Psychomotor Domain

As with the other two main types of educational objectives, affective and cognitive, those of the psychomotor domain are applied essentially to all aspects of education. The development of psychomotor skills is grounded in behavioral learning theory. Among the numerous applications of psychomotor domain objectives are in teaching physical education and personal fitness skills and various sport, dance, music, drama and visual arts classes. The effective implementation of a psychomotor domain, objectives-based educational approach requires the selection of valid objectives for specific instructional situations. Research studies have confirmed that using multiple representations, including virtual demonstrations, are beneficial in preparing students for actual live performances of psychomotor skills.

Educational Theory

Overview

Educational psychologists have subdivided the area of educational objectives into three domains: the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. The three domains identify and represent the knowledge, beliefs, and skills, respectively, of a human performer. Learning can be thought of as occurring in these three domains (Adkins, 2004; Beane, Toepfer, & Alessi, 1986; Gage & Berliner, 1988).

Different types of behaviors have led educational researchers to identify classifications of objectives and related sequences of skills describing what students need to learn before progressing to the next sequence. The sequences of objectives for each domain have been published as classification schemes called taxonomies. The objectives move up from less complex skills to more complex levels of behaviors (Gage & Berliner, 1988).

The cognitive domain refers to acquiring, processing, and using knowledge. Cognitive objectives relate to intellectual processes such as knowing, reasoning, thinking, recognizing, perceiving, conceiving, and judging. The cognitive development of students has been and is undoubtedly still the main focus of teaching (Beane et al., 1986; Gage & Berliner, 1988; Haladyna, 1997). The affective domain and related educational objectives involve students' attitudes, emotions, feelings, appreciations, and values (Gage & Berliner, 1988).

The psychomotor domain and its related educational objectives are mainly focused on the development of motor or physical skills and abilities. They are largely confined to the physical acts and behaviors of performing and ways of moving. They are composed of the physical activities individuals become involved in and the physical procedures they use to negotiate daily life (Beane et al., 1986; Gage & Berliner, 1988; Haladyna, 1997; Marzano, 2001). Table 1, which is modified from Simpson (1972) and after Beane et al. (1986), is an excerpt that illustrates a psychomotor domain taxonomical sequence. The related skills or processes and sample educational objectives are listed in Table 1 for each point or level in the hierarchy.

Table 1: Illustrative Example of Psychomotor-Domain Taxonomy with Related Skill or Process and a Sample Objective at Each Point or Level in the Hierarchy

Level Skill or Process Skill or Process 1 Perception To differentiate different foods by their odors. 2 Set To demonstrate knowledge of the rules of a sport. 3 Guided Response To manipulate objects on the basis of directions. 4 Mechanism To construct a model of a building. 5 Complex Overt Response To demonstrate correct form in pole vaulting. 6 Adaptation To change running form in order to gain more speed. 7 Origination To develop an interpretive dance. Modified from Simpson (1972) and after Beane, Toepfer, and Alessi (1986).

The three domains are not mutually exclusive. None of the three classifications of behaviors and objectives can be isolated from the others, as almost all learning activities involve more than one domain. Students think, experience feelings, and move in certain ways all at the same time. Psychomotor behaviors specifically contain elements of cognitive and affective behaviors within them. Psychomotor behaviors--"doing" movements--are connected to and affect cognitive student learning and performance (Abedi & O'Neil, 2005; Adkins, 2004; Beane et al., 1986; Gage & Berliner, 1988; Haladyna, 1997). Taken separately, each domain serves as a valuable reference point for the development and achievement of balance in the range and scope of educational objectives within the curriculum so as to accent different areas of learning. Psychomotor student outcomes are important and need to be included in instructional programs (Beane et al., 1986; Haladyna, 1997).

Tasks within the Psychomotor Domain

The psychomotor domain objectives are particularly useful for teachers teaching such subjects as word processing, handwriting, physical education, dance, art, and music. The psychomotor domain can involve almost any type of movement: running, diving, biking, skateboarding, throwing a football, playing volleyball or badminton or tennis, playing a flute or piano or guitar, trimming a rosebush, et cetera. Any and all physical activity or movement has great relevance to this taxonomy (Gage & Berliner, 1988). Psychomotor domain objectives, as other types of objectives, are used in curriculum development, instruction/ teaching, learning/achievement, assessment/measurement/evaluation, and essentially all other aspects of education.

