Affective Assessment v5.0

7/31/2019 Affective Assessment v5.0

1/9

Including Affective Behavior in Course Grades

Barry McNeill, Veronica Burrows, and Lynn Bellamy

College of Engineering and Applied Science

Arizona State University

Abstract

The authors published an article in the October issue of ASEE Journal of Engineering

Education in which they described an assessment process based on using only threeoutcomes (exceeding expectations, meeting expectations, or needing improvement). The

paper showed how the assessment process could be implemented with the use of checklists.

The paper dealt essentially with assessing the cognitive behavior of the students and did notaddress affective behavior. Affective behavior (e.g., coming to class, turning work in on

time, etc.) has always played some role in establishing a final grade and in fact some

classes actually have course outcomes that are purely affective in nature (e.g., value the use

of computer tools). To better account for the affective behavior aspects, the authors have

developed an assessment method that assesses the cognitive and affective behaviorsseparately and then combines them to generate a single course grade. The paper will

present background on affective behavior, present arguments why cognitive and affectiveassessment should be done separately, will show one way to assess affective behavior using

evidence of self regulation, and concludes with a process that shows how to combine

affective and cognitive assessment into a course grade.

Introduction

In the early 1950s a group of educational psychologists addressed the problem of definingand assessing the various levels of mastery associated with learning. These psychologists

divided the problem into three behavioral domains: the cognitive, dealing with the recall

or recognition of knowledge and the development of intellectual abilities and skills; the

affective, dealing with interests, attitudes, appreciations, values, and emotional sets orbiases; and, the psychomotor, dealing with the manipulative or motor-skill area. The

result of this work was the creation of two taxonomies, one for cognitive behavior [1] and

one for affective behavior [2].

Cognitive based learning objectives have always been part of a course's learning objectives.After all, cognitive objectives are the ones directly related to achieving the knowledge and

skill needed to solve problems. But what about the affective domain, are there affective

learning objectives? Does affective behavior get assessed? Consider how a homeworkassignment is typically assessed:

1. the assignment is reviewed to determine what parts are correct and what parts are not

2. points are either assigned for the correct parts or removed for the wrong parts

3. a final point count is obtained by either adding up the points for correct work or adding

up the points for wrong work and subtracting from the total possible


2/9

4. the final point count is then adjusted for such things as: submitted late (minus 10 points

or even no acceptance), student had a bad day (drop worst homework assignment), the

student did not participate in the class discussion (minus 10 points), etc.

The first three steps involve assessing cognitive issues; the last step involves affective

behavior. Thus faculty do assess affective behavior whether they consciously think about it

or not.

Engineering faculty rarely explicitly state these desired affective behaviors in the context ofcourse expectations. In new courses, where such affective outcomes are often explicitly

described, research has shown that these courses tend to loose their affective objectives

over time [2]. Failure to explicitly consider affective objectives is going to change. New

ABET requirements in the EC2000 accreditation process require that some courses haveexplicitly stated affective objectives that are assessed (e.g., ability to function on a multi-

disciplinary team, recognition of the need for life long learning are required are affective

outcomes required by EC 2000). EC 2000 will force engineering faculty to more clearlydefine the affective behaviors they wish to encourage and to have a method for assessing

these behaviors.

Is the combining of affective and cognitive performance, as outlined above, an appropriate

way to assess student performance? We dont believe it is and we suggest there is a better,more uniformly consistent way to handle both cognitive and affective assessment. This

paper will discuss problems with the current method of handling affective behavior, will

describe a method for assessing one aspect of affective behavior, (i.e., self regulation), andwill conclude by suggesting a way to include affective assessments in a final course grade.

What is Wrong with the Current Affective Assessment?

There are several problems with the traditional point-based assessment processes. First,

changes in affective and cognitive behaviors are not linked [2]. Achieving the desired

change in the cognitive domain does not ensure or guarantee desired changes in theaffective domain. It is even possible to accomplish cognitive objectives at the expense ofaffective objectives. To accomplish affective objectives it is important to have specific

learning experiences related to the affective objective, just as is done for the cognitive

objectives. This de-coupling of these two objectives strongly suggests they be assessedseparately.

A second problem with traditional assessment approaches is that combining affective and

cognitive assessment impairs the cognitive assessment of the work. For example, if work

is not accepted as a consequence of an affective failure (e.g., lateness), it is not possible toassess how well or poorly the student has mastered some cognitive objective. If work is

accepted but points are taken off, the grade does not accurately indicate the cognitive

performance. In either case the student does not really get a complete clear assessment ofeither the cognitive effort or the affective effort.

