60 years ago, Benjamin Bloom and his peers wrote about what they perceived as a barrier facing the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives – Cognitive Domain. In part they wrote:
‘There is an unmistakable trend pointing toward a hierarchy of classes of behavior. Yet, in the cognitive domain especially, it appears that as the behaviors become more complex, the individual is more aware of their (behaviors) existence. If the level of consciousness is an important dimension it would pose a great range of problems and point to a whole new range of relationships. Perhaps… why some affective behaviors are so difficult. Perhaps it would help explain the extraordinary retention of some psychomotor skills.
Universities have participated in creating an “unmistakable trend” by doing a wonderful job of positioning themselves as higher learning. In the past 60 years this higher learning attitude has resulted in the removal of (expensive) psychomotor or physically-literate curriculum from our schools. (Note: We are now at the point where children are being born with symptoms of inactivity - obesity.) This has a homogenizing impact on learning environments whereby the lecture hall represents the pinnacle and physically-literate pedagogy the also-ran.
In fact the only physical-literacy remaining in grade 7 or 8 are music and sport. Additionally, secondary technological curriculum is quickly becoming equally sedentary. While the cognitive domain is important, alone it remains unconscious. The challenge and the questions become 1) how do we work past the epistemological status of sedentary learning styles 2) (re)engage authentic ‘affective’ and ‘extraordinary psychomotor skills’ at an earlier age 3) diversify by (re)engaging blue-collar educators 4) all without breaking-the-bank?