AV communication review

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 73–86 | Cite as

Task analysis

Some process and content concerns
  • Ivor K. Davies


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.


Educational Technology Task Analysis Technical Approach Instructional Development Instructional Developer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Annett, J., & Duncan, K. D. Task analysis and training design.Occupational Psychology, 1967,41, 211–221.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Bloom, B. S., et al.Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay, 1956.Google Scholar
  4. Briggs, L.J. Sequencing of instruction in relation to hierarchies of competence. Pittsburgh, Pa.: American Institutes for Research, Monograph Number 3,1968.Google Scholar
  5. Bruner, J. S.Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Crossman, E. R. F. W. Perceptual activities in manual work. Research, 1956,9, 42.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Davies, I. K. Presentation strategies. In J. Hartley (Ed.),Strategies for programmed instruction: An educational technology. London, England: Butterworths, 1972.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Davies, I. K., & Schwen, T. Some process concerns about formative evaluation.Viewpoints, 1972,4, 48. (b)Google Scholar
  15. Duncan, K. Strategies for analysis of task. In J. Hartley (Ed.)Strategies for programmed instruction: An educational technology. London, England: Butterworths, 1972.Google Scholar
  16. 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. Google Scholar
  17. Fitts, P. M. Perceptual motor skills learning. In A. W. Melton (Ed.),Categories of human learning. New York: Academic Press, 1964.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Gagne, R. M.The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965.Google Scholar
  20. Gilbert, T. F. Mathetics: The technology of education.Journal of Mathetics, 1962,1, 7–73 and2, 7–56.Google Scholar
  21. Gilbreth, F. B.Brick laying system. New York: Clark Publishing, 1911.Google Scholar
  22. Horabin, I. S., Gane, G. P., & Lewis, B. N.Algorithms and the prevention of instruction. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Consultants Training, 1967.Google Scholar
  23. Jones, S. Why can’t leaflets be logical?New Society, 1964, 102, 16.Google Scholar
  24. King, S. D. M.Training within the organization. London, England: Tavistock, 1964.Google Scholar
  25. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S. and Masia, B. B.Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook 2: Affective domain. New York: McKay, 1964.Google Scholar
  26. Landa, L. N.Algorithmierung im unterricht. Berlin, Germany: Verlag Volk und Wissen, 1969.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Mager, R. F., & Beach, K. M.Developing vocational instruction. Palo Alto, Calif.: Fearon, 1967.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Merrill, M. D. Content and instructional analysis for cognitive transfer tasks.AV Communication Review, 1973,20, 109–125.Google Scholar
  31. Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H.Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960.Google Scholar
  32. Miller, R. B.A method for man-machine task analyses. Dayton, Ohio: Wright Air Development Center, WADC TR-53-137, 1953.Google Scholar
  33. Miller, R. B. Task description. In R. M. Gagné (Ed.),Psychological principles in system development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962.Google Scholar
  34. Miller, R. B.A classification of learning tasks in conventional language. Dayton, Ohio: Wright Air Development Center, AMRLTDR-63-74, 1963.Google Scholar
  35. Miller, R. B.Task taxonomy: Science or technology? Birmingham, England: University of Aston, Conference on the human operator in complex skills, 1966.Google Scholar
  36. Roethlesberger, F. J., & Dickinson, W.J. Management and the worker. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959.Google Scholar
  37. Seymour, W. D.Industrial skills. London: Pitman, 1966.Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. Simpson, E.J. The classification of educational objectives, psychomotor domain. Urbana, I11.: University of Illinois, BR 50090, ERD 251,1966.Google Scholar
  41. Smith, R. G.The development of training objectives. Alexandria, Va.: Human Resources Research Office, 1964.Google Scholar
  42. Stolurow, L. M.A taxonomy of learning task characteristics. Dayton, Ohio: Wright Air Development Center, AMRL-TDR64-2,1964.Google Scholar
  43. Taylor, F. W.Principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Row, 1947.Google Scholar
  44. Thomas, C.A., Davies, I. K., Openshaw, D., & Bird, J.Programmed learning in perspective. Chicago, I11.: Educational Methods, 1963.Google Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Trist, E., Higgin, G., Murray, H., & Pollack, A.Organizational choice. London, England: Tavistock, 1963.Google Scholar
  47. 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

  1. 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
  2. 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. Google Scholar
  3. Davies, I. K., & Hartley, J. (Eds.)Contributions to an educational technology. London, England: Butterworths, 1972.Google Scholar
  4. Gane, C.Managing the training function. London, England: George Allen and Unwin, 1972.Google Scholar
  5. Jones, S.The design of instruction. London, England: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Department of Employment Training Information Paper No. 1,1968.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Stainer, F. W. Training for fault diagnosis.Proceedings of the Institute of Electrical Engineers, 1967,114.Google Scholar
  8. Stolurow, L. M.Teaching by machine. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963.Google Scholar
  9. Taber, J. I., Glaser, R., & Schaefer, H. H.Learning and programmed instruction. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1965.Google Scholar
  10. Tyler, R. W., Gagne, R. M., & Scriven, M.Perspectives of curriculum evaluation. Chicago, I11.: Rand McNally, 1967.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivor K. Davies
    • 1
  1. 1.Audio-Visual CenterIndiana UniversityBloomington

Personalised recommendations