The affective learning domain has always been, in my opinion, not only the murkiest but also the most controversial part of Bloom's taxonomy. The list presented in this article does little to quell my suspicions: what is "workforce alignment", for example? And when "national security" becomes an aspect of learning, how is that different from propaganda? And when "affective-based personality assessments are being used routinely in pre-candidate screening," it seems to me that this means something more than "the right personality for the right job." Affective learning is, in the wrong hands, little more than indoctrination - and yet, and yet, we don't want people to leave learning with no social, cultural or ethical bearing. I think that the author's point, that new technologies are making affective learning possible, is well established. This is a good thing. But as with most good things, it is very much a double edged sword, and the author should be aware that not everybody wants some of the things described in this article, and when online learning, personality testing and military intelligence gathering appear in the same article, the time has come to sound a very clear and distinct warning about the manner in which this new technology is being applied.
Today: 0 Total: 4 [Direct link] [Share]
