Correlation between Categories in the Cognitive and Affective Domain

Korelasi di antara Kategori-Kategori dalam Domain Kognitif dan Afektif

Authors

  • Dwi Ariefin Sekolah Tinggi Teologi Baptis Indonesia

Keywords:

Affective Domain, Cognitive Domain, Domains Corelation, Learning Objectives, Taxonomy Bloom

Abstract

The Cognitive Domain has a categorization from remembering to creating, while the Affective domain from receiving to characterization. Clarity of correlations within and between domains is very necessary for setting learning objectives. This study aims to produce a description that clarifies the correlations within and between domains. This descriptive qualitative research examines information in relevant books and journal articles. Findings were also compared and synthesized with field findings. There are three kinds of correlation. In the LOTS group Cognitive domain learning category and in all Affective domain categories there is a prerequisite graded correlation. Meanwhile, in the HOTS category for the Cognitive domain, there is a multi-order correlation. Two-way support correlations occur in categories in the Cognitive domain with categories in the Affective domain. Categories with higher complexity will include lower levels of complexity. The descriptive findings are useful for the preparation of learning objectives.

References

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, abridged edition. White Plains, NY: Longman, 5(1).

Ariefin, D. (2021). The Bible’s Encouragement to Be Active Implementing Learning Planning. KAPATA: Jurnal Teologi Dan Pendidikan Kristen, 2(1), 1–12.

Ariefin, D., & Prihatiningsih, U. (2021). Descriptive Portrait of Teenagers’ Interest in Bible Reading. GRAFTA: Journal of Christian Religion Education and Biblical Studies, 1(1), 12–20.

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the classification of educational goals- Cognitive Domain. In University of Queensland, Teaching and Educational Development Institute.

Darmalaksana, W. (2020). Metode Penelitian Kualitatif Studi Pustaka dan Studi Lapangan. Pre-Print Digital Library UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung.

Fatmawati, S. (2013). Perumusan tujuan pembelajaran dan soal kognitif berorientasi pada revisi taksonomi bloom dalam pembelajaran fisika. Edu Sains: Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Dan Matematika, 1(2).

Frank E. Williams. (1972). Models for Encouraging Creativity in the Classroom by Integrating Cognitive-Affective Behaviors. In Miriam B. Kapfer (Ed.), Behavioral Objectives in Curriculum Development (pp. 83–95). Educational Technology Publication, Englewood Cliffs Inc.

Hall, R. H., & O’Donnell, A. (1996). Cognitive and affective outcomes of learning from knowledge maps. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 94–101.

Hurst, B. M. (1980). An integrated approach to the hierarchical order of the cognitive and affective domains. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(3), 293.

Jackie Greatorex, J., & Ireland, V. C. (2019). Two taxonomies are better than one: towards a method of analysing a variety of domains and types of thinking in an assessment. E-Journal of the British Education Studies Association, 10 (1). https://educationstudies.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/BESA-Journal-EF-10-2-1-greatorex.pdf

Khidzir, N. Z., Daud, K. A. M., & Ibrahim, M. A. H. (2016). The relationship among student’s domain of learning development implementing virtual learning in higher learning institutions. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(6), 418.

Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals; Handbook II: Affective domain. David McKay Company, Incorporated.

Labouvie-Vief, G., & Diehl, M. (2000). Cognitive complexity and cognitive-affective integration: Related or separate domains of adult development? Psychology and Aging, 15(3), 490.

Martin, B. L., & Briggs, L. J. (1986). The affective and cognitive domains: Integration for instruction and research. Educational Technology.

Masinambow, Y., & Nasrani, Y. (2021). Pendidikan Kristiani sebagai Sarana Pembentukan Spiritualitas Generasi Milenial: Christian Education as a Tool for Spiritual Formation in the Millennial Generation. PASCA: Jurnal Teologi Dan Pendidikan Agama Kristen, 17(1), 64–81.

Muth’im, A., Jumariati, J., Al Arief, Y., & Jannah, N. (2021). Pelatihan Perumusan Tujuan Pembelajaran dan Indikator Pencapaian Kompetensi bagi Guru-Guru Bahasa Inggris di Kabupaten Banjar. Bubungan Tinggi: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat, 3(2), 120–129.

Nayef, E. G., Yaacob, N. R. N., & Ismail, H. N. (2013). Taxonomies of educational objective domain. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3(9), 165.

O’Neill, G., & Murphy, F. (2010). Guide to taxonomies of learning.

Octaviani, R. (2018). Strategi Guru dalam Merumuskan Tujuan Pembelajaran Mata Pelajaran PKN dalam RPP SMK Binawiyata Sragen. Prosiding Seminar Nasional PPKn, 1–10.

Pogrow, S. (1987). Developing higher order thinking skills; the HOTS Program. Computing Teacher, 15(1), 11–15.

Pogrow, S. (2005). HOTS revisited: A thinking development approach to reducing the learning gap after grade 3. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(1), 64–75.

Putri, A. S. (2020). Tips dan Trik Pemilihan Dan Penyusunan Literatur Review. In Sonny Eli Zaluchu (Ed.), Strategi Menulis Jurnal Untuk Ilmu Teologi (pp. 43–64). Golden Gate Publishing.

Qasrawi, R., & BeniAbdelrahman, A. (2020). The Higher and Lower-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS and LOTS) in Unlock English Textbooks (1st and 2nd Editions) Based on Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Analysis Study. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 7(3), 744–758.

Sanjaya, W. (2010). Perencanaan dan desain sistem pembelajaran. Kencana.

Seddon, G. M. (2020). The Properties of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives for the Cognitive Domain.

Simpson, E. (1971). Educational objectives in the psychomotor domain. Behavioral Objectives in Curriculum Development: Selected Readings and Bibliography, 60(2), 1–35.

Siswanto, B. T. (n.d.). PERUMUSAN TUJUAN PEMBELAJARAN.

Sönmez, V. (2017). Association of Cognitive, Affective, Psychomotor and Intuitive Domains in Education, Sönmez Model. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(3), 347–356.

Thompson, T. L., & Mintzes, J. J. (2002). Cognitive structure and the affective domain: On knowing and feeling in biology. International Journal of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110110115

Tyas, E. H., & Naibaho, L. (2021). HOTS Learning Model Improves the Quality of Education. International Journal of Research-GRANTHAALAYAH, 9(1), 176–182.

Widodo, A. (2005). Taksonomi Tujuan Pembelajaran. Didaktis, 4(2), 61–69.

Zaluchu, S. E. (2020). Strategi Penelitian Kualitatif dan Kuantitatif Di Dalam Penelitian Agama. Evangelikal: Jurnal Teologi Injili Dan Pembinaan Warga Jemaat, 4(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.46445/ejti.v4i1.167

Downloads

Published

2022-07-29

How to Cite

Ariefin, D. (2022). Correlation between Categories in the Cognitive and Affective Domain: Korelasi di antara Kategori-Kategori dalam Domain Kognitif dan Afektif. GRAFTA: Journal of Christian Religion Education and Biblical Studies, 2(1), 1–12. Retrieved from http://grafta.stbi.ac.id/index.php/GRAFTA/article/view/22