Paper Authors

Abstract

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract

Session 2548

The Need to Establish An Affective Domain Assessment Strategy for Your Program

Willard D. Bostwick Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis

Abstract

Several proposed ABET engineering technology criteria have roots in the affective as well as cognitive domain. If these outcomes are assessed wholly as mental activities, measures will be sought which determine the student’s ability to recall, comprehend, apply, synthesize, and evaluate appropriate skills. It is possible to do all of these things without demonstrating that a graduate will either incorporate or accept this knowledge or application of principles as a guide to everyday professional practice or personal conduct.

An assessment practice based upon affective domain criteria would examine the student’s state of mind resulting from one or more directed learning experiences as a result of the technology curriculum. Using the same proposed outcomes, measures are needed to detect how successfully the student receives, values, organizes and integrates curricular content into his or her own life style. Unless one can determine if the student’s ability to successfully perform these outcomes when appropriate has been integrated into practice or conduct and it is evidenced in day-to-day behavior, the result has not been effectively measured.

This paper introduces the differences between cognitive assessment taxonomy and affective assessment taxonomy, distinctions between an assessment system and an assessment strategy, and identifies various approaches that can be employed to incorporate affective domain assessment into the overall engineering technology assessment plan. Unless this is done, a partial and less than comprehensive assessment program will result.

I. Introduction

Perhaps an appropriate place to start is at the end rather than at the beginning. This is because most believe they can recognize where assessment started, e.g., ABET, but unless they are clairvoyant few understand the conclusion. ABET has defined the end game to be evidence that assessment results are applied for program improvement and development.1 How this is accomplished should be the result of deliberate strategy, not the incidental result of an assessment program or system.

Engineering Criteria 2000, the new engineering program evaluative criteria, spawned a dramatic increase in the scholarship of assessment. There have been a large number of confer- ence papers about engineering assessment. Discussions specific to engineering technology assessment are less common. Most assessment presentations, however, in either engineering or engineering technology focus on who did (or is going to do) it, methodological issues or conduct of surveys, and particular issues about what can be measured and why. Few actually broach the issue of an assessment strategy.

• Citation

• Format
  • APA
  • APA - LaTeX bibitem
  • MLA
  • MLA - LaTeX bibitem
  • Bibtex
  • EndNote - RIS

Bostwick, W. D. (2000, June), The Need To Establish An Affective Domain Assessment Strategy For Your Program Paper presented at 2000 Annual Conference, St. Louis, Missouri. 10.18260/1-2--8586