There are several less important problems with current methods as well. Current methods

are often used with no explicit statement to the students concerning the type of behavior the

course is trying to encourage. The idea of what is acceptable affective behavior may beimplied but not stated. Finally, as is true of many assessment processes that use points, the


3/9

method is rather arbitrary. For example, on what educational basis is ten points the right

number of points to reflect the seriousness of the poor affective behavior?

Assessment of Affective Objectives

The first step in assessment is to define objectives. Affective objectives can range from

very low level commitment (a willingness to receive information) to higher levels wherestudents demonstrate that they value the knowledge and skills they are gaining. We believe

that it is appropriate to choose overall objectives that fall between these two extremes. We

have defined affective behavior objectives related to the willingness of the students torespond (i.e., to do what we ask them to do). We define desired affective behavior under

the title of self-regulation.

what is self-regulation

Self regulation is a term used extensively in the current literature. Zimmerman [3] writes:

Since the founding of the republic, American educational leaders have stressed

the importance of individuals assuming personal responsibility and control for

their own acquisition of knowledge and skill.

He goes on to describe the self regulated student as follows:

They approach educational tasks with confidence, diligence, and

resourcefulness. ... Self-regulated learners are aware when they know a fact orpossess a skill and when they do not. ... Self-regulated students pro-actively seek

out information when needed and take steps to master it. When they encounter

obstacles such as poor study conditions, confusing teachers, or abstruse text

books, they find a way to succeed.

Some characteristics of self regulated learning are:

Self-regulated learners plan, set goals, organize, self-monitor, and self-evaluate atvarious points during the process of acquisition.

Self-regulated learners monitor their strategies and modify as appropriate (i.e., they

utilize self-oriented feedback).

Self-regulated learning involves more than a capability to execute a learning response

by oneself (i.e., self-control) and more than a capability to adjust learning responses to

new or changing conditions from negative feedback. It involves proactive efforts toseek out and profit from learning activities. At this level, learners are not only self-

directed in a metacognitive sense but are self-motivated as well.

establishing affective objectives

Given that we want students to become self-regulated (one part of life long learning, an EC

2000 required outcome), we have defined the following affective objectives for ourfreshman engineering class:

1. students will come to class on time

2. students will submit assignments on time


4/9


5/9

Name: ________________________ Team______________________________

1. Work Evaluated by Assessment Symbol/Color Date

You are to complete only the top line. The grader/instructor will complete this checklist

Yes No Self Regulation Issues (completed by instructor &/or grader)

A. The quiz was submitted on time (if No, instructor initial under No)

B. The ParSCORE form was stapled to the correct quiz checklist

C. The top line of the quiz checklist was completed correctly

D. The ParSCORE form headings were correctly and completely done

E. There were no other Self Regulation Problems (describe if no_________________)

Enter a 1 (one) in the cell to left if any of the items listed above are marked as No

Comments on Self Regulation Faults

Yes No Summary of Quiz Journal Performances

An engineering journal was submitted

If journal submitted, the engineering journal met expectations (see Journal sub-

Checklist)

% Enter the percent of quiz questions correctly answered in the box to the left

Results of Quiz Assessment

E M NI NS SR-

Fault

Each of these definitions uses the term satisfies

Performance requirements. The quiz Performance

requirements are defined in Table 2 of the first day materials

for Concepts (yellow).

E, satisfies Performance requirement for E

M, satisfies Performance requirement for M

NI, satisfies Performance requirement for NI

NS, no quiz submitted

If the quiz was assessed as either NI or NS you may submit, one week after this is

returned, either a Quiz Correction Assignment (for an NI) or A Quiz Make-up

assignment (for an NS). Successful completion of these assignments (i.e., a Meets) will

change your quiz grade to Meets.


6/9

Figure 1 Sample Quiz Checklist Showing how Affective Behavior is Assessed


7/9

relatively late in the course and has more self regulation issues that the ones used early in

the course. The checklist for the first quiz only had item A2.

If any of the items A to D not true, they are marked as No and the student is assessed aSelf-Regulation Fault. The Self Regulation Fault has no affect on the assessment of the

quiz; the quiz can still be assessed as Exceeds expectations. We keep track of the number

of Self Regulation Faults a student accumulates over the semester and how these faults areused in determining a course grade is discussed below.