History

Psychologist B. F. Skinner (1904-1990), the foremost behaviorist of his era, developed the theory of human behavior, which is most often referred to as behavioral learning theory. Skinner's most famous work, The Behavior of Organisms, was published in 1938. His behavioral learning theory greatly influenced American education. Cognitive psychology has eclipsed behavioral learning theory as the mainstream way in which to study human behavior. However, a legacy of behavioral learning theory and behaviorism is a teacher's statement of the purpose of a lesson at the beginning of each class so students have a clear understanding of what they are going to learn (Haladyna, 1997; Vernoff & Shore, 1987).

The different hierarchies of objectives or taxonomies have been around for many decades. Taxonomies of the three domains were initially formulated and published during the period from the mid-1950s to 1970. Historically speaking, the first of the comprehensive educational taxonomies were those developed for the cognitive domain by Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, and Krathwohl (1956). This taxonomy became classically known and is still referred to as "Bloom's Taxonomy." During the 1960s, much attention was paid to identifying the types of learning occurring in the cognitive and other domains. In 1964, a taxonomy for the affective domain was published by Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia. Then in 1970, similar taxonomies appeared relating to the psychomotor domain. These latter taxonomies were authored by Kibler, Barker, and Miles (Adkins, 2004; Beane et al., 1986; Dettmer, 2006; Gage & Berliner, 1988).

Early research in the development of psychomotor skills was performed in military laboratories. The U.S. Army Research Institute (ARI) for the Behavioral and Social Sciences conducted research and published technical reports on the learning, achievement, testing, and measurement of skilled psychomotor tasks and reactive skills. The U.S. Air Force also conducted assessments of motor and perceptual skills. The measurements from their psychomotor/perceptual battery were generally highly reliable. Among the many applications of the educational research conducted by the military were the use of computer-assisted instruction to develop and maintain psychomotor skills and the use of computer-administered tests of perceptual and psychomotor abilities (Hunter, 1975; Peterson, 1987; Tuckman, 1996).

Models

One of the first taxonomies for the psychomotor domain was Ragsdale's 1950 consideration of psychomotor types of activities (De Landsheere, 1977; Duschl, 1989; Goldberger & Moyer, 1982). J. P. Guilford's system of psychomotor abilities and motor-performance matrices were published in 1958 (Harris & Liba, 1965). Guilford's taxonomies were soon followed by those of Simpson, Dave, Gagne, and Harrow (De Landsheere, 1977).

Elizabeth J. Simpson (1966) developed schema for classifying educational objectives in the psychomotor domain and conducted an analysis of related behavioral objectives. This was followed by R. H. Dave's (1970) psychomotor levels. In 1972, Anita J. Harrow developed psychomotor objectives in her book A Taxonomy of the Psychomotor Domain: A Guide for Developing Behavioral Objectives (Cooper, 1973; Heinemann & Mallis, 1977). Merrill's psychomotor domain model was also published in 1972. In 1973, Tiemann and Markle developed an elaborate three-dimensional model of the types of learning emphasizing the intersection of the three domains.

Then, in the mid-1980s, Newell (1986) applied his constraints model to the analysis and teaching of psychomotor skills in physical education. M. Mosston's (1986) "Spectrum of Teaching Styles" was used in assisting students to learn motor skills. Mosston's three-dimensional model of developmental movement connected psychomotor skills, abilities, and objectives to the larger structure of human movement. Mosston and Ashworth's (2002) model used task progressions in motor skill development in physical education. Inclusion styles and reciprocal styles were specifically used in adapting both task and environment to individual constraints and varying skill levels (Byra, 2004; Garn & Byra, 2002; Goldberger & Moyer, 1982; Hamilton, Pankey, & Kinnunen, 2002).

Without a doubt, the most ambitious "re-modeling" of educational objectives is the "New Taxonomy" of Marzano (2001). Marzano's (2001) taxonomy is modified and shown as Figure 1. His taxonomy explicitly defines how each of its six levels interact with the knowledge domain. Marzano describes the new taxonomy as two-dimensional in nature with one dimension being represented by the six levels of the taxonomy and the other dimension being represented by the three "knowledge domains." The "educational objectives" within each level are further articulated into related skills and processes.

