Exercise A: An Exercise to Define Inputs, Actions, and Outputs
Exercise B: A Group Exercise to Perform a Task Analysis
Exercise D: An Exercise to Select the Most Appropriate Format for Data Recording

by Leanne C. Boyd

Each person, as a student or practitioner of instructional design, will approach the cementing of a base of ideas and information to the vehicle that is being constructed, in a different way. One very important thing that our textbook points out, again and again, is the unique and novel way that each designer will begin the almost overwhelming job of task analysis. This is a process of taking a subject matter from a general understanding, percolating it, refining it, and gleaning the most specific elements so that the final product will be the leanest – yet most comprehensive method – for imparting information and assessing performance. Our authors state that "the object of task analysis is to identify the subtasks, information flow, inputs, and decisions required to perform a task as objectively and explicitly as possible." (Seels & Glasgow, 1998, p. 33).

This statement, to me, also shows that each impending project, each newly considered task analysis, is unique unto itself, and the inherent characteristics of the completed analysis will be as unique as the project, itself. Although many companies or institutions might offer learning environments carefully constructed within the broad description of "Instructional Design," each will be "embossed" with the necessary attributes of the individual company or institution. For example, a training module on Safety On The Job for Company A will differ – perhaps greatly – from a training module on safety for Company B. A training module on this same subject for a school, will, once again, be different! For this reason, our text immediately points out that not only must a designer gather information from expert sources and mold and tweak it into appropriate behavioral forms – she or he must first be able to choose from a broad array of methods for collecting the data. In my own experience, this hasn't always been easy.

For me, the most important statement in this chapter was the advice that "the ability to work with unfamiliar subject matter is an essential prerequisite for virtually all designers." (p. 33). This means, and has meant in jobs I have worked, that we can take nothing for granted! Each task analysis is going to reveal something new, and something that is unique to the individual project. We need to have a flexible attitude toward our necessary jobs of "going into uncharted territory." Every project, no matter how similar to the one preceding it, will bring on the challenges of unfamiliar content!

Uncharted territories! THIS is why Seels and Glasgow say that the "analysis process is akin to discovery learning." (p. 33). For me, this is the excitement and the allure of this chosen career arena. As designers, we are called upon to adopt the very attitude of a lifelong learner – discovery learners – as our intended targets, the students who will utilize the product of our instructional design efforts. I think it is important to note how well the writers have described the process of task analysis. They begin by admitting that task analysis might be the most confusing part of the job, for new designers. (p. 34). It is my belief that an altered form of "confusion" might actually continue well into the career of a designer, until we can become proficient at recognizing the line between the actual task analysis (defining the job or content) and instructional analysis (answering the question of what must be learned). (p. 35).

In my own career pathway, I recently performed as a Project Lead for an instructional design project with Lucent Technologies. Our current readings describe so accurately the processes that were necessary in the Lucent project, that this chapter might have been written just for me! It is because of this that I previously said that many jobs will contain similar elements, but we must always be on the outlook for the new, uncharted fields of information – for, they certainly do arrive. As I read the chapter and began to compare what the authors were saying to the Lucent project, it did occur to me that the journey into Instructional Design is one indelibly interconnected to what is now termed "hypermedia." This is the utilization of text, graphics, video, and audio, where navigation by the user is determined by his or her style of thinking and processing information; it is interactive and exploratory. (Heinich et al., 1996, p. 261). It is important for me to make this distinction at this time, as there is an entire history of instructional design that happened long before the element of hypermedia or the New Media arrived on the scene.

My entire experience with Instructional Design has been within the parameters of New Media. More specifically, it has been within the limitless reaches of Web-based technologies. Even a project completed in 1996, as director of a small animation team for a software development task for Math instruction for the 4^th-grade level, was destined for more than a single computer workstation! The software was initially created for CD-ROM, but because of the authoring tool, Toolbook (version 3.0, upgraded to 4.0 CBT) by Asymetrix, was then re-directed and Web-enabled.

Our class notes ask us "What is analysis?" We are asked to think about how analysis relates, then, to a system. Since analysis is "a process that enables the investigator to understand how the system works, or a task is performed," (Fornshell, 1999, p. 1) then this, in my estimation, is the initial step of task analysis. We can only begin to locate and define inputs, actions, and outputs when we first have established how all of this relates to the larger concept of "the system." My interpretation of this term is not only the instructional system being designed, but also the delivery system by which it will be applied. Many times, the creative process for the project BEGINS with the mode of delivery, and is carefully constructed around that architecture.

In the example of the Math software, since this was 1996, it's obvious that this was among the first attempts of its kind, as a Web-based application. Truly, those of us on that team were ALL involved in approaching uncharted territories and new subject matter. One observation that I must make is that even the SMEs were often caught up in having content and processes change, literally overnight. I often think that this early introduction to the Internet as a delivery system, in its infancy and its often unreliable structure, had to have been one of my most fortunate and important learning situations, as I entered the world of Instructional Design. The team often learned alongside the subject matter experts, each seeking the advice of the other.

