This study explores engineering students’ perceptions of their learning experiences across the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains, as defined by Bloom’s Taxonomy. Despite extensive research on the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains of learning, there remains a gap in understanding how engineering students perceive their abilities within these learning frameworks, particularly in relation to teaching methodologies. The research aims to address the following questions: How do engineering students perceive their learning in the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains? A survey instrument was developed, consisting of 18 items across the three learning domains. The survey was administered to engineering students who had experience as teaching assistants, and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to examine the factor structure of the instrument. Data were collected from 115 participants after cleaning. Skewness and kurtosis checks confirmed the assumption of normality, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity, along with the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test, confirmed the appropriateness of factor analysis. Three distinct factors emerged from the EFA: the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha, with values ranging from 0.63 to 0.73, indicating good reliability. The findings suggest that students report higher confidence in applying knowledge in new situations, receiving knowledge, and valuing their own learning outcomes. This study contributes to the field by providing a deeper understanding of how students perceive their learning across different domains, paving the way for more targeted and effective educational strategies in engineering programs.

1. Abbasi, M., Shirazi, M., Torkmandi, H., Homayoon, S., & Abdi, M. (2023). Impact of teaching, learning, and assessment of medical law on cognitive, affective and psychomotor skills of medical students: a systematic review. BMC Medical Education, 23(1), 703. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04695-2

2. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.

3. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals, handbook I: cognitive domain. Longman.

4. Borrego, M., & Henderson, C. (2014). Increasing the use of evidence-based teaching in STEM higher education: a comparison of eight change strategies. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 220-252. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20040

5. Borrego, M., Foster, M. J., & Froyd, J. E. (2014). Systematic literature reviews in engineering education and other developing interdisciplinary fields. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(1), 45-76. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20038

6. Burk, N., & Pearson, A. (2022). Encouraging student sense of belonging through instructor face support. Journal of Communication Pedagogy, 6, 214-230. https://doi.org/10.31446/jcp.2022.1.16

7. Coffman, A., & Kittur, J. (2024a). Cognitive domain of learning: exploring undergraduate engineering students’ understanding and perceptions. In 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2-47705

8. Coffman, A. L., & Kittur, J. (2024b). Engineering students’ perceptions of psychomotor domain of learning: a qualitative investigation. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE) (pp. 1-8). https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE62452.2024.10834385

9. Coffman, A. L., & Kittur, J. (2024c). Investigating Undergraduate Engineering Students’ Understanding and Perceptions of Affective Domain of Learning. In 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2-47705

10. Fitriani, S. S., Yusuf, Y. Q., & Zumara, A. (2021). The use of cognitive domain in questions: the perception of students and lecturers of public universities in Aceh. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(1), 122-138. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.903359

11. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410-8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111

12. Gottipati, S., & Shankararaman, V. (2018). Competency analytics tool: analyzing curriculum using course competencies. Education and Information Technologies, 23(1), 41-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9584-3

13. Greene, M. L., Coley, B. C., & Maitra, D. (2025). Academic makerspaces in context: an exploratory study of the experiences of black men. Studies in Engineering Education, 6(1), 48-69. https://doi.org/10.21061/see.95

14. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (7^th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.

15. Hoque, M. E. (2016). Three domains of learning: Cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. The Journal of EFL Education and Research, 2(2), 45-52.

16. Hussain, W., & Mak, F. K., & Addas, M. F. (2016). Engineering Program Evaluations Based on Automated Measurement of Performance Indicators Data Classified into Cognitive, Affective, and Psychomotor Learning Domains of the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. In 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.27299

17. Lozzi, L. A. (1989). What research says to the educator. The Journal of Environmental Education, 20(4), 6-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1989.9943033

18. Ken, H. (2008). Teaching within all three domains to maximize student learning. Strategies, 21(6), 9-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/08924562.2008.10590794

19. Kittur, J. (2023). Conducting quantitative research study: a step-by-step process. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 36(4), 100-112. https://doi.org/10.16920/jeet/2023/v36i4/23120

20. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

21. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1973). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective domain. David McKay.

22. Lavado-Anguera, S., Velasco-Quintana, P. J., & Terrón-López, M. J. (2024). Project-based learning (PBL) as an experiential pedagogical methodology in engineering education: a review of the literature. Education Sciences, 14(6), 617. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060617

23. McCoach, D. B., Gable, R. K., & Madura, J. P. (2013). Instrument development in the affective domain: School and corporate applications. Springer.

24. McNett, S. (2012). Teaching nursing psychomotor skills in a fundamentals laboratory: a literature review. Nursing Education Perspectives, 33(5), 328-333. https://doi.org/10.5480/1536-5026-33.5.328

25. Nanda, A. D., Hasan, R., Sukri, A., Lukitasari, M., & Rivera, A. T. (2023). Reinforcement analyze and evaluate of higher-order thinking skills using problem-based learning in ecosystem material. Journal of Biological Education Indonesia, 9(3), 492-499. https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v9i3.28604

26. Nicholls, D., Sweet, L., Muller, A., & Hyett, J. (2016). Teaching psychomotor skills in the twenty-first century: revisiting and reviewing instructional approaches through the lens of contemporary literature. Medical Teacher, 38(10), 1056-1063. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2016.1150984

27. Mathias, B. (2023, May 22). The assessment of students’ creative and critical thinking skills through project-based approaches. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved Jul. 7, 2025, from https://one.oecd.org/document/EDU/WKP(2023)8/en/pdf

28. Olatunji, M. (2014). The affective domain of assessment in colleges and universities: issues and implications. International Journal of Progressive Education, 10(1), 101-116.

29. Seltman, H. J. (2013). Experimental design and analysis. Carnegie Mellon University. Retrieved Jul. 7, 2025, from http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~hseltman/309/Book/

30. Shen, S., Tang, T., Pu, L., Mao, Y., Wang, Z., & Wang, S. (2024). Teacher emotional support facilitates academic engagement through positive academic emotions and mastery-approach goals among college students. Sage Open, 14(2), 21582440241245369. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241245369

31. Sullivan, J., Pett, M., & Lackey, N. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis: the use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Sage Publications.

32. Tursynkulova, E., Madiyarov, N., Sultanbek, T., & Duysebayeva, P. (2023). The effect of problem-based learning on cognitive skills in solving geometric construction problems: a case study in Kazakhstan. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1284305. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1284305

33. Vezzani, V., Vettori, G., & Pinto, G. (2018). Students’ perceptions of learning: The role of socio-economic status, race, and educational environment. Educational Research Review, 24, 180-196.

34. Violante, M. G., Moos, S., & Vezzetti, E. (2020). A methodology for supporting the design of a learning outcomes-based formative assessment: the engineering drawing case study. European Journal of Engineering Education, 45(2), 305-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2019.1622653

35. Wilson, D. M., Summers, L., & Wright, J. (2020). Faculty support and student engagement in undergraduate engineering. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 13(1), 83-101. https://doi.org/10.1108/jrit-02-2020-0011

36. Zhang, L., & Ma, Y. (2023). A study of the impact of project-based learning on student learning effects: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1202728. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1202728