October’s issue arriving in late November results because I’m behind. Mea culpa! The November and December issues will follow quickly. I’ve never had a semester when I’ve been so incessantly in transit. Although rewarding, this term’s “scholarly activity” in both geology and in faculty development should last me a few years. Since I returned Wednesday at 1:00 a.m., I am overjoyed NOT to have to catch an airplane or be anywhere outside of Pocatello!

This issue is longer and spills on to the back page. Such is a once-a-decade event in Nutshell Notes! With ISU’s unusual disruptions through leadership changes this term, it is fair to admit that we have had more than the usual semesters’ stress. Thus, it’s a good time for a “Nutshell” to address affective influence on our work. For this, I drew upon two articles published in National Teaching and Learning Forum (v. 14, n. 1, pp. 9-11 and v. 14, n. 5, pp. 7-11). ISU folks can access both from an on-campus computer at http://www.ntlf.com/ (click on Subscribers and then on NTLF Restricted to find the back issues. If you are reading this from a computer located outside the ISU campus, you can't get into the NTLF archives.) All references cited in this Nutshell are available there.

As academics, we’re comfortable with cognitive growth and purposeful, rational acquisition of knowledge. We are less experienced in dealing outside the cognitive realm. “Bloom’s Taxonomy,” described in Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1: Cognitive Domain —see Table 1) holds obvious appeal to us. Since publication in 1956, it has become one of the most cited and influential of all educational works. Fewer professors are aware of a second volume, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook II -Affective Domain also produced by Bloom in conjunction with colleagues that same year. The latter is now known as “Krathwohl’s Taxonomy” (Table 2). In comparison to Book I, the second book is so rarely cited that application of the affective domain appears to suffer arrested development.

Despite some claims that we should separate the cognitive from the affective, our brains’ complex neural networks communicate so effectively with each other that there is no cognitive learning or function unaccompanied by some aspect of the affective/emotional domain. We may speak of “objective tests” but terms like “test anxiety” arise for reasons. A student becomes a major in our discipline or signs up for our class often because of affective influence rather than through a purely cognitive decision. If our neural networks carry harmful affective qualities of low self-confidence, tension, fear, impatience, or wishing one was elsewhere, this will taint our performance, even though our cognitive components such as content competency and pedagogical practices are quite strong. What we feel is communicated nonverbally, and that feeling will be quickly transmitted to classroom participants.

Table 1. Bloom’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain (derived from Bloom, 1956.) For a particularly exquisite rendition of this taxonomy, see http://www.stedwards.edu/cte/resources/bwheel.htm)

Research on thinking models, whose upper stages contain the attributes of what we loosely call “critical thinking,” confirms affective influences on cognitive development. Perry’s (1999) choice of title for his volume on stages of thinking: Forms of Ethical and Intellectual Development… indicates recognition of both affective and cognitive components. Use of “committed” to describe the higher levels of Krathwohl’s taxonomy and “commitment” as the word chosen by Perry (1999) to describe his upper stages reveals overlap. No less do the choices of “value” by Krathwohl corresponding to “value” used to describe the upper levels of the Reflective Judgment model (King and Kitchener, 1994).

Table 2. Taxonomy of the Affective Domain. This is often called Krathwohl’s Taxonomy (derived from Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia, 1956. See also the web sites at http://classweb.gmu.edu/ndabbagh/Resources/IDKB/krathstax.htm and http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/index.html).

The presentations in Tables 1 and 2 reveal Krathwohl’s affective taxonomy presents a parallel model of an affective domain’s rational development along with conscious development of the cognitive domain. Nothing in Krathwohl’s taxonomy attributes educational importance to an affective domain unbridled by reason, but the latter exists and influences our efforts. Edward De Bono’s “Six Thinking Hats” model (De Bono, 1985) elegantly captures this irrational affective domain. De Bono uses six colors of hats (white, black, yellow, red, green and blue) to focus upon different kinds of thinking. In exercises, six participants each wear a hat of a particular color while confronting an open-ended problem. Each must focus thought based only upon the thinking role defined by the hat. Roles include the purely cognitive role of stating the facts (white hat), and expressing negative/positive emotion that must be justified by good use of evidence (black hat/yellow hat). The red hat role manifests raw emotion that need not be justified by evidence or even be connected with reason. The blue hat plays the controlling role of keeping these hats on task, with the idea of harnessing the contributions of all to yield insights of creativity (green hat). In the role-play, all players assume all roles by passing hats clockwise until each individual has worn all six hats. The total thinking encompassed by all the six hats is equivalent to the high levels of thinking in established models such as Perry’s. De Bono’s “red hat thinking” recognizes an affective domain expressing itself intuitively and instantly through gut feeling, without benefit of either the cognitive domain’s experiential learning or consideration of evidence. De Bono respects the surprising power of the affective domain to influence what one might presume should be cognitive evaluative decisions. To begin to use the affective domain in teaching, we also need to recognize it as legitimate, powerful, and useful.

Both students’ and teachers’ affective domains can create detrimental red-hat kinds of messages, especially when stress exists in the workplace. If placed into words, examples may be: “I have a really bad feeling about this;” “I’d rather be doing something else;” “I’m feeling fearful, blue, nervous, etc.” Telling ourselves that “the students don’t want to learn;” that “they are not college material,” or that “I simply was not born a good teacher” is self-destructive beyond most instructors’ imaginations. An affective component that repeatedly paints self, students, or one’s institution black is surely a detriment. Unless we respect the power of negative affective aspects to harm our own neural networks, we may find it harder and harder each day to get into class and enjoy being there with students. On the other hand, purposeful development of enthusiasm, love of subject and/or students, and positive commitment will eventually yield massive neural networks that radiate these qualities in the classroom.

Ways to deal with negative tendencies of the irrational affective domain are probably through some actions that might not seem rational from the cognitive perspective. Seeing humor of difficult situations is one good antidote. Gaining renewal by retreating to a positive environment is sometimes necessary. Be sensitive to the brief moments in your classroom when you sense/feel particular joy or satisfaction at being there. Learn to hang on to these moments. There is strength to be gained. When you can call on such feelings, your students will sense that you do want to be with them, even when difficult moments occur.

Breaks are beneficial when you see a class starting to de-focus. De-focus won’t likely happen if you break up lecture with varied active learning exercises. If you’ve failed to do this, getting students up for a fifteen second stretch will surely improve an attitude that will otherwise go further into decay if you just power through the period without really seeing the students.

I am no advocate for playing music during class. As an irreverent skeptic who tried both “Superlearning” and “Mozart Effect,” I view such approaches as “academic snake oil.” But now, the true confession— there is always music playing in my classroom before the start of class! It’s hard to feel nervous or scared about a science class when the room one enters is filled with beautiful music. As students enter the class, always there is an overhead posted on the screen with the class plan for the day with any assignments, and often a crossword puzzle on their desks emphasizing the terms in the readings or last class session that students can work on as the classroom fills. This conveys we are working to learn, but the message coming with music is a deliberate action to capture both affective and cognitive aspects at the outset of class.

I also do this for me. Whenever possible, I like to get into the classroom at least twenty minutes or more before class, enjoy the music as I arrange the room while my mind leaves the outside world behind and enters the same enjoyable space prepared for my students. It certainly FEELS better than rushing into class at last minute and keeps me from bringing any harried feeling before the affective perceptions of students. The affective provides useful energy. Harness it!