Advantages Of Separating Cognitive And Affective Assessments

There are a number of pedagogical advantages in separating cognitive and affectiveassessment but they all come back to the main reason for separating them: separation

allows us to work directly and explicitly with the appropriate behavior (cognitive or

affective). If a student is doing high quality cognitive work but is having difficulty gettingthe work done on time, we can now recognize (and "reward") the high quality work and at

the same time keep track of self regulation problems. We can then, for example, discuss

with the student strategies that might help them get their work done on time.

Course Grade Determination

If we separate affective and cognitive assessment for each assignment how are these two

assessments eventually re-combined? The combination method we use assumes thatnobody is free of self regulation faults, e.g., everyone will miss a deadline at some time or

other. We expect all students to get some self regulation faults during the semester. While

everyone will probably accrue a few faults we feel that an A student would not miss toomany deadlines or not complete the quiz heading correctly too many times. Further, a

student who eventually gets all work done technically correctly but has to resubmit the

work many times to get the work right is probably not a B student.

an algorithm for combining affective and cognitive assessments

We have incorporated these ideas into the following process for determining a coursegrade.

1. Determining A Course Cognitive Grade.

The first step is to determine the cognitive course grade. This is done as you would

normally determine grades (add up points, count number of exceeds expectations, etc.)

2. Determine the Affective Course Grade.

The second step is to add up all the Self Regulation Faults that the student has

accumulated over the course of the semester.

3. Determine the Course GradeThe third step combines the affective and cognitive assessments using a mapping

similar to that shown in Table 1.

2 The changing of the checklist over the course of the semester is an example of the progressive nature of

the checklists used in a course.


8/9

Self-Regulation Assessment (number of SR-Faults)

0 3 4 5 6 8 >8

CognitiveAsse

ssment

A A B C D

B B B C DC C C C D

D D D D D

E E E E E

Table 1 Mapping Table Used to Combine Cognitive and Affective Assessment into a

Single Course Grade

The mapping shown in Table 1 is similar to one used in the first year class. Items of

interest about the mapping are:

1. As long as the number of Self-regulation Faults does not exceed three, the Course gradematches the Cognitive Course grade (see first column).

2. A student who accumulates more than three faults cannot get an A in the course, no

matter how outstanding their technical performance.

3. There is no way self regulation can cause a student to fail the course (see last column in

Table 1). The only way to fail a course is to fail it because of cognitive problems.

some experiences in using the system.

We introduced this system in our classes with some trepidation. After all we did not really

know what a reasonable number of faults might be to distinguish the A, B, C, and D

student. We were worried that if we set the number of free faults (the ones that do notnegatively impact your grade) too high we would not encourage the type of behavior we

wanted. If we set the number of free faults to low we would be putting too much

emphasis on the affective behavior.

The number of faults used in Table 1 to distinguish between the various grades, depends ona number of issues. The total number of assignments must be taken into account; the larger

the number of assignments the higher the free faults should be. Also important is how

far from traditional learning environments the class has moved. In classes that use active

learning and new assessment methods (e.g., checklist) there will be self regulation issuesrelated to becoming familiar and comfortable with the changes in the learning environment.

We have used this method in the first year course a third year design, and in a materialscourse. Out of over 400 grades determined there have only been a handful (on the order of

15) of course grades that did not match the cognitive assessment. In other words, a smallfraction of students accumulate many self regulation faults, but those students are the B and

C students, cognitively.


9/9

Summary

This paper showed that all faculty assess affective behavior is some fashion. Research

strongly suggests that affective and cognitive behavior are not closely coupled and shouldbe defined and assessed separately. A method of assessing affective objectives using self

regulation was presented. The paper ended with a process for combing the affective

assessments and cognitive assessments at the end of the semester into a final course grade.

References

[1.]Bloom, B.S., editor, Taxonomy of Educational ObjectivesBook 1 Cognitive Domain,

ISBN: 0-582-280109-9, Longman, 1984.

[2.]Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., and Masia, B.B., Taxonomy of Educational ObjectivesBook 2 Affective Domain, ISBN: 0-582-28239-X, Longman, 1964.

[3.]Zimmerman, B.J., Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: An

Overview,Educational Psychologist, 25, 1990, (1), pp. 3-17

[4.]McNeill, B., Bellamy, L, Burrows, V. A Quality Based Assessment Process ForStudent Work Products, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 88, No.4, October

1999, pp. 485-500.

Documents

Affective Assessment v5.0