Educational Psychology

10. Planning instruction

value complex experiences and of

organized sets of

experiences into a single

comprehensive value

hierarchy

action into the motor

repertoire, along with

experimentation with new

motor actions

Taxonomies related to abilities and skills that are physical, or psychomotor, have also been used less widely than
affective taxonomies, with the notable exception of one area of teaching where they are obviously relevant: physical
education. As you might expect, taxonomic categories of motor skills extend from simple, brief actions to complex,
extended action sequences that combine simpler, previously learned skills smoothly and automatically (Harrow,
1972; Simpson, 1972). One such classification scheme is shown in Table 33. An example of a very basic
psychomotor skill might be imitating the action of throwing a ball when modeled by someone else; an example of
the latter might be performing a 10 minute gymnastics routine which the student has devised for himself or herself.
Note, though, that many examples of psychomotor skills also exist outside the realm of physical education. In a
science course, for example, a student might need to learn to operate laboratory equipment that requires using
delicate, fine movements. In art classes, students might learn to draw, and in music they might learn to play an
instrument (both are partly motor skills). Most first graders are challenged by the motor skills of learning to write.
For students with certain physical disabilities, furthermore, motor skill development is an important priority for the
student’s entire education.

Students as a source of instructional goals..................................................................................................

So far our discussion of instructional planning has described goals and objectives as if they are selected
primarily by educators and teachers, and not by students themselves. The assumption may be correct in many
cases, but there are problems with it. One problem is that choosing goals and objectives for students, rather than by
students, places a major burden on everyone involved in education—curriculum writers, teachers, and students.
The curriculum writers have to make sure that they specify standards, goals, and objectives that are truly important
for students to learn (what if it really does not matter, for example, whether a science student learns about the
periodic table of the elements?). Teachers have to make sure that students actually become motivated to learn the
specified goals and objectives, even if the students are not motivated initially. Students have to master pre-set goals
and objectives even if they might not have chosen them personally. Some critics of education have argued that these
requirements can be serious impediments to learning (Kohn, 2004). The problems are widespread and especially
noticeable in two forms of teaching. One is with the youngest students, who may especially lack patience with an
educational agenda set by others (Kohn, 1999; Seitz, 2006). The other is with culturally diverse classrooms, where
students and their families may hold a variety of legitimate, but unconventional expectations about what they
should learn (J. Banks & C. Banks, 2005).

In response to concerns like these, some educators advocate planning instruction around goals set or expressed
either by students themselves or by the cultures or communities with which students identify. Their suggestions

223