COLUMN: HISTORY COLUMN Revisiting the Historical Roots of Task Analysis in Instructional Design Stephanie L. Shipley 1 & Jacqueline S. Stephen 2 & Andrew A. Tawfik 3 # Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2018 Defining Task Analysis through Paradigm Shifts in Education One of the primary goals of Instructional Design is to con- struct knowledge resources in a way that is conducive to learn- ing. This poses a challenge because it requires instructional designers to create resources and activities in a way that elim- inates redundancy and information overload. As part of this process, instructional designers and subject matter experts align learning objectives and organize content into logical segments in a way that leads toward knowledge construction. The process by which a broad set of information is broken down and chunked into a series of subtasks is especially im- portant, yet challenging, as we continue to explore innovative mediums and strategies to transmit information to students. One tool we as designers often employ includes a task anal- ysis, whereby we Bbreak a task or job down into its component parts and identify the actions needed to complete it properly^ (Chan 2009, p. 35). Although its history is multifaceted, our field often traces the origins of task analysis from objectivist-based approaches to military task mastery. In this view, knowledge is external to the learning; therefore, education is designed to reflect that reality. A pioneer was Gagne (1962), who was highly influ- ential in training development and its break down of the tasks into individual steps and set of sequences. Indeed, this coincided well with a systems approach of training espoused by the United States military. In the early stages of instructional design, we as a field used the task analysis to understand performance objectives and the subset of activities military personnel needed to complete in order to successfully carry out that task. Over time, the U.S. military services expanded the original task analysis to include the development of several jobs and technical analysis methods (Mitchell and Driskill 1996). Given structural approach towards accomplishing goals, this model of education was quickly adopted by our col- leagues situated within the classroom. During the 1950s and 1960s, Bruner and other leaders focused on the structure of information and knowledge in order to develop K-12 curricu- lum (Ertmer and Newby 2013). The task analysis was instru- mental as it outlined the optimal pathways for learning and assisted educators as they planned out the sequence of tasks. In line with objectivism, the task analysis was used as a plan- ning tool that enabled educators to produce repeatable actions from learners. In the latter part of the century, we in the education field shifted from behaviorism to constructivism, whereby learners construct their own knowledge within socially mediated con- texts. Along with this shift in philosophy, the task analysis became key in helping us outline the Bblocks^ that supported learners’ knowledge construction. Given the migration to- wards constructivism, leaders such as Jonassen et al. (1998) expanded the purpose of task analyses to be: 1. Determine the instructional objectives. 2. Define and describe in detail the tasks and subtasks that the student will perform. 3. Specify the knowledge type (declarative, structural, and procedural knowledge) that characterizes a job or task. 4. Select learning outcomes that are appropriate for instruc- tional development. 5. Prioritize and sequence tasks. 6. Determine instructional activities and strategies that foster learning. 7. Select appropriate media and learning environments. 8. Construct performance assessments and evaluation. As our field has grown to include areas such as human resources and other performance-driven domains, history * Stephanie L. Shipley shipleysl@roanestate.edu Jacqueline S. Stephen stephen_js@mercer.edu 1 Roane State Community College, Harriman, TN, USA 2 Mercer University, Macon, GA, USA 3 University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA TechTrends https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0303-8