Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
A Conceptual Work to Qualitatively Illustrate the Potential of Holistic Thinking Approaches as Effective Tools,for the Teacher Delivering/Analyzing Affective Domain Attributes
Delivering and assessing affective domain attributes is relatively more challenging as compared to the cognitive and psychomotor domains. In this regard, employing holistic approaches can aid the teacher by providing an enhanced comprehension of the students’ state, as well as the affective process involved. To this end, the current conceptual article illustrates the use of the Iceberg model of Systems Thinking and the Process-Person-Context-Time (PPCT) model of Bronfenbrenner's Bio-ecological theory; the efficacy of both instruments is established via appropriate arguments. The mental model layer of the Iceberg framework enables a teacher to directly discern the affective values involved in a scenario, likewise, the PPCT model allows to observe the transparency of the mechanism being used to deliver/assess an affective attribute. Thus a duo of potent tools is added in the toolbox of an affective domain teacher, who may proceed with a clearer vision and enhanced confidence.
ArmeniaS.TsaplesG.FrancoE. (2022). A systems thinking archetype to understand, analyze, and evaluate the evolution of international political crises. Systems, 10(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems10010018.
2.
BronfenbrennerU.MorrisP. A. (2006). The Bioecological Model of Human Development. In LernerR. M.DamonW. (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Theoretical Models of Human Development (pp. 793–828). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
3.
CameliaF.FerrisT. L. J.CropleyD. H. (2018). Development and initial validation of an instrument to measure students’ learning about systems thinking: The affective domain. IEEE Systems Journal, 12(1), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2015.2488022
4.
ChisholmM. A.CobbH.DukeL.McDuffieC.KennedyW. K. (2006). Development of an instrument to measure professionalism. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 70(4), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.5688/aj700485
5.
Dávila-AcedoM. A.Airado-RodríguezD.Cañada-CañadaF.Sánchez-MartínJ. (2021). Detailed emotional profile of secondary education students toward learning physics and chemistry. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.659009.
6.
El ZaatariW.MaaloufI. (2022). How the Bronfenbrenner Bio-ecological System Theory Explains the Development of Students’ Sense of Belonging to School. SAGE Open, 12(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221134089
7.
EvbuomaE. I.HuM.FarrellA.LiemW.BallardE. (2021). Systems Thinking Iceberg: Diving Beneath the Surface in Education Systems. In Methods Brief Series 1.01: Systems Thinking Foundations (pp. 1–4). Social System Design Lab.
8.
FisherD.AssociationS. T. (2023). Systems thinking activities used in K-12 for up to two decades. Frontiers in Education. 8, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1059733
9.
Goncalves CostaA.NielsenT.ChristleyR.HazelS. (2023). Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory applied to puppy development: A new approach to understanding and researching puppy raising. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 61, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2022.12.007
10.
Hernández-BarcoM.Cañada-CañadaF.Corbacho-CuelloI.Sánchez-MartínJ. (2021). An exploratory study interrelating emotion, self-efficacy and multiple intelligence of prospective science teachers. Frontiers in Education, 6, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.604791
11.
JeongJ. S.González-GómezD. (2021). A STEM course analysis during COVID-19: A comparison study in performance and affective domain of PSTs between F2F and F2S flipped classroom. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.669855.
12.
KuoY.-K.BatoolS.deviS.TahirT.YuJ. (2024). Exploring the impact of emotionalized learning experiences on the affective domain: A comprehensive analysis. Heliyon, 10(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23263
13.
Marcos-SánchezR.FerrándezD.MorónC. (2022). Systems thinking for sustainability education in building and business administration and management degrees. Sustainability, 14(19), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141911812
O’BrienB. C.HarrisI. B.BeckmanT. J.ReedD. A.CookD. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine. 89(9), 1245–1251. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388
16.
O’HalloranT.SymondsJ.BhreathnachL. L.SloanS.DevineD.Martinez SainzG.DaviesA. (2023). How school-based wellbeing interventions, socioeconomic status, and gender impact anxiety development in middle childhood. Education Sciences, 13(10),1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13100994
17.
PayneC. A. (2022). Fundamentals of systems thinking. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice, 38(2), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvfa.2022.02.001
18.
PishghadamR.EbrahimiS.Rajabi EsterabadiA.ParsaeA. (2023). Emotions and success in education: From apathy to transpathy. Journal of Cognition, Emotion & Education, 1(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.22034/cee.2023.172495
19.
Prada NúñezR.Rabelo ProcopioM. V.Fernández-CézarR.Solano-PintoN. (2024). Affective domain and mathematics achievement of Colombian students under multiple correspondence analysis. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1261829
20.
SetiawanA.MardapiD.SupriyokoAndrianD. (2019). The development of instrument for assessing Students’ affective domain using self- and peer-Assessment models. International Journal of Instruction, 12(3), 425–438. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12326a
21.
ShirzadehF.JajarmiH. (2023). Teachers’ stroking behavior in anxiety, willingness to communicate, and achievement. Journal of Cognition, Emotion & Education, 1(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.22034/cee.2023.172167
22.
SmitS.PrestonL.HayJ. (2020). The development of education for learners with diverse learning needs in the South African context: A bio-ecological systems analysis. African Journal of Disability, 9, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajod.v9i0.670.
23.
TelukdarieA.KatsumbeT.MahureH.MurulaneK. (2024). Exploring the green economy – A systems thinking modelling approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 436, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.140611
24.
TongP.AnI. S. (2024). Review of studies applying Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory in international and intercultural education research. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1233925
25.
TudgeJ. R. H.MokrovaI.HatfieldB. E.KarnikR. B. (2009). Uses and misuses of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 1(4), 198–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2009.00026.x
26.
VeigaG. R. S.da SilvaG. A. P.PadilhaB. M.de Carvalho LimaM. (2023). Determining factors of child linear growth from the viewpoint of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory. Jornal de Pediatria, 99(3), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2022.10.009
27.
WesselsI.RueßJ.JenßenL.GessC.DeickeW. (2018). Beyond cognition: Experts’ views on affective-motivational research dispositions in the social sciences. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01300
28.
ZachS.RosenblumH. (2021). The affective domain—A program to foster social-emotional orientation in novice physical education teachers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(14), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147434.
29.
ZhangY.LeungS. K. Y.LiH. (2021). Parental play beliefs in the developing areas of china: A multiple case study. Education Sciences, 11(10), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100625.
