by: Marlene Fauser, Kirk Henry, and David Kent Norman on February 18, 2006

Task Analysis involves the systematic process of identifying specific tasks to be trained and a detailed analysis of each of those tasks (Ehrlich, 2000). To be able to design learning supported instruction, designers must understand the tasks the learners will be performing (Jonassen, Tessmer, & Hannum, 1999).

The purpose of this paper is to apply three analysis techniques from separate categories of methods as described by Jonassen, et al. to one instructional goal. This paper describes the key concepts, application, and experiences with a technique each from the Job, Procedural, and Skill Analysis Method, Instructional and Guided Learning Analysis Method, and Subject Mater/Content Analysis Method. A sample of each analysis technique is provided in the Appendices.

The Job, Procedural, and Skill Analysis Method emerged during WWII when most training being developed was technical training which emphasized procedural skill development. These methods describe in a procedural manner the way jobs are performed. Analyzing steps has become the most common conception of task analysis and there are many methods and approaches published. Alternatively, Instructional and Guided Learning Analysis Method describe tasks how they are best learned. This may or may not be consistent with the ways the job is performed. Subject Matter/Content Analysis Methods consider that designers elicit instructional information from SMEs. This information will usually come to the designer in an outline form, chunked by the subject matter expert. This organizational method can be effective, but is not always the best way to represent the instructional content. Subject Matter/Content Analysis Methods offer alternate methods for representing content structure.

Job, Procedural, and Skill Analysis Method – Job Task Analysis

The task analysis approach emerged from the field of systems analysis when systems analysis was applied to the world of work (Jonassen, et al., 1999). The purpose of creating task descriptions is to enhance the performance of the overall system or to enhance job or task performance.

In order to conduct a job analysis, you must describe and analyze each task. The description should include the stimulus situation and the proper response. One would typically start at a general level and then get more specific (Miller, 1962 as cited in Jonassen, et al., 1999). Jonassen, et al. would argue that there are several advantages to creating task descriptions:

• It is very job oriented
• It provides data to support training, personnel selection, and job design
• It describes tasks in sufficient detail to prevent misunderstanding
• It identifies the competencies that underlie job tasks

We must also consider the disadvantages of task descriptions as well. First, the process is generally limited to specific descriptive aspects of tasks. Secondly, the skill level of the task analyst must be high. Individuals with this level of skill may be difficult to find. Additionally, it has been found that the task description procedure as a whole does not help select specific tasks for training.

All of this information was considered when creating the analysis for the task of distance collaboration. The outline in Appendix A contains detailed information that follows the methods suggested by Jonassen, et al. (1999). There is additional information in Appendix B that further develops each solution and what it should be used for.

When going through this assignment, it was difficult for me to understand the level to which the analysis should be reported. I was torn between describing each button push and mouse click. For our chosen area, there are several categories where different applications could be used. I felt that it would be difficult to describe each button push for each individual software package as they did in the book for pre-flight checks.

I did notice, however, that putting this information on paper, provided me, an experienced technologist, with clear concise information which can and will be used to help others decide on platforms as well as conduct smooth, effortless collaboration sessions.

Instructional and Guided Learning Analysis Method - Learning Contingency Analysis

Learning contingency analysis differs from task analysis primarily in focusing on tasks in a learning environment rather than job performance (Jonassen, et al., 1999, p. 99). By focusing on identifying the behavioral components of tasks, the designer can discover the interdependencies among the tasks (Jonassen, et al., p. 99). Contingency analysis involves first sequencing the instructional content, followed by determining the most effective conditions for the instruction. For example, teaching algebra to a six-year-old during recess would be an extreme example of poor contingency analysis. First the child must have an understanding of basic arithmetic and a learning environment free of distractions.

The sequencing of instruction should reflect one behavior having dependence on another (Jonassen, et al., p. 100). To sort learning contingencies, Jonnassen cites Gropper's (1974) four behavioral components tasks can have:

• Superordinate/subordinate – a hierarchical relationship to show behavior X is a part of behavior Y.
• Coordinate relationship – behaviors at the same level in a hierarchical relationship, not necessarily performed at the same time or in the same order.
• Shared elements – behaviors that share some amount of the same concepts.
• No relationship – behaviors with no relationship to each other.

