Monday, March 9, 2009
Cognitive, Affective and Psychomotor Taxonomies
Psychologists have developed taxonomies in the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains so teachers can have a common language when developing curriculum, instructional objectives, assessment strategies, etc. These taxonomies can also prove useful to music educators in particular.
Bloom’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain is well known to many educators and “provides a hierarchy of mental skills employed by students when they process cognitive information” (Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman, 1995, p. 234). From least to most complex, these skills are: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Students must demonstrate lower-level behaviors before being able to move up the taxonomy. By referencing these cognitive behaviors when planning instruction, teachers (including music teachers) are “likely to provide more systematic and effective instruction” (Abeles et al., 1995, p. 237). Educators often emphasize Bloom’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain more so than the affective and psychomotor domains (Abeles et al., 1995).
The affective domain is particularly important to arts education. Like the cognitive taxonomy, Krathwohl, Bloom and Massia’s taxonomy of the affective domain is arranged from least to most complex, or more specifically, from weakest to highest levels of internalized commitment: receiving, responding, valuing, organization, and characterization by a value or value complex. Again, higher-level behaviors are contingent upon students mastering lower-level behaviors. Because aesthetic awareness is often a primary goal of music education, Abeles et al. (1995) emphasize the usefulness and importance of the affective taxonomy, particularly in regards to assessment: “The ability of music teachers to meet this [aesthetic] goal to some extent relies on their ability to develop and assess affective behaviors. If teachers do not assess the affective outcomes of their curriculum, they have no guidelines to determine the effectiveness of the curriculum and no evidence on which to base modifications” (p. 239).
The psychomotor domain often receives even less attention in schools than the affective domain. Simpson’s psychomotor taxonomy is again organized from the least to the most complex, but this time with some subcategories: 1) perception: sensory stimulation, cue selection, translation; 2) set: mental set, physical set, emotional set; 3) guided response: imitation, trial and error; 4) mechanism; 5) complex overt response: resolution of uncertainty, automatic performance; 6) adaptation; and 7) origination. This taxonomy is particularly useful to music teachers because of the strong emphasis on skill development in music education. For example, much rote learning is done through echo work, and specific instrumental techniques are clearly related to the psychomotor domain.
Although psychologists originally created the cognitive, affective and psychomotor taxonomies to aid in creating assessments (student outcomes are listed behaviorally), music and other educators can use the taxonomies to develop curriculum by backward design. Educators should bear in mind that all three of the domains frequently overlap each other, and that the eventual goal of all education is for students to function at the higher levels of the taxonomies.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Bloom’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain is well known to many educators and “provides a hierarchy of mental skills employed by students when they process cognitive information” (Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman, 1995, p. 234). From least to most complex, these skills are: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Students must demonstrate lower-level behaviors before being able to move up the taxonomy. By referencing these cognitive behaviors when planning instruction, teachers (including music teachers) are “likely to provide more systematic and effective instruction” (Abeles et al., 1995, p. 237). Educators often emphasize Bloom’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain more so than the affective and psychomotor domains (Abeles et al., 1995).
The affective domain is particularly important to arts education. Like the cognitive taxonomy, Krathwohl, Bloom and Massia’s taxonomy of the affective domain is arranged from least to most complex, or more specifically, from weakest to highest levels of internalized commitment: receiving, responding, valuing, organization, and characterization by a value or value complex. Again, higher-level behaviors are contingent upon students mastering lower-level behaviors. Because aesthetic awareness is often a primary goal of music education, Abeles et al. (1995) emphasize the usefulness and importance of the affective taxonomy, particularly in regards to assessment: “The ability of music teachers to meet this [aesthetic] goal to some extent relies on their ability to develop and assess affective behaviors. If teachers do not assess the affective outcomes of their curriculum, they have no guidelines to determine the effectiveness of the curriculum and no evidence on which to base modifications” (p. 239).
The psychomotor domain often receives even less attention in schools than the affective domain. Simpson’s psychomotor taxonomy is again organized from the least to the most complex, but this time with some subcategories: 1) perception: sensory stimulation, cue selection, translation; 2) set: mental set, physical set, emotional set; 3) guided response: imitation, trial and error; 4) mechanism; 5) complex overt response: resolution of uncertainty, automatic performance; 6) adaptation; and 7) origination. This taxonomy is particularly useful to music teachers because of the strong emphasis on skill development in music education. For example, much rote learning is done through echo work, and specific instrumental techniques are clearly related to the psychomotor domain.
Although psychologists originally created the cognitive, affective and psychomotor taxonomies to aid in creating assessments (student outcomes are listed behaviorally), music and other educators can use the taxonomies to develop curriculum by backward design. Educators should bear in mind that all three of the domains frequently overlap each other, and that the eventual goal of all education is for students to function at the higher levels of the taxonomies.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment