top of page


Values as a part of human behavior are manifested in three dimensions: (a) awareness or value concept (b) feelings and attitudes and (c) characterization and action. Therefore, values may be measured in these dimensions depending on the objective of the lesson.



Values as a part of human behavior are manifested in three dimensions: (a) awareness or value concept (b) feelings and attitudes and (c) characterization and action. Therefore, values may be measured in these dimensions depending on the objective of the lesson.

In the awareness level, the learner’s concept of a value is ascertained. For instance, based on his own thinking, beliefs or decisions, he can define or describe .


Person who is socially responsible.

His feelings or attitudes may be assessed as regards the importance of the values of social responsibility, of how he feels about his stance and how he expresses these feelings or interests in helping others. Finally, assessment can be done in terms of how he acts upon his decisions, beliefs and feelings, in other words, how the individual puts this value of social responsibility into practice in his daily life.


Ideally, teachers would want to evaluate all the three levels. The first two levels are easier to evaluate. However, very seldom, if at all, do the learners manifest the value in the action level after a day’s or even a week’s lesson. Nevertheless, the teacher can identify potential triggers for action. This phase poses the biggest challenge for the teacher to seek alternative strategies for evaluating these potentials/initial actions that may eventually become a part of the learner’s value system.

It is important for the classroom teacher to note congruencies or incongruence of results from the three levels of evaluation. Incongruence may be studied to help value-confused students. Results such as these could be very rich resource for further value clarification and direction for the students concerned.



It seems incorrect to label affective domain as non-cognitive because affective states have cognitive bases. Interests, attitudes, and feelings are very much based on cognitive variables. However, for distinction purposes, the term non-cognitive will be used here to refer to affective dimension..


Measurements for cognitive and non-cognitive are significantly distinct in that cognitive measures have correct and wrong answer keys whereas non-cognitive measures have no right or wrong answers. The absence of arbitrary answers forces non-cognitive assessment to formulate inferences based on the consistency rather than on the correctness of responses.


Major strategies are presented here for non-cognitive assessment:


A. Self-Report Strategy.

In self-report instruments, respondents are often directed that there are no right or wrong answers but only responses that best describe their honest feelings or responses about the items. However, this strategy may not assure us of reliable responses because of the subjects’ tendency toward impression management and faking, desirability-responding to response sets, or resorting to defense mechanisms.


In spite of this, self-report is the most common strategy for assessing affective states. The respondent may be asked to give information about himself orally or in written form through the data gathering tools listed below. A more detailed description of these instruments may be found in the book of Sevilla, et. Al. (1984).

  1. Rating Scales

  2. Questionnaires

  3. Opinionnaires

  4. Checklists/Inventories

  5. Completion Tests

  6. Multiple Choice

  7. Semantic Differential

  8. Likert Scales

  9. Interview Guides/Schedule

  10. Team Interviews


B. Performance or Situational Tests. 

This strategy essentially places the student, by simulation, in a situation closely resembling a real –life situation. Performance or responses are evaluated primarily in terms of standards of goodness, consistency, appropriateness or desirability to a larger group or in terms of levels of moral development as in Kohlberg’s stages of moral development.

Ideally, the examinee is placed in a simulated situation. For instance, the subject may be asked to respond to a negative feedback through a feedback sender and an observer. His reactions may be recorded and classified according to the criteria set for the test objective.


However, the more commonly used strategy of this type is a set of written situational items simulating life-experiences of the students. The options may be presented which are basically leveled according to the value criteria. Other examples are moral dilemmas and critical incident techniques.


C. Projective Technique. 

The main distinguishing feature of this technique is its relatively unstructured task allowing an almost unlimited variety of possible responses. The test stimuli are usually vague or ambiguous. The underlying hypothesis is that the way in which the individual perceives and interprets test material, or "structures" the situation, will reflect fundamental aspects of his values. The test materials serve as a screen on which the respondent "projects" thoughts, feelings and intentions which may reflect the kind of values he has (Anastasi, 1982).  Examples of this technique commonly used in Values Education are the thematic technique or pictorial technique, comic strips, and sentence completion.


D. Observation and Reporting Other Significant Matters. 

In very simple terms, observation is the process whereby the observer watches a subject or pupil to evaluate his feelings, beliefs or behavior.  


Observations can be made either freely or in a structured manner.


Unstructured observation is flexible and open. It is an open situation where the observer examines events pertinent to his purpose. Although there are no objective observation guides used, it is assumed that the researcher has planned what specific affective behavior will be observed.


Structured observations make use of objective observation guides. This tool limits the subject’s responses to what is only relevant to the evaluator’s purpose and are thus recorded. Unnecessary details are avoided to focus more on relevant data needed for evaluation.

Reference: Approaches and Strategies for Values Education



Rebecca D. Alcantara

Dr. Camila C. Gonzales
Dr. Twila G. Punsalan

Susan S. dela Rosa,
Dr. Juliet A. Gregorio

Dr. Jose Rizal G. Sanchez

bottom of page