Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Task analysis

Some process and content concerns

  • Articles
  • Published:
AV communication review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Conclusion

Like religions, education, teaching, and instructional development, tend, by their very nature, to have a number of components: myths, rituals, symbols, cults, and beliefs. Task analysis, in particular, has tended to become ritualized. It has developed a prescribed form or order often ceremonially performed and faithfully followed. Accordingly, the meaning and function of task analysis has sometimes been overlooked; what is appropriate has become secondary to faith and custom. Task analysis can escape this dilemma by looking outside itself toward the world it serves.

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

  • Annett, J., & Duncan, K. D. Task analysis and training design.Occupational Psychology, 1967,41, 211–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Annett, J., & Duncan, K. D. Task analysis: A critique. In J. Barnes & N. Robinson (Eds.),New media and methods in industrial training. London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S., et al.Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay, 1956.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, L.J. Sequencing of instruction in relation to hierarchies of competence. Pittsburgh, Pa.: American Institutes for Research, Monograph Number 3,1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S.Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bung, K. The concept of partial order in language programming and the freedom of the consumer.Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 1971, 8, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotterman, T. E.Task classification: An approach to partially ordering information on human learning. Dayton, Ohio: Wright Air Development Center, WADC-TN 58-374,1959.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossman, E. R. F. W. Perceptual activities in manual work. Research, 1956,9, 42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossman, E. R. F. W.Taxonomy of automation: State of arts and prospects. Paris, France: OECD European Conference on the Manpower Aspects of Automation and Technical Change, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, I. K.The management of learning. London, England: McGraw-Hill, 1971. (U.S. edition,Competency based learning: Management technology and design. New York: McGraw-Hill, in press.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, I. K. Presentation strategies. In J. Hartley (Ed.),Strategies for programmed instruction: An educational technology. London, England: Butterworths, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, I. K., Packer, D. C. L.Decision tables and the communication of complex rules and instructions. London, England: Ergonomics Research Society Conference on Anticipatory Training for New and Reorganized Tasks, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, I. K., & Schwen, T. (Eds.)Toward a definition of instructional development. Washington, D.C.: Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Division of Instructional Development Monograph, 1972. (a)

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, I. K., & Schwen, T. Some process concerns about formative evaluation.Viewpoints, 1972,4, 48. (b)

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, K. Strategies for analysis of task. In J. Hartley (Ed.)Strategies for programmed instruction: An educational technology. London, England: Butterworths, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. L., Homme, L. E., & Glaser, R. The ruleg system for the construction of programmed verbal learning sequences.Journal of Educational Research, 1962,55.

  • Fitts, P. M. Perceptual motor skills learning. In A. W. Melton (Ed.),Categories of human learning. New York: Academic Press, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folley, J. D.Development of an improved method of task analysis and beginnings of a theory of training. New York: US Naval Training Device Center, NAVTRADEVCEN, 1218–1, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R. M.The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, T. F. Mathetics: The technology of education.Journal of Mathetics, 1962,1, 7–73 and2, 7–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbreth, F. B.Brick laying system. New York: Clark Publishing, 1911.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horabin, I. S., Gane, G. P., & Lewis, B. N.Algorithms and the prevention of instruction. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Consultants Training, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, S. Why can’t leaflets be logical?New Society, 1964, 102, 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, S. D. M.Training within the organization. London, England: Tavistock, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S. and Masia, B. B.Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook 2: Affective domain. New York: McKay, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landa, L. N.Algorithmierung im unterricht. Berlin, Germany: Verlag Volk und Wissen, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leith, G. O. M.Programmed instruction, acquisition of knowledge and mental development of students. Paris, France: UNESCO, Proceedings of a UNESCO Seminar on Programmed Instruction, Paper ED/ENPRO/6,1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mager, R. F., & Beach, K. M.Developing vocational instruction. Palo Alto, Calif.: Fearon, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mechner, F. M. Science education and behavior technology. In R. Glaser (Ed.),Teaching machines and programed learning, II: Data and directions. Washington, D.C.: NEA, Department of Audiovisual Instruction, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. Content and instructional analysis for cognitive transfer tasks.AV Communication Review, 1973,20, 109–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H.Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. B.A method for man-machine task analyses. Dayton, Ohio: Wright Air Development Center, WADC TR-53-137, 1953.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. B. Task description. In R. M. Gagné (Ed.),Psychological principles in system development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. B.A classification of learning tasks in conventional language. Dayton, Ohio: Wright Air Development Center, AMRLTDR-63-74, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. B.Task taxonomy: Science or technology? Birmingham, England: University of Aston, Conference on the human operator in complex skills, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roethlesberger, F. J., & Dickinson, W.J. Management and the worker. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, W. D.Industrial skills. London: Pitman, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shriver, E. L.Determining training requirements for electronic system maintenance: Development and test of a new method of skill and knowledge analysis. Alexandria, Va.: Human Resources Research Office, Technical Report 63, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shriver, E. L., & Trexler, R. C.Application and test of the FORECAST concept of electronics maintenance on Navy LORAN equipment. Alexandria, Va.: Human Resources Research Office, Technical Report 65–3,1965.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, E.J. The classification of educational objectives, psychomotor domain. Urbana, I11.: University of Illinois, BR 50090, ERD 251,1966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. G.The development of training objectives. Alexandria, Va.: Human Resources Research Office, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stolurow, L. M.A taxonomy of learning task characteristics. Dayton, Ohio: Wright Air Development Center, AMRL-TDR64-2,1964.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, F. W.Principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Row, 1947.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, C.A., Davies, I. K., Openshaw, D., & Bird, J.Programmed learning in perspective. Chicago, I11.: Educational Methods, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, C. A., & Davies, I. K.Training requirements for Royal Air Force photographers. Brampton, Huntington, England: HQ RAF Training Command, Research Branch Report, First Phase Task 235,1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trist, E., Higgin, G., Murray, H., & Pollack, A.Organizational choice. London, England: Tavistock, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, R. W. Measuring results in college instruction. In T. Harris & W. E. Schwahn (Eds.),The learning process. New York: Oxford University Press, 1961.

    Google Scholar 

Additional Bibliography

  • Annett, J., & Duncan, K. D., Stammers, R. B., & Gray, M. J.Task analysis. London, England: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Department of Employment Training Information Paper 6, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, I. K.The analytical and synthetic stages of program writing. Programmed Learning (The Journal of the Association for Programmed Learning and Educational Technology) 1965,2, 2.

  • Davies, I. K., & Hartley, J. (Eds.)Contributions to an educational technology. London, England: Butterworths, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gane, C.Managing the training function. London, England: George Allen and Unwin, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, S.The design of instruction. London, England: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Department of Employment Training Information Paper No. 1,1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shriver, E. L., Fink, C. D., & Trexler, R. C.A procedural guide for technical implementation of the FORECAST methods of task and skills analysis. Alexandria, Va.: Human Resources Research Office, 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stainer, F. W. Training for fault diagnosis.Proceedings of the Institute of Electrical Engineers, 1967,114.

  • Stolurow, L. M.Teaching by machine. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, J. I., Glaser, R., & Schaefer, H. H.Learning and programmed instruction. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, R. W., Gagne, R. M., & Scriven, M.Perspectives of curriculum evaluation. Chicago, I11.: Rand McNally, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Audio-Visual Center, Indiana University, 47401, Bloomington

    Ivor K. Davies (professor of education and assistant executive director)

Authors
  1. Ivor K. Davies
    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

Davies, I.K. Task analysis. AVCR 21, 73–86 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02770829

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02770829

Keywords

Search

Navigation