Analysis: Considering Instructional Content for Online Instruction



Instructional content is the last part of the second phase of analysis. During the instructional content analysis, the designer delineates the major steps and subordinate skills (subskills) that learners perform in order to reach the instructional goal. These steps and subskills are illustrated in a learning task map (LTM) containing a line that divides the new learning from required entry skills. The LTM facilitates the ordering and sequencing of steps and skills. Task items and their identified outcome level are entered into a table, known as the Task-Objective-Assessment Item Blueprint (TOAB). Later in the WBID Model, the TOAB is used as a tool to match objectives and assessment items with task items. The preliminary goal statement is then reviewed and changed as needed to create a final instructional goal. Findings from the entire analysis stage provide implications for online design, implementation, and evaluation.

This chapter describes the instructional content analysis. We explain the types of learning task maps and the numbering systems used and provide directions for beginning the TOAB. We then discuss reviewing the findings for all four of the instructional components and finalizing the instructional goal statement. The chapter closes with an examination of the implications of the instructional component analysis findings on the online design.


Instructional content analysis Learning task map (LTM) Major steps Subskills Types of content analysis Hierarchical analysis Procedural analysis Combination analysis Task-objective-assessment item blueprint (TOAB) 


  1. (2011). Netiquette. Retrieved from
  2. Allsopp, A. (2014, December 15). Lost in translation: Android emoji vs. iOS emoji. Tech advisor blog. Retrieved from
  3. Bork, A. (2000). Highly interactive tutorial distance learning. Information, Communication, and Society, 3(4), 639–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Branch, R. M. (2018). Characteristics of foundational instructional design models. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (4th ed., pp. 23–30). New York, NY: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  5. Davidson, G. V. (1988). The role of educational theory incomputer mediated instruction. The CTISS File, 7, 33–38.Google Scholar
  6. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2015). The systematic design of instruction (8th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  7. Dunlap, J., Bose, D., Lowenthal, P. R., York, C. S., Atkinson, M., & Murtagh, J. (2016). What sunshine is to flowers: A literature review on the use of emoticons to support online learning. In S. Y. Tettegah & M. Gartmeier (Eds.), Emotions, design, learning and technology (pp. 163–182). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gagné, R. M. (1985). Conditions of learning and theory for instruction (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  9. Gagné, R. M., Wager, W., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. M. (2005). Principles of instructional design (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson.Google Scholar
  10. Hern, A. (2015, February 6). Don’t know the difference between emoji and emoticons? Let me explain. The Guardian. Retrieved from
  11. Jonassen, D. H., Tessmer, M., & Hannum, W. H. (1999). Task analysis methods for instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Larson, M. B., & Lockee, B. B. (2014). Streamlined ID: A practical guide to instructional design. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H., & Kemp, J. E. (2012). Designing effective instruction (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  15. Richey, R., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. (2011). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory, research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Seels, B. B., & Glasgow, Z. (1998). Making instructional design decisions (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Copyright information

©  Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Counseling and Instructional ScienceUniversity of South AlabamaMobileUSA
  2. 2.Division of Research and Strategic InnovationUniversity of West FloridaPensacolaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Educational TechnologyBoise State UniversityBoiseUSA

Personalised recommendations