One very important lesson in the Math software project was learning these very steps of task analysis. Sometimes, it seems, the most difficult step is understanding the initial impact of the GENERAL information that we are attempting to synthesize into new learning environments. Many times, the general aspect is hidden for a time, while we ponder the earliest comprehension of the details. This is almost the basis for the old saying that one cannot see the forest for the trees. This happened early in the Math software project. One of the main concerns of the team of educators (4^th-grade teachers from two Colorado districts, as well as administrators) was that this instructional environment would be harmful for children of this age.

Those of us who had some familiarity (multimedia and technical courses, expertise in using online resources) were called upon to testify for the "friendliness" and usability of these technologies. Using examples created by others, and also charts, storyboards and outlines that the team had already produced, we were able to show that a proper use of modern instructional media actually can individualize and therefore "humanize" the learning process to a degree that has previously been considered impossible. (Heinich et al., 1996, p. 21). As time has gone on, I've seen many instances where New Media and instructional means have fine-tuned the learning experience to fit EXACT needs of the student!

In researching the topics of this chapter, the concept of the appropriateness of hypermedia for use with the Instructional Systems Design (ISD) process was addressed as early as 1989. In the book, Designing Hypermedia for Learning, David Jonassen and Heinz Mandl (editors), point out that:

"ISD is a fairly prescriptive approach to designing materials. Although many critics feel that ISD and hypermedia are inconsistent, they actually are mutually supportive. Because of the malleable structure of hypermedia, virtually any instructional design can be mapped onto the knowledge base. Hypermedia systems … provide a rich and powerful instructional design environment. Because of the collaborative capabilities of many hypermedia systems, users become designers of instruction themselves, so that the gap between users and designers disappears." (1989, p. 22).

My purpose in bringing this fact into this writing is to show that, within the boundaries that we set for a task analysis, it is becoming more and more imperative that we consider the delivery system as part and portion of the design process. It is my belief that hypermedia, or specifically, web-based technologies are going to be the preferred method of delivery.

In task analysis, we learn to inventory and select tasks for development. We describe in detail and in sequences, the sub-tasks. Finally, we classify the learning outcomes of each of those sub-tasks. The designer learns to identify the secondary skills or procedural steps that a student must learn in order to achieve a specific goal. The results of our analysis are used to write the objectives for performance, as well as specific statements of what learners will do, or know, when they complete the instructional sequence. (Jonassen & Mandl, 1989, p. 22).

One might ask, "What are the effects of hypermedia on designers?" For one thing, designers can acquire both "pedagogical and production benefits from hypermedia systems. They can show explicit relationships among various concepts; apply the dynamic features of moving images, graphics, and sound to illustrate concepts and skills; and collaborate with colleagues in developing and organizing concepts." (pp. 357-358). When scrutinized at the level of providing detailed and specific instruction, this indicates to me that the level of learning and output is enhanced – not just for the end learner, but for the designer, as well!

Sometimes in design, that which is not immediately recognizable or viewable, can be the most important part of the design. This is not something I learned at Nova, nor in technical studies. This was something I knew as a tiny child (when we all observe the magic while laying in the grass!). This concept was then re-learned as a Fine Arts student from 1970 to 1997, and a practicing fine and graphics artist during the many breaks between studies in that 27-year spread.

Consider WHITE SPACE.

This is the term applied to the non-crafted, non-detailed areas around the main subject matter in a piece of art, sculpture, or architecture. Without overwhelming the viewer (in fact, he/she is probably unaware of its strength or presence), it is the confining "frame" for the piece. It guides, defines, and even controls the artist as she creates the piece. It gently nudges and controls the viewer, as well, into perceiving the piece in the same way as the artist molded and coddled it into being.

Instructional design, in my opinion, is no different. The unobservable, the informational "white space" is an important aspect to this skill of ours!

One of the specific criteria for any given project is that, quite often, the knowledge is not always directly related to a task that is observable. Sometimes, the instruction will relate to a behavior associated with attitudes or values. (Seels & Glasgow, 1998, p. 35). Our authors, in fact, don't go far enough in their explanation and assessment of "unobservable tasks." I believe that every task has something not-seen attached to it, whether it is a feeling, an intuition, or something like a memory. There are values attached to most human activities.

For instance, the Math software was created within a metaphor designed to instill ethical and humane responsibility and awareness within the child. The software environment is "guided" by an alien creature named WYZT. The alien meets up with a group of children, and a process unfolds whereby the students learn from the alien being, and Wyzt learns much from them! Not all of the learning is Math-based. There is much to be learned about culture, ways of thinking, and feelings … which are all unobservable pieces of knowledge or ways of acting. The software was adapted to assess the young learner for how she treats beings, friends, and situations, as well as how she performs the Math. (ProjectTEAMS, 1996).