Further Insights

Structure

The psychomotor domain, as other domains, is organized and arranged as a learning hierarchy or in learning hierarchies. This hierarchical structure of the learning objectives of the domain allows for ease in analysis of relationships. Information about students' physical movements and abilities are ordered such that the foundational skills or "procedures" upon which more complex skills are developed are at the bottom. It is important to match the intended learning goal with the task structure although at least some educators have found no significant differential effect in learning terminal objectives based on the sequencing of subordinate tasks (Crow, 1997; Duschl, 1989; Goldberger & Moyer, 1982; Mally, 2006; Marzano, 2001; Parker, 1973).

Applications

The psychomotor domain taxonomies of educational objectives have many applications. A taxonomical domain in general can be used as a framework around which to organize instructional objectives, curriculum designs, and assessments of achievement. The psychomotor domain in particular can be applied to classifying physical movements for work in teacher education, curriculum development, and behavioral research. A taxonomy provides strategies and practical applications for teachers to use in school physical education, gym and gymnastics classes to teach psychomotor domain, and physical fitness skills (Dettmer, 2006; Goldberger & Moyer, 1982; Woods & Book, 1995).

Skills & Objectives

The physical performance--moving, doing, manipulating--of behavioral or educational objectives enables students to practice, acquire, develop, and attain higher levels of psychomotor skill development. The effectiveness of performance or relative level of mastery of psychomotor tasks and related competencies can be demonstrated or modeled in schoolchildren's movements (Cleland & Gallahue, 1993; Cleland, 1994).

Marzano's (2001) psychomotor domain "procedures" are organized into skills and processes. Although the learning of motor skills is influenced by aptitude, foundational skills can be improved with instruction and practice. All of the physical functions of psychomotor skills are performed naturally by human beings with a certain degree of acumen. In Marzano's (2001) classification, psychomotor skills are subdivided into foundational procedures and simple combination procedures. Sets of foundational procedures acting in parallel make up simple combination procedures. In turn, complex combination procedures utilize sets of simple combination procedures. Processes are higher in Marzano's psychomotor hierarchy than skills and consist of complex combination procedures (Abedi & O'Neil, 2005; Marzano, 2001).

Basic abilities, including gross- and fine-motor functions, affect how children interact with their environment. These abilities include psychomotor processes that are involved in speaking, printing, handwriting, and controlling eye movements. The specific psychomotor functions related to handwriting, for example, are stylized forms of expressive or drawing movements. Other examples are the psychomotor skills that computers provide including keyboard usage and eye-hand coordination (McGhan, 1988; Rosner, 1973; Wells, 1946).

Among the athletic- and sport-related psychomotor skill tests that can be conducted are measuring flexibility of coordination, muscular tension and relaxation, and reaction time to muscular load. Other examples of foundational physical abilities include manual dexterity, finger dexterity, arm-hand steadiness, control precision, static strength, overall body equilibrium, speed of limb movement, and wrist-finger speed (Carroll, 1993; Kroll & Lewis, 1970; Marzano, 2001).

Instructional Methods

High-quality instruction attends to both cognitive and non-cognitive affective and psychomotor factors affecting learning and performance. Elements of the psychomotor domain specifically are applied to classroom activities and learning experiences in teaching psychomotor skills. Psychomotor learning outcomes are integrated instructionally with cognitive and affective learning outcomes in school classrooms (Abedi & O'Neil, 2005; Brodeur, 1998; Heinemann & Mallis, 1977; Tiemann & Markle, 1973). Instructional strategies based on the principles of behavior management have traditionally been involved in learning psychomotor skills (Heinemann & Mallis, 1977; Wei-Ying & Koh, 2006). Psychomotor behaviors may require long periods of instruction and/or training to attain proficiency (Haladyna, 1997).

Mann and Eland (2005) present four steps of instruction in teaching students therapeutic psychomotor skills:

* The instructor's demonstration of the skill;

* Paired-student practice;

* Independent self-paced practice outside of class using an instructional videotape and handout; and

* Receiving individualized feedback on skill performance (Mann & Eland, 2005).

The initial two steps represent typical skill instruction whereas the last two steps are added to implement mastery learning. Mastery learning is efficacious in having students actually perform and utilize the psychomotor skills (Mann & Eland, 2005). Ideomotor theory can also be applied in teaching psychomotor behaviors. This technique involves the student observing someone, such as a teacher, master, or expert, perform an act and then having the student perform an imitative response (Aicken, Wilson, Williams, & Mon-Williams, 2007).

Viewpoints

Assessment

The assessment of student learning by the use of achievement testing tends to ignore psychomotor objectives as it does affective objectives. Therefore, traditional assessment techniques may not be suitable for measuring the complex forms of students' psychomotor behaviors.

The traditional taxonomical domains, including the psychomotor domain, and their related objectives, are too limited in scope for today's educational settings. Dettmer (2006) recommends expanding the psychomotor domain into a sensorimotor domain, which would incorporate the five senses, balance, spatial relationships, movement, and other physical attributes. She also proposes synthesizing the "sensing/moving" domain into a unified domain including three others--"thinking," "feeling," and "interacting"--so as to optimize all students' potential and self-fulfillment.

Research has revealed that there is a sequence in the organization of learned postural-motor, locomotor, and eye-hand gripping skills (Vaivre-Douret & Burnod, 2001). A global motor rating scale is available and has been used to measure postural-motor, locomotor, and eye-hand grip coordination, and which together allows for the assessment of average motor functional level in infants and young children aged 0 to 4 years (Vaivre-Douret & Bernod, 2001). Associated measurement techniques have been used to identify and distinguish normal motor behaviors from neuro-psychomotor deviations. Psychomotor development measurements can contribute to understanding the brain areas involved in related maturational processes (Vaivre-Douret & Burnod, 2001).

Critical Thinking & Psychomotor Performance

The application of critical thinking in physical education has been a hot topic of psychomotor domain related research since the late twentieth century. A theoretical critical thinking model has been developed for the psychomotor domain that includes a variety of cognitive-related factors: cognitive organizing, cognitive action, metacognitive monitoring, and cognitive and psychomotor outcomes (McBride, 1992). Research has shown that the use of critical thinking in physical education is beneficial to both psychomotor- and cognitive-domain objectives (McBride, 2004). One research study found that when elementary school students use critical thinking strategies in physical education classes, their ability to generate different movement patterns improved (Cleland, 1994). Another study concluded that students in physical education classes are predisposed to critical thinking in the psychomotor domain but only in environments that are carefully structured to foster critical thinking dispositions (McBride, 2004).

Positive correlations have been found between students' general mental ability or IQ and their psychomotor speed in performing a simple, repetitive movement: tapping two fingers alternatively (McRorie & Cooper, 2004). The psychomotor skills of gifted/ talented students have been analyzed and applied as part of multi-factor admission's analysis criteria (Zorn, 1983). Handson activities based on the motion concept and Newton's laws of motion have been used to develop psychomotor and critical thinking skills in middle school science students (Cox, 2001).

Conclusion

Psychomotor skills are needed to function effectively and successfully in the classroom and the community. Instructing, teaching, or training for psychomotor skills tends to be more naturally student-centered. Activity-based and experiential learning are used to develop psychomotor skills (Taylor, 1999). Physical education experiences in preschool or kindergarten can foster the normal development of basic motor skills and patterns, facilitate practice of motor skills, and fulfill young children's need for movement. Psychomotor activities and play can contribute to the growth of children socially, emotionally, and intellectually (Grineski, 1988; Strickland, 2004).

Terms & Concepts

Behaviorism: A theory associated with the American psychologist B. F. Skinner; a psychological approach focused on the observable behaviors or actions of humans or other organisms as they learn while being influenced by environmental stimuli or cues.

Domains: Also taxonomical domains; the major categories of educational objectives, that is, the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains.

Educational Objectives: Also instructional objectives or behavioral objectives; used here in the narrow sense of specific outcomes of education; can also refer to broad educational goals.

Educational Taxonomies: Classification systems used to organize educational objectives.

Learning Hierarchies: Organizational structures in which foundational skills are at the bottom and more complex skills are at higher levels.

Perceptual Motor Skills: Skills in which muscle-attenuated and effected movements are influenced and controlled by sensory inputs and perceptual mental processes.