Appendix A references eight steps for conducting a learning contingency analysis, which includes Gropper's behavior components as part of steps three and four. The hierarchical learning analysis is similar to Dick, Carey, and Carey's (1999) chapter on subordinate skills analysis. Dick, et al, describes a method of drawing relationships between learning components in a pictorial form, versus a bulleted, tabular form in contingency analysis. The fifth step of contingency analysis skips a few chapters in the Dick and Carey model, but is analogous to developing instructional strategy.

In all, the learning contingency analysis is best for environments where learning is important, rather than performance. It is a time consuming analysis meant to draw a roadmap for the most effective sequence of instruction. The result instruction framework is rigid and may not be appropriate for learning tasks which can not be directly observed. A large instructional unit could make a confusing set of sequential dependencies between tasks in step 3 as compared to the pictorial method recommended by Dick, et al., so a highly skilled analyst is to perform contingency analyses.

Subject Mater/Content Analysis Method – Master Design Chart

The Master Design Chart approach to task analysis is used when the educational ends are the development of the behavioral capabilities of the students (Jonassen, et al., 1999, p. 207). This method has its basis in two foundations. The first foundational principle states that instructional outcomes can be stated as behavioral objectives. The second states the use of instructional taxonomies to describe the outcomes. In using this method, the instructional designer classifies content according to behaviors but is not bound to any taxonomy.

To conduct a Master Design Chart analysis the designer constructs the behavior axis using a taxonomy of instructional outcomes. The designer can use more specific behaviors as appropriate. Next the specific items of content are identified and listed as the vertical axis.

Each cell in the chart is now analyzed and the relative emphasis required in the course or curriculum is noted in the cell. This is done on a continuum with 0 representing no emphasis and a number such as 3 or 5 representing the most emphasis. Although the resulting chart does not represent relationships among the instructional outcomes, it is recommended a relationship step be taken.

A Master Design Chart is constructed for a curriculum or a whole course rather than for an individual lesson. Although it gives an overview of the entire course, no information is included regarding any instructional strategy. A strength of this method is that the risk of omitting important content is reduced. Weaknesses of this method are that it is dependant on the skills of the analyst, lacks basis in needs assessment and is time consuming to construct.

For our course, the matrix was created using document analysis techniques. The result is included as Appendix E. The content included information about being a "Distance Manager" and included content on what a leader should learn and know to successfully manage a geographically diverse team. Concentration from this SME was on higher level techniques as opposed to the detailed tasks analyzed in the Job Task Analysis approach.

While creating this matrix it was difficult to determine how the task list should be written. My habit is to include the action verb associated with the learning event. The matrix provides that association to the taxonomy, a challenge for this designer.

I selected to analyze this method since much of my work comes to me from Subject Matter Experts. I hoped I could learn to use a Subject Mater/Content Analysis Method in my job performance. I found it contrary to my method of thinking, which does helps me see things from a new perspective. However I also found it tedious and am not anxious to complete the Master Design Chart.

Overall Reflection

After reviewing the previous techniques, it has become clear that while some techniques can be used for the broadest of applications, others have been designed specifically for certain tasks. The more finely tuned the instructional designer's skill set is, the more they will be able to select the most specific tool for the task.

The task analysis method could be considered the broadest within the subset that we evaluated. It could be used in nearly every scenario. However, the resolution that it lacks may cause the end product to be deficient. Learning about and when to use the most refined tools available is the difference between being a novice or an expert.

References

Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2005). The systematic design of instruction: 6th edition. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Ehrlich, D. (2000). Glossary of terms. Retrieved February 18, 2006, from the Northeastern Illinois University, Instructional Design II Web site: http://www.neiu.edu/~dbehrlic/hrd408/glossary.htm

Fazio, A., & Rieff, K. (2006, Jan). The distance manager. Presented at a meeting of the IT department of Walt Disney Parks & Resorts.

Jonassen, D. H., Tessmer, M., & Hannum, W. H. (1999). Task analysis methods for instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates