Content uploaded by Zurina Yasak
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Zurina Yasak on Jan 27, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Developing a Learning Hierarchy for Identifying Pre-
Requisites to Training Goals in Vocational Education
Zurina Yasak
Faculty of Technical and Vocational Education
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
Batu Pahat, Johor, Malaysia
zurina.yasak@gmail.com
Maizam Alias
Faculty of Technical and Vocational Education
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
Batu Pahat, Johor, Malaysia
maizam@uthm.edu.my
Abstract— From the perspective of cognitivism, any complex
learning task can be broken down into its supporting components
which when acquired will lead to the learning of the complex
task. Failure to identify the supporting components will lead to
non-achievement of the intended learning goal. The procedural
task analysis and the learning task analysis technique are
techniques that can be used to analyse learning or training
demand which would lead to a better understanding of pre-
requisites to an intended learning/training goal. This paper
provides an example of how procedural task analysis and the
learning task analysis techniques can be used to identify the pre-
requisites to a learning goal for a vocational skill training course
in mechanical engineering.
Keywords— learning hierarchy technique; learning outcome;
skills training
I. INTRODUCTION
Instructors in Technical and Vocational Education and
Training (TVET) often assume that trainees will be able to
apply what have been taught to them [1], underestimating the
complexity of a given training or learning task given to trainees
[2]. As a consequence, instructors fail to appreciate the full
range of supporting skills that are needed to achieve the
specific learning task leading to ineffective instructional
efforts.
According to [3], a cognitivist psychologist and founder of
instructional design, any complex training or learning task has
pre-requisites that must be taught and acquired by trainees to
support the accomplishment of the task. Gagné categorizes a