Psychomotor Domain: Those aspects of human behavior characterized by psychomotor or motor abilities, skills, and related processes.

Psychomotor Skills: Also motor skills; abilities consisting of various bodily movements and behaviors ranging from finemotor functions to gross-motor whole body activities.

Sensorimotor Domain: A proposed expanded psychomotor taxonomical domain that would incorporate the five senses along with balance, spatial relations, movement, and other physical activities (Dettmer, 2006).

Tactile Kinesthetic Functions: Functions in which motor or muscle movements are influenced and controlled by the sensory impressions of touch.

Taxonomical Models: Systems of classification developed and used to organize sequences of educational objectives from low-level foundational skills to high-level complex skills.

Taxonomy: A classification system of any type; it is applied here to order sequences of educational objectives.

Bibliography

Abedi, J., & O'Neil, H. F. (2005). Assessment of noncognitive influences on learning. Educational Assessment, 10 , 147-151. Retrieved October 22, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=18225949&site=ehost-live

Adkins, S. S. (2004). Beneath the tip of the iceberg. T + D, 58 , 28-33.

Aicken, M. D., Wilson, A. D., Williams, J. H. G., & Mon-Williams, M. (2007). Methodological issues in measures of imitative reaction times. Brain and Cognition, 63 , 304-308.

Basturk, R. (2005). Overviews of performance assessment. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER), 21, 62-75.

Beane, J. A., Toepfer, C. F., Jr., & Alessi, S. J., Jr. (1986). Curriculum planning and development. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Beasley, W., & Rowe, M. B. (1985). Improving student laboratory performance: How much practice makes perfect? Science Education, 69 , 567-576.

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. The classification of educational goals: Handbook 1. Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longmans, Green.

Brodeur, D. R. (1998). Thematic teaching: Integrating cognitive and affective outcomes in elementary classrooms. Educational Technology, 38 , 37-43.

Byra, M. (2004). Applying a task progression to the reciprocal style of teaching. JOPERD: Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 75 , 42-46.

Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2005). Self-controlled feedback is effective if it is based on the learner's performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76 , 42-48.

Cleland, F. E. (1994). Young children's divergent movement ability: Study II. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 13 , 228-241.

Cleland, F. E., & Gallahue, D. L. (1993). Young children's divergent movement ability. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 77 , 535-544.

Cooper, W. F. (1973). A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain: A guide for developing behavioral objectives [Book review]. American Educational Research Journal, 10 , 325-327.

Cox, C. (2001). Isaac Newton Olympics. Science Scope, 24 , 18-22.

Cross, R. (2005). Point release: Strategies for successful journal writing. Pathways, 18 , 4-16.

Crow, C. (1997). Cooperative education in the new millennium: Implications for faculty development. In Cooperative Education Experience (pp. 1-5). Columbia, MD: Cooperative Education Association.

Darrow, A. (2011). Early childhood special music education. General Music Today, 24 , 28-30. Retrieved December 6, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=67266363&site=ehost-live

Dave, R. H. (1970). Psychomotor levels. In R. J. Armstrong (Ed.), Developing and writing behavioral objectives. Tucson, AZ: Educational Innovators Press.

De Landsheere, V. (1977). On defining educational objectives. Evaluation in Education: International Progress, 1 , 73-190.

Dettmer, P. (2006). New blooms in established fields: 'Four domains of learning and doing.' Roeper Review, 28 , 70-78. Retrieved October 22, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19508228&site=ehost-live

Dodds, P. (1978). Creativity in movement: Models for analysis. Journal of Creative Behavior, 12 , 265-273.

Doran, R. L., & Dietrich, M. C. (1980). Psychomotor abilities of science and non- science high school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17 , 495-502.

Duschl, R. (1989). Comment on "Analyzing hierarchical relationships among modes of cognitive reasoning and integrated science process skills." Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26 , 381-384.

Ellington, H. (1984). Educational objectives: Teaching and learning in higher education. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED289484).

Everhart, B. (1996). Assessing motor and sport skill performance: Two practical procedures. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67 , 49-51.

Gage, N. L., & Berliner, D. C. (1988). Educational psychology. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Gagné, R. M. (1970). The conditions of learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Garn, A., & Byra, M. (2002). Psychomotor, cognitive and social development spectrum style. Teaching Elementary Physical Education, 13 , 8-13.

Goldberger, M., & Moyer, S. (1982). A schema for classifying educational objectives in the psychomotor domain. Quest, 34 , 134-142.

Grineski, S. (1988). Teaching and learning in physical education for young children.

Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 59 , 91-94.

Guilford, J. P. (1958). A system of Psychomotor abilities. The American Journal of Psychology, 71, 164-174.

Haladyna, T. M. (1997). Writing test items to evaluate higher order thinking. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Hamilton, M. L., Pankey, R., & Kinnunen, D. (2002). Constraints of motor skill acquisition: Implications for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED471196).

Harris, C. W., & Liba, M. R. (1965). Component, image, and factor analysis of tests of intellect and of motor performance. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED003683).

Harrison, J. M., Blakemore, C. L., Richards, R. P., Oliver, J., Wilkinson, C., & Fellingham, G. (2004). The effects of two instructional models-tactical and skill teachingon skill development and game play, knowledge, selfefficacy, and student perceptions in volleyball. Physical Educator, 61 , 186-199. Retrieved October 22, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=15580594&site=ehost-live

Harrow, A. J. (1972). A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain: A guide for developing behavioral objectives. New York, NY: McKay.

Hartl, D., & Hartl, D. (Eds.). (1981). Small schools curriculum: Physical education, K-6. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED205318).

Heinemann, A., & Mallis, J. (1977). Star power: Providing for the gifted and talented, module 3-applications of theories of intelligence to the gifted/talented. Austin, TX: Education Service Center Region XIII.

Hunter, D. R. (1975). Development of an enlisted psychomotor/ perceptual test battery: battery: Final report. Lackland AFB and Brooks AFB, TX: U. S. Air Force Human Resources Laboratories.

Keen-Payne, R., & Cagle, C. S. (1993). Using the fine arts in health lessons. Dimensions of Early Childhood, 21 , 33-35.

Kibler, R. J., Barker, L. L., & Miles, D. T. (1970). Behavioral objectives and instruction. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Kleinman, G. S. (1966). Trends in assessing teacher effectiveness. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4 , 37-44.

Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives. The classification of educational goals: Handbook 2. Affective domain. New York, NY: McKay.

Kroll, W., & Lewis, G. (1970). America's first sport psychologist. Quest, 13 , 1-4.

Lavega, P., Filella, G., Agulló, M., Soldevila, A., & March, J. (2011). Understanding emotions through games: Helping trainee teachers to make decisions. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9 , 618-640. Retrieved December 6, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=70195512&site=ehost-live

Lehman, J. R. (1989). Chemistry teachers' and chemistry students' perceived advantages and disadvantages of high school chemistry laboratories. School Science and Mathematics, 89 , 510-514.

McBride, R. E. (1992). Critical thinking: An overview with implications for physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11 , 112-125.

McBride, R. E. (2004). If you structure it, they will learn…: Critical thinking in physical education classes. Clearing House, 77 , 114-117. Retrieved October 22, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=13260493&site=ehost-live

McGhan, B. (1988). Computer education at home and at school. Education Digest, 54 , 31-33.

McRorie, M., & Cooper, C. (2004). Psychomotor movement and IQ. Personality & Individual Differences, 37 , 523-531.

Mally, K. K. (2006). Creating positive task constraints. Teaching Elementary Physical Education, 17 , 28-30.

Mann, D. D., & Eland, D. C. (2005). Self-efficacy in mastery learning to apply a therapeutic psychomotor skill. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 100 , 77-84. Retrieved October 22, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=16275005&site=ehost-live

Markle, S. M. (1973). Some thoughts on task analysis and objectives in educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 10 , 24-29.

Marzano, R. J. (2001). Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Merrill, M. D. (1972). Taxonomies, classifications and theory. In R. N. Singer (Ed.), The psychomotor domain: Movement and behavior (pp. 385-414). Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.

Mohd Sabri, M., Khamis, N., Mat Tahir, M., Wahid, Z., Kamal, A., Mohd Ihsan, A., & … Abdullah, S. (2013). Curriculum development based on the big picture assessment of the mechanical engineering program. International Education Studies, 6 , 213-219. Retrieved December 6, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=88381845&site=ehost-live

Mosston, M. (1986). Teaching physical education (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Company.

Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (2002). Teaching physical education (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Cummings.

Nelson, M. A., & Abraham, E. C. (1973). Inquiry skill measures. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 10 , 291-297.

Newell, K. M. (1986). Constraints on the development of coordination. In M. G. Wade & H. T. A. Whiting (Eds.), Motor development in children: Aspects of coordination and control (pp. 341-361). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Parker, D. G. (1973). The effects of method of hierarchical organization and sequence of children's learning. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms.

Peterson, N. G. (Ed.). (1987). Development and field test of the trial battery for Project A: Improving the selection, classification and utilization of Army enlisted personnel. Alexandria, VA: U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Ragsdale, C. E. (1950). How children learn the motor types of activities. In G. L. Anderson, W. A. Brownell, W. H. Burton, A. I. Gates, E. Horn, T. R. McConnell, et al. (Eds.), Learning and instruction (pp. 69-128). Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education.

Reigeluth, C. M., & Squire, K. (1998). Emerging work on the new paradigm of instructional theories. Educational Technology, 38 , 41-47.

Rosner, J. (1973). Perceptual skills curriculum: General-motor skills, program III New York, NY: Educational Book Corporation.

Scagliotta, E. G. (1967). Tinker boards: A tactile kinesthetic approach to learning. Exceptional Children, 34 , 129-131.

Simpson, E. J. (1966). The classification of educational objectives, psychomotor domain. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign.

Simpson, E. J. (1972). The classification of educational objectives in the psychomotor domain. In The Psychomotor Domain (Vol. 3). Washington, DC: Gryphon House.

Strickland, E. (2004). Physical development: Exploring physical development through dramatic play. Early Childhood Today, 19 , 9-10.

Taylor, G. R. (Ed.). (1999). Curriculum models and strategies for educating individuals with disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher Ltd.

Thomas, J. W. (1972). Varieties of cognitive skills: Taxonomies and models of the intellect. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools, Inc.

Tiemann, P. W., & Markle, S. M. (1973). Remodeling a model: An elaborated hierarchy of types of learning. Educational Psychologist, 10 , 147-158.

Tuckman, B. W. (1996). My mentor: Robert M. Gagne. P. J. E. Peabody Journal of Education, 71 , 3-11.

Vaivre-Douret, L., & Burnod, Y. (2001). Development of a global motor rating scale for young children (0-4 years) including eye-hand grip coordination. Child: Care, Health & Development, 27 , 515-534. Retrieved October 22, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5560908&site=ehost-live

Vernoff, E., & Shore, R. (1987). The international dictionary of 20th century biography. New York, NY: New American Library.

New York, NY: New American Library.

Wei-Ying, L., & Koh, M. (2006). Effectiveness of learning technologies in the teaching and learning of gymnastics. Pacific-Asian Education Journal, 18 , 69-77. Retrieved October 22, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=25150580&sit e=ehost-live

Wells, F. L. (1946). Personal history, handwriting and specific behavior. Journal of Personality, 14 , 295-314.

Woods, A. M., & Book, C. (1995). Critical thinking in middle school physical education. JOPERD: The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 66 , 39-43.

Zorn, R. L. (1983). A comprehensive program for the gifted/ talented pupils in grades 1 through 12. Education, 103 , 310-315.

Suggested Reading

Beers, D. Y. (2006). A mind-body approach. American Music Teacher, 56 , 24-27. Retrieved October 22, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=21975138&site=ehost-live

Canbulat, A., & Tuncel, M. (2012). The practices of admission to school and the effectiveness of individualized supported education. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12 , 2076-2089. Retrieved December 6, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=82203608&site=ehost-live

Claxton, D. B., Troy, M., & Dupree, S. (2006). A question of balance. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance (JOPERD), 77 , 114-117.

Prystowsky, R. (2004). Vice president for educational heresy: An interview with veteran, maverick educator Don Glines. Paths of Learning, 19, 16-21. Retrieved October 22, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=12438026&site=ehost-live

Xiaoming, L., Atkins, M. S., & Stanton, B. (2006). Effects of home and school computer use on school readiness and cognitive development among Head Start children: A randomized controlled pilot trial. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52 , 239-263.