透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.238.57.9
  • 學位論文

Simpson、Harrow與Goldberger心理動作領域教育目標分類之比較研究

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

指導教授 : 莊謙本
若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


建立明確的教育目標,是施行教育最重要的前題要務,B. S. Bloom等人以「認知、心理動作與情意」三領域劃分教育目標,頗受教育界認同。由於技職教育一直缺乏堅實的心理動作領域教育目標分類理論基礎的探討,乃採用「描述、解釋、並置、比較」四階段比較教育研究法,探討Simpson、Harrow與Goldberger等三位對心理動作領域教育目標較有研究之專家所建構之理論、分類內涵與適用範疇,並提出適合我國技職教育的心理動作領域教育目標分類模式。 本研究經比較分析後,發現Simpson分類理論之特點為:(1)從技職教育角度建構,(2)由認知心理學發展,生理學基礎有缺漏,(3)強調垂直階層分類,(4)特重機具操作技能闡釋,欠缺感官知覺技能解釋,(5)影響編序教育理論發展,(6)促成能力本位教育成形。Harrow分類理論之特點為:(1)從體育教育角度建構,(2)由運動生理學闡釋,(3)水平類別與垂直階層詳盡分類,(4)偏重肢體運動技能闡釋,(5)影響編序教育理論發展。Goldberger分類理論之特點為:(1)從體育教育角度建構,(2)由發展行為學與認知心理學發展,(3)垂直階層分類,(4)偏重肢體運動技能闡釋。因而認為Simpson分類理論最符合認知心理知能在心理動作學習之重要性的論點,且分類階層單向明確,最適用於技能評等需求,但一概以認知心理學闡釋所有技能的學習不無可議之處,且難以解釋感官知覺高度發揮功能的行職業。Harrow分類理論之低階層心理動作闡釋最符合生理醫學論點,水平類別分類最符合技能具有不同本質的形式,但過度簡化認知心理能力在高階層心理動作學習中的複雜度,以致高階層心理動作領域教育目標難以適用。Goldberger分類理論則具「學習者中心」與「情境因素」的創新概念,最符合「不遺漏、兩兩互斥」的分類原則,但僅適用於不嚴格需求詳盡垂直層級分類的技能評等。 因此本研究建議我國技職教育以Simpson分類理論為運用心理動作領域教育目標的主要架構,並作下列調整:(1)「知覺」階層增列「動覺」與「平衡覺」的闡釋,(2)最低階層心理動作領域教育目標以「天賦反射動作」、「制約反射動作」與「探索形式反射動作」分類,(3)「機械化」層級應水平區分「感官知覺技能」、「肢體運動技能」與「機具操控技能」,以涵蓋所有形式技能,(4)修正一概以認知學習理論闡釋所有技能的學習歷程——尤其是「機械化」階層。

並列摘要


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.

參考文獻


田振榮(民85),教育目標。載於江文雄主編「技術及職業教育概論」,第三章。台北:師大書苑。
江文雄(民85),技術及職業教育緒論。載於作者主編「技術及職業教育概論」,第一章。台北:師大書苑。
康自立(民81),行為目標與教學評量。技術及職業教育雙月刊,9期,頁14-19。
曾國鴻(民85),教材發展。載於江文雄主編「技術及職業教育概論」,第九章。台北:師大書苑。
文史辭源編輯委員會(民73),文史辭源,頁1217。台北:天成。

被引用紀錄


陳怡真(2007)。技能領域數位學習教學設計原則與模式〔碩士論文,淡江大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6846%2fTKU.2007.00127
胡佳禎(2013)。屏東縣國中技藝教育專班學生技能學習態度、課程滿意度與職業自我概念之研究〔碩士論文,國立屏東科技大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6346%2fNPUST.2013.00274
張嘉淇(2021)。桃園市音樂教師對十二年國民基本教育藝術領域核心素養認知與認同之調查研究〔碩士論文,國立臺灣師範大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6345%2fNTNU202100860
陳俊廷(2015)。高中物理平面運動教學方法之研究〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU.2015.01776
陳佑婷(2005)。高中生地理技能之研究—以奧林匹亞競賽學術性論文為例〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU.2005.10251

延伸閱讀