first step to giving students the tools they need to be critical thinkers. At the same time, educators who require students to actively engage with the material of their subject and apply the principles being learned to their daily lives will likely achieve their intentions of creating a lifelong love of what they are teaching.

Switching gears suddenly. I decided/it was suggested to me to enter an article in an award competition. It would help if the article were complete, but what are deadlines for if not to push one to finally pulling everything together?

For anyone who has been glancing at this blog, this might seem like an abrupt departure from previous topics. However, I have been working on a small qualitative study examining the design practices of small, community museums. Instructional design models are formulaic and linear, however, real world design situations often do not lend themselves to such clean, rounded edges. Unfortunately this is resulting in a rather thorough reading on various instructional design models, all theoretical, and I don’t know why I am not as excited about it as other theoretical discussions such as communicative action theory. However, I do like the possibilities presented by suggesting that existing design models, with their focus on behavioral and cognitive objectives are not adequate to all design situations. For example, the objectives of many museum exhibits are attitudinal, in other words, the purpose of the exhibit is to change attitudes more than anything else. For example, a science museum might have an exhibit on the environment and the objective could be for people who view the exhibit to feel that saving the environment is important.

B. Wilson at Colorado has written one of the most thorough discussions of implementing constructivist thought into instructional design: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~bwilson/construct.html .