Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of task analysis procedures

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of instructional development

Abstract

For the new developer, deciding which task analysis procedures to use can be confusing. In this article, we describe the five functions comprising the task analysis process: inventorying, describing, selecting, sequencing, and analyzing tasks. We then describe some critical distinctions in the task analysis process: micro/macro level, top-down/bottom-up, and job/learning task analysis. We then combine the functions and distinctions in task analysis into a quasi-algorithm to suggest which of thirty task analysis procedures may be used to fulfill each of the functions. Those procedures are described briefly in the Appendix.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andrews, D. H., & Goodson, L. A. (1980). A comparative analysis of models of instructional design.Journal of Instructional Development, 3 (4), 2–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S., Krathwhol, D. R., & Masia, B. B. (1956).Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzan, T. (1974).Use both sides of your brain. New York: E. P. Dutton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E., & Voogel, A. (1985). Transfer of training principles for instructional design.Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 33 (2), 113–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalkey, N. C., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi Method to the use of experts.Management Science, 9, 458–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, I. K. (1976).Objectives in curriculum design. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R. H., Alexander, L. T., & Yelon, S. L. (1974).Learning system design: An approach to the improvement of instruction. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Design of courses of instruction (Report No. MCOP11510 23A) (1972). Washington, D. C.: U. S. Marine Corps.

  • Diekhoff, G. M., & Diekhoff, K. B. (1982). Cognitive maps as a tool in communicating structural knowledge.Educational Technology, 22 (4), 28–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. L., Glaser, R., & Homme, L. E. (1962). The RULEG system for the construction of programmed verbal learning sequences.Journal of Educational Research, 55, 513–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fields, A. (1982). Getting started: Pattern notes and perspectives. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.).The technology of text: Principles for structuring, designing, and displaying text, (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, S. A., & Wiley, W. W. (1971).An introduction to functional job analysis. Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flannigan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique.Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foshay, W. R. (1983). Alternative methods of task analysis: A comparison of three methods.Journal of Instructional Development, 6 (4), 2–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fussell, J. B., Powers, G. J., & Bennett, R. (1974). Fault trees: A state of the art discussion.IEEE Transactions on Reliability, R-23, 5–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R. M. (1965).The conditions of learning (1st ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R. M. (1974). Task analysis—Its relation to content analysis.Educational Psychology, 11 (1), 11–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R. M. (1975).Essentials of learning for instruction. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R. M. (1977).The conditions of learning (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R. M. (1985).The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1979).Principles of instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentry, C. (1985, January).Needs analysis: Rationale and technique. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, New Orleans.

  • Gilbert, T. F. (1961). Mathetics: The technology of education (Special issues).Journal of Mathetics, (1 and2).

  • Gilbert, T. F. (1982a). A question of performance—Part I: The PROBE model.Training and Development Journal, 36, 21–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, T. F. (1982b). A question of performance—Part II: Applying the PROBE model.Training and Development Journal, 36, 85–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gropper, G. L. (1974).Instructional strategies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harless, J. H. (1980). Task analysis—A clarification of the term.NSPI Journal, 19 (2), 4–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrow, A. J. (1982).A taxonomy of psychomotor domain. New York: David McKay.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershbach, D. R. (1976). Deriving instructional content through task analysis.Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 13 (3), 63–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, C. K. & Medsker, K. L. (1983). Instructional analysis: The missing link between task analysis and objectives.Journal of Instructional Development, 6 (4), 17–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Job task analysis manual (1973). San Diego, CA: Naval Training Center—Service Schools Command, Industrialized Learning Development Group.

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1984). Developing a learning strategy using pattern notes: A new technology.Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 21 (3), 163–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (in press). Verifying a method for assessing cognitive structure using pattern notes.Journal of Research and Development in Education.

  • Kaufman, R. (1972).Educational system planning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, P., Esquire, T., & Novak, J. (1983). A functional analysis of task analysis procedures for instructional design.Journal of Instructional Development, 6 (4), 10–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krathwohl, D. L., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964).Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals. Handbook II: The affective domain. New York: David McKay.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leith, G.O.M. (1970). The acquisition of knowledge and mental development of students.(British) Journal of Educational Technology, 1, 116–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mager, R. F., & Beach, K. M. (1967).Developing vocational instruction. Belmont, CA: Fearon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, M. C., & Brodt, D. E. (1973). Task analysis for training and curriculum design.Improving Human Performance Quarterly, 2, 113–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, E. J. (1979).Job analysis: Methods and applications. New York: American Management Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, F. M. (1982). Try brainstorming—a quick route to job analysis.Training/HRD, 19 (3), 38–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mechner, F. (1967). Behavioral analysis and instructional sequencing. In P. C. Lange (Ed.),Programmed instruction. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (1975). Learner control: Beyond aptitude—treatment interactions.A Communication Review, 23, 217–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (1983). Component display theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, P. F. (1978). Hierarchical and information processing task analysis: A comparison.Journal of Instructional Development, 1, 35–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, P. F. (1980). Analysis of a procedural task,NSPI Journal, 19 (2), 11–15, 26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. B. (1962). Task description and analysis. In R. M. Gagne & A. W. Melton (Eds.),Psychological principles in system development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., Merrill, M. D., & Bunderson, C. V. (1978). The structure of subject matter content and its instructional design implications.Instructional Science, 7 (2), 107–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., Merrill, M. D., Branson, R. K., Begland, R., & Tarr, R. (1980).Extended task analysis procedure (ETAP): User’s manual. Final Report, Army Training Development Institute. (NTIS No. AD-A098351)

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Rogers, C. A. (1980). The elaboration theory of instruction: Prescriptions for task analysis and design.NSPI Journal, 19 (1), 16–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Stein, F. S. (1983). The elaboration theory of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. B. (1976). Task analysis in instructional design: Some cases from mathematics. In D. Klahr (Ed.),Cognition and instruction. Hillsdale, JN: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. B., & Ford, W. W. (1982). The analysis of tasks for instruction: An information processing approach. In T. A. Brigham & A. C. Catania (Eds.),Handbook of applied behavior analysis: Social and instructional processes. New York: Irvington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romiszowski, A. J. (1981).Designing instructional systems. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, P. J., Dunphy, D. C., Smith, M. J., & Ogilvie, D. M. (1966).The general inquiries: A computer approach to content analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, C. A., Davies, I. K., Openshaw, D., & Bird, J. B. (1963).Programmed learning in perspective: A guide to program writing. Chicago: Educational Methods.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tieman, P., & Markle, S. (1983).Analyzing instructional context: A guide to instruction and evaluation (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Stipes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, W. R., Flynn, E. B., & Legere, C. L. J. (1970).The development of instructional systems. Fort Devens, MA: U. S. Army Security Agency Training Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zemke, R. (1981). The critical incident method of analysis. In R. Zemke, L. Standke & P. Jones (Eds.),Designing and delivering cost effective training and measuring the results. Minneapolis, MN: Lakewood.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 27412-5001, Greensboro, NC

    David H. Jonassen

  2. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA

    Wallace H. Hannum

Authors
  1. David H. Jonassen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wallace H. Hannum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jonassen, D.H., Hannum, W.H. Analysis of task analysis procedures. Journal of Instructional Development 9, 2–12 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02905208

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02905208

Keywords

Search

Navigation