Running head: BLOOMS TAXONOMY ON PSYCHOMOTOR ANALYSIS

Blooms Taxonomy on Psychomotor Analysis Larry Timm AET / 550 October 7, 2013 Dr. Charles Crissey

BLOOMS TAXONOMY ON PSYCHOMOTOR ANALYSIS

Blooms Taxonomy on Psychomotor Analysis There is some discrepancy in how a person learns to juggle a ball. Is the ability natural or learned? If the ability is natural is it something that someone is born with, or is it coordination of muscle groups or is it a learned and practiced skill. Most of the things taught are not purely mental or motor, but rather a combination of the two. Blooms Taxonomy of Learning suggests that the skills are taught or learned through the practice of motor skill repetition. When a person continually practice a skill their muscles learn a pattern of skills which he or she can duplicate in the process of juggling balls or able to do other repetitive motor skills almost automatically without thinking about him or her. Bloom taxonomy research did not investigate this premise thoroughly. Blooms Taxonomy has become known as a method to study not only psychological issues and also address physical ones as well. Chapman (2009), The Psychomotor Domain was ostensibly established to address skills development relating to manual tasks and physical movement, however it also concerns and covers modern day business and social skills such as communications and operation IT equipment, for example telephone and keyboard skills, or public speaking (bloom's taxonomy - psychomotor domain (physical - skills - 'do'). Bloom was more concerned with cognitive skills that refer to intellectual skills of the person. These cognitive skills refer to how a person responds to a given problem and solve the problem. Through a persons youth and early adulthood a person forms their beliefs, attitudes, and preferences. A person uses intellectual skills, along with knowledge, and incites he or she has gathered throughout their life when it comes to problem solving (Stolovitch & Keeps, p. 345, 2006). A persons critical thinking process is also connected to these traits and memories and

BLOOMS TAXONOMY ON PSYCHOMOTOR ANALYSIS

used to solve problems or to make contingency plans for later use if a problem is encountered. This is why some people prefer systematic and well planned solutions whereas others prefer to solve the problem as it arises. When setting up a lesson plan for a class the instructor will often set up a plan and even a contingency plan for different specifications or changes that may occur by changing goals. The students may have a larger performance gap than previous classes so new instructional methods are needed to teach the same material. This difference may not only be in knowledge but also in physical ability. Just as with many of the trades we teach there is a large emphasis put on manual dexterity and fine motor control as well as the knowledge being taught. There have been tests where manual dexterity of participant is investigated. One such study was done in Canada by the entry-level families in the Canadian Forces in 1991 (Johnston & Catano, 2002). Some of the tests included manual dexterity, strength, vision, analytical ability, and cognition. The subjects were tested for their aptitudes to perform certain types of abilities. According to Johnston and Catano, 2002) For instance, Fine Motor Control, which is a primary ability composite for the Technical job family, includes the abilities of Finger Dexterity, Manual Dexterity, and Arm-Hand Steadiness, among others (p.78). The psychomotor combines speed, strength, and agility to produce or imitate such activities as juggling. In 1972 Simpson developed another psychomotor domain theory that had seven categories. The Simpson and Harrows models can be used for development motor and mental development. The Simpson domain is used for development of physical skills. The Harrow model is used for teaching people about complex mental activities such as conducting meetings, or emotional events. These two domains or studies differ in some aspects are the same in other aspects. It is important when the skills are used that he or she addressed their strengths, such as Simpson to physical activities and the Harrow to more complex mental activities. The models are

BLOOMS TAXONOMY ON PSYCHOMOTOR ANALYSIS

set up almost the same. It is thought the Simpson model is more appropriate for adults who will be taken out of their comfort zones and assigned more difficult physical tasks do to the two initial steps in sensory and perception. While the Harrows model addresses more complex feelings and increased or heightened levels of emotions or knowledge. The Simpson model breaks the models theory down into seven parts. The first part is perception is it the bodies senses are telling the body when to squeeze a baseball glove to maintain control of it. These same senses tell a person how hard to throw the ball to get it back to the other person who is playing catch. The next part of the model involves set this involves a persons reasons for doing something. This is the emotional, physical, or mental reason a person does a specific function such as reading. This is also why a person may read a passage or set of directions to learn how to assemble a piece of furniture or assemble the studs in a wall to frame a house. The Guided Response is the imitation that a person has his or her body and hands perform when juggling four or five balls at one time in the air. This is also after giving the student directions on how to assemble the wall, the student then putting the boards together to frame the wall. Mechanism is the students ability to repetitively hammer the boards together that will make up the wall. We teach students how to do simple sets of operations and take these simple operations and combine them into a complex skill. Category or Level this is the students ability to perform a task. Often times this is one of the easiest levels of the gap performance to measure. One student will catch on quick to a skill, while another student will need to repeat a skill several times before he or she master it. An instructor may give one student a set of plans and the student can assemble the object. A different student may need to have the plans explained to him or her prior to allowing him or her to start construction of the object. Still another student may need to have each step in the construction demonstrated to him or her prior

BLOOMS TAXONOMY ON PSYCHOMOTOR ANALYSIS and during the construction of the object. Complex or overt Response this often refers to the students ability in quality. Not only can the student assemble the object but will it look like it is supposed to when he or she are finished. Many times this is seen in building of cabinets do the doors fit snuggly and evenly or are slanted and misaligned. Different students have different abilities and also have different needs of quality and exactness he or she needs to reach. Adaptation some students know how to take skill he or she have already learned and to use

them in different situations. This can be seen when a student learns how to frame a door and take the same skills with a little modification and frames in a window. The last step is in Origination the student may learn to take simple or complex skills and adapt too him or her into new patterns or ideas to create new skills. Conclusion These models need for an instructor to study and learn his or her students. The instructor needs to know what abilities both mentally and physically his or her student possess when it comes time to designing class lessons or projects. Without this knowledge of the students an instructor is trying to take a one fit all attitude to their teaching methods. This does not lend itself to gap analysis. An instructor must realize that different students have different abilities and skill levels both physically and mentally. That some students learn better through reading while other students may learn through visual or auditory ques. The knowledge of the student and knowledge and experience an instructor develops over time may be through evaluations or from student interaction that helps an instructor have a more successful and meaningful class.

BLOOMS TAXONOMY ON PSYCHOMOTOR ANALYSIS

References, Chapman, A. (2006). bloom's taxonomy - learning domains. Retrieved from http://www.businessballs.com/bloomstaxonomyoflearningdomains.htm#bloom's%20psyc homotor%20domain Johnston, J.P., & Catano, V.M. (2002, April). Psychomotor Abilities Tests as Predictors of Training Performance. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science , 34(2), 75-83. Stolovitch, H. D., & Keeps, E. J. (2006). Handbook of Human Performance Technology (3rd ed.). Retrieved from University of Phoenix eBook Collection database.