A second example comes from the interactive, task-based learning system I developed for Lucent Technologies. Much of the learning content was developed from a highly technical file that has been online for many years, as a long-scrolling, 450+ page PDF file. It was much under-utilized, because of its difficulty in usage. The Web-based application that I designed incorporated months of studying the content, analyzing the breakdown of elements, coordinating such factors as cultural effects on learning, and devising the most navigable environment as possible.

Because technicians were located in some 70 countries, the research into cultural effects had little to do with the technical aspects of this specific Lucent communications line of equipment – but it had MUCH to do with the success of integrating information with eventual reception by individual cultures. For me, this was a first-ever introduction to researching, laying out, and developing a learning system that relied heavily on "unseen" factors. Because I approached it in this manner, the prototype immediately showed its effectiveness, in user friendliness.

"Almost by instinct" was my modus operandi! Our current readings indicate that this "gut level" mode of design turned out to be very correct. I must note that once the decision was made to incorporate the unseen, cultural values into the design, many of the problems of discerning and designing the detailed structure, more naturally fell into place. It perhaps doesn't need to be added, but I also found that the structure, country by country, was a bit different – because of the addition of enhancing content with unseen values. Again, we are looking at the factor of uniqueness – which, in this instance, I experienced not in two separate projects, but within the SAME project.

With great interest, I read this section on flowcharts. In all areas of my career history, from the artist years to the technical communications years to the current studies at Nova, the ability to flowchart has been invaluable. Perhaps it is my art background, but all forms of organization for a project have LONG led back to a flowchart, in my own experience. This then has led to a PICTORIAL flowchart.

It has something to do with the adage, "A picture is worth a thousand words." The human brain is created to respond to visual images. There is a very fine line, in my interpretation of the concepts, between a flowchart and a storyboard. It is because of this that I have given up calling it anything else, for all the other preliminary organizational steps that I use in the "pre-storyboard" phases. I simply launch directly into developing a concept in a simple visual manner, augmented with text. The project grows from there. I even call it a storyboard, rather than a flowchart, even though the symbols I utilize are traditional for flowcharting.

Seels and Glasgow gave me a one-sentence description for why this has method has translated so well for me, into the world of Instructional Design: "The display may provide all the guidance necessary to perform a task." (1998, p. 47). The writers show the reader that the need for actual instruction will be reduced or eliminated if a task can be performed directly from the flowchart. As designers, we should always be attentive to opportunities for reducing time, effort, (p. 43) and COSTS. My experience with the other data collection methods of the "pre-storyboard" sequence -- aides such as outlines, notes, research, interviews, charts and tables (p. 40) -- is that, taken far enough, these elements will make a richly detailed storyboard.

In all of my design projects, the completed storyboard (the magnified flowchart) has been the exact moment in time when all the hard work of task analysis comes to life! The project is complete enough to stand on its own merits. It will withstand scrutiny and tests, evaluation and criticism, respect, admiration, and envy – or, it WON'T. That's what is known as "back to the board!"

The storyboard can even be used for the evaluation stage for end-user appropriateness, or at least give strong indications for success or failure. My experience has been that this is the prime time for making major adjustments to the project. Fine-tuning the instructional design aspects is better done in the storyboard stage, as it is less time-consuming and less costly than making changes to templates – or worse – to the completed system for instruction.

There is an exact point in this process of adding thumbnail sketches to a simple navigational layout, where the illustrated flowchart leaps into the visual world of being a storyboard. This, for me, has the intuitive feeling of a creative artistic evaluation of the process, more than a technician's view. This is when the final storyboard really becomes a standalone project.

I've always believed that the best way of illustrating a point … is to illustrate it!

• Click here to view the final storyboard for the Lucent Technologies project.
• Click here to compare with the prototype of the actual application.

Fornshell, George, Ph.D. (1999, Winter). MCTE 628 lecture notes, week 2. University curriculum. SCIS Dept., Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. (Available, PDF format or print copy, from MCTE Program Office, Nova Southeastern Univ., 3100 SW 9^th Ave., Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315).

Heinich, Robert, Molenda, Michael, Russell, James D., and Smaldino, Sharon E. (1996). Instructional media and technologies for learning. 5^th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall, Inc.

Jonassen, David H., and Mandl, Heinz. (Editors). (1989). Designing hypermedia for learning. ASI Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences, Vol. 67. Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Designing Hypertext/Hypermedia for Learning, held in Rottenburg/Neckar, FRG, July 3-8, 1989. Assisted by: Fischer, Peter M. and Wang, Sherwood. New York, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag (in cooperation with NATO Scientific Affairs Division).

ProjectTEAMS. (1996). Wyzt's playground. A collaborative venture with Metropolitan State College of Denver, Englewood Public Schools, Adams County School District 50, and USWest. [Online]. Available: http://clem.mscd.edu/~techcom/wyzt/

Seels, Barbara, and Glasgow, Zita. 1998. Making instructional design decisions. 2^nd ed. Ed.: Debra Stollenwerk. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

 .