A Comparative Study on Classifications of Psychomotor Domain Educational Objectives Proposed by Simpson, Harrow, and Goldberger

• Main Authors: Lee, Zen-Pin, 李堅萍
• Other Authors: Chuang, Cheng-Ben
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2000
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/49479790185048395012

博士 === 國立臺灣師範大學 === 工業教育研究所 === 88 === The most important premise of education is to build clear educational objectives. The taxonomy of educational objectives for cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains constructed by B. S. Bloom is known by most educators. But there is a great lack of rationale foundation in describing psychomotor educational objectives for current Technical and Vocational Education (TVE). To meet this demand, the taxonomy of psychomotor domain proposed by Simpson, Harrow and Goldberger were selected as samples for this comparative study through the process of “description, interpretation, juxtaposition, and comparison ”. A practical taxonomy of psychomotor domain can be found for the application in TVE after this investigation. The feature of Simpson’s taxonomy in psychomotor domain can be categorized as :(1) from the viewpoint of TVE, (2) developed in the field of cognitive psychology, (3) emphasizing vertical difference in classification, (4) explaining for more tool operations but less sensory perception, (5) having effects on the development of programmable instruction, (6) can be applied on Competency-Based Education. For Harrow’s taxonomy, it was found as: (1) from the viewpoints of physical education, (2) developed in the field of physical physiology, (3) including both horizontal and vertical classification, (4) emphasizing the explanation on physical skills, (5) having some influences on the development of programmable instruction. And the feature of Goldberger’s taxonomy is as: (1) from the viewpoints of physical education, (2) developed in the field of behavioral science and cognitive psychology, (3) emphasizing the depth difference in behavior presentation, (4) focus on the explanations for physical skills. Therefore, Simpson’s taxonomy emphasized the importance of cognitive ability on psychomotor skill learning, and is available for higher level skill evaluation. But it is not suitable for evaluating sensory perception skills and creative skills. In the case of Harrow’s taxonomy, it is more suitable for describing low-level psychomotor skill but not available for describing high-level psychomotor skills. For Goldberger’s taxonomy, his new concepts about “Learner-Centered” and “Environment Factors”, can be helpful for constructing a complete psychomotor domain objectives. But it is not available for describing some skills with detailed depth differences. A better taxonomy was constructed in this research for TVE. It is suggested that Simpson’s taxonomy can be used as the main body but several good points in Harrow and Goldberger’s taxonomy can be cooperated into it. They are: (1) extending the description of perception level with “Kinesthetic Perception” and “Balance Perception” (2) reorganizing the lower three levels into ”Inherited Reflexive Motors”, “Conditioned Reflexive Motors”, and “Exploratory Motors”, (3) joining the “Skills of Sensory Perception”, “Skills of Physical Motion”, and “Skills of Tool Operation” into the description of Mechanism Level to cover all kinds of skills, (4) lessening the cognitive description in Mechanism Level.