Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

A STUDY ON THE INTEGRATION

FEATURES OF COGNITIVE,
AFFECTIVE AND
PSYCHOMOTOR DOMAINS IN
TEACHING AND LEARNING
PHYSICAL EDUCATION
PRESENTED BY :
NOR SAHIDAH BINTI MOHAMAD ALI
PPP143033
FACULTY OF EDUCATION (MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION)

PHYSICAL EDUCATION
According to the National
Curriculum Malaysia (2003),
Physical Education is one of
the most important subjects
in primary schools and it is
mandatory for every year at
school (Year 1 - Year 6)

Physical Education is aimed


at education that focuses on
the overall development of
individuals and concentrate
on the quality of physical,
mental and emotional
(Freeman, 2011).

As children grow older and


enter adolescence, physical
activity may enhance the
development of a positive
self-concept as well as the
ability to pursue intellectual,
social and emotional
challenges (Calfas, K. &
Taylor, W., 1994).

Physical education is
important in providing a
whole education for student.

Throughout the school years,


quality physical education
can promote social,
cooperative and problem
solving competencies.
Quality physical education
programs in our nations
schools are essential in
developing motor skills,
physical fitness and
understanding of concepts
that foster lifelong healthy
lifestyles.

CENTRAL CONSTRUCT OF
LEARNING PHYSICAL EDUCATION
(Culpan, 2000)

Learning
in
moveme
nt

Learning
through
moveme
nt of
others

Learning
about
moveme
nt

LEARNING DOMAIN IN PHYSICAL


EDUCATION
(Bloom et al, 1956)

PSYCHOMOTOR DOMAIN

Dave
(1970)

Harrow
(1972)

Simpson
(1972)

COGNITIVE DOMAIN
A physically educated person can "apply movement
concepts and principles to the learning and
development of motor skills"
(Standard Curriculum for Primary School, 2010)

When students leave the class, they must be able to use


the knowledge on their own in their "real life," thus it is
imperative that physical educators teach for the future
by passing on movement knowledge to their students.
(Vicki, Collen & Susan, 2002)

AFFECTIVE DOMAIN

Krathwohl, Bloom & Masia


(1973)

ISSUES IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION


Skills, knowledge and understandings are mostly
taught through one topic or context and this is
predominantly performance orientated.
The traditional approach includes the use of
equipment which often limits the amount of
practice a student gets.
The traditional approach is mostly organised
around events which require students to publicly
display their physical abilities.
The traditional approach often uses a one size fits
all, model which advantages some students and
disadvantages others.

TEACHING GAMES FOR UNDERSTANDING MODEL


(Bunker & Thorpe, 1982)

CONCLUSION

Teachers need to think carefully and critically about their perceptions,


understanding and knowledge of Physical Activity within a Physical Education
programme. This might include rethinking what we teach and how we teach
Physical Education.
Teachers need to think beyond the traditional and consider alternative curricular
strategies such as Teaching Games For Understanding that promote holistic and
student-centred approaches.
Schools need to thoughtfully analyse the design and implementation of school
Physical Education programmes to ensure that they are engaging, developmentally
appropriate and include inclusive learning opportunities. A sequential learning
pathway needs to show expected skills, knowledge and understandings across a
range of Physical Activity contexts.
Skills, knowledge and understanding need to be taught and revisited across a
range of Physical Activity contexts so that students can begin to make connections
between what they learn in Physical Activity and their own lives- whether it is for
physical activity that is deliberate or performance based or for physical activity as
part of life more generally. Teachers need to employ teaching strategies such as
questioning, feedback, feed-forward and sharing of learning intentions that engage
students in the teaching - learning process and encourage student voice.
Teachers must be pro-active in actively questioning the values, which underpin
packaged programmes. Packaged programmes need to support the Physical

REFERENCE

Bloom, B.S. (Ed.). Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.

Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in the secondary school.
Bulletin of Physical Education, 10, 9-16.

Culpan, I. (2000). Putting Education back into Physical Education. Presentation at Physical Education
New Zealand's International Physical Education Conference. July 2000. Wellington, NZ.

Curriculum Development Centre. (2010). Transformasi kurikulum konvensyen PIBG kebangsaan,


Tahun 2010. Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia.

Dave, R.H. (1970). Psychomotor levels in Developing and Writing Behavioral Objectives, pp.20-21.
R.J. Armstrong, ed. Tucson, Arizona: Educational Innovators Press.

Harrow, A. (1972) A Taxonomy of Psychomotor Domain: A Guide for Developing Behavioral


Objectives. New York: David McKay.

Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., Masia, B.B. (1973). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the
Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York: David McKay Co., Inc.

Standard Curriculum for Primary School (2010). Dokumen Standard Kurikulum Pendidikan Jasmani
Tahun 1. Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia.

Simpson E.J. (1972). The Classification of Educational Objectives in the Psychomotor Domain.
Washington, DC: Gryphon House.

Vicki, W., Colleen, E., F. & Susan, K. (2002). Assessing the Cognitive and Affective Progress of
Children, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 73(7), 29-3.