Abstract
Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA) is used particularly in the context of instructional development. This paper involves two exploratory studies concerning the difficulties of those learning to perform HTA (Study 1) and how these might be overcome (Study 2). In Study 1 seventeen students were provided with declarative training in the major features of HTA and were then asked to analyse the task of making a cup of tea (task 1) or of painting a door (task 2). HTAs were analysed in terms of five HTA criteria (hierarchical representation, logical decomposition rule, logical equivalence, specification of plans and the P × C rule) and four other error categories (task boundaries incorrect, cognitive goals omitted, operations described as activities rather than goals, and lack of versatility of the analysis in terms of encompassing task variation). Errors occurred with respect to all HTA criteria and other error categories suggesting that carrying out HTA is itself a complex cognitive task. This together with an analysis of questionnaire responses concerning self-reported difficulties and strategies suggested that the tendency to use an action-oriented representation of the task being analysed might be one cause of poor performance. Study 2 investigated the effectiveness of three instructional conditions at improving analysts' performance at HTA: procedure training which specified eight main goals in carrying out HTA, criteria training which involved understanding and practice at using or recognising the five HTA criteria and types of error, and combined criteria/procedure training. Performance at HTA improved in both conditions that involved criteria training.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, J.R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review 4: 369–406.
Anderson, J.R. (1993). Rules of the Mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Annett, J. & Duncan, K.D. (1967). Task analysis and training design. Occupational Psychology 41: 211–221.
Annett J., Duncan, K.D., Stammers, R.B. & Gray, M. J. (1971). Task Analysis, Training Information No 6. London: HMSO.
Anzai, Y. & Simon, H.A. (1979). The theory of learning by doing. Psychological Review 86:124–140.
Astley, J.A. & Stammers, R.B. (1987). Adapting hierarchical task analysis for user-system interface design. In J.R. Wilson, E.N. Corlett & I. Manenica, eds, New Methods in Applied Ergonomics, pp. 175–184. London: Taylor & Francis.
Bass, A., Aspinall, J., Walters, G. & Stanton, N. (1995). A software toolkit for hierarchical task analysis. Applied Ergonomics 26: 147–151.
Diaper, D., ed. (1989). Task Analyses for Human-Computer Interaction. Chichester: Ellis Horwood.
Duncan, K.D. (1974). Analytical techniques in training design. In E. Edwards & F.P. Lees, eds, The Human Operator in Process Control. London: Taylor & Francis.
Evans, J.L., Homme, L. & Glaser, R. (1962). The RULEG system for the construction of programmed verbal learning sequences. Journal of Educational Research 55: 513–518.
Gael, S. (1983). Job Analysis. A Guide to Assessing Work Activities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gagné, R.M. (1970). The Conditions of Learning (2nd edition). NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Gagné, R.M. (1985). The Conditions of Learning and the Theory of Instruction (4th edn). NY: CBS College Publishing.
Johnson, P. (1992). Human-Computer Interaction: Psychology, Task Analysis and Software Engineering. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.
Kirwan, B. and Ainsworth, L.K. (1992). A Guide to Task Analysis. London: Taylor & Francis.
McCormick, E.J. (1979). Job Analyses: Methods and Applications. NY: Amacom.
Naylor, J.C. & Briggs, G.E. (1963). Effects of task complexity and task organisation on the relative efficiency of part and whole training methods. Journal of Experimental Psychology 65: 217–224.
Newell, A. & Rosenbloom, A. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In J.R. Anderson, ed., Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Patrick, J. (1991). Types of analysis for training. In J.E. Morrison, ed., Training for Performance: Principles of Applied Human Learning, pp. 127–166. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Patrick, J. (1992). Training: Research and Practice. London: Academic Press.
Reigeluth, C.M., Merrill, M.D. & Bunderson, C.V. (1978). The structure of subject matter content and its instructional design implications. Instructional Science 7: 107–126.
Shepherd, A. (1985). Hierarchical task analysis and training decisions. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology 22(3): 162–176.
Shepherd, A. (1989). Analysis and training in information technology tasks. In D. Diaper, ed., Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 15–55. Chichester: Ellis Horwood.
Shepherd, A. (1993). An approach to information requirements specification for process control tasks. Ergonomics 36: 805–817.
Spurgeon, P., Davies, R. & Chapman, A.J., eds (1994). Elements of Applied Psychology. Reading: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Umbers, I.G. & Reiersen, C.S. (1995). Task analysis in support of the design and development of a nuclear power plant safety system. Ergonomics 38: 443–454.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Patrick, J., Gregov, A. & Halliday, P. Analysing and training task analysis. Instructional Science 28, 51–79 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003583420137
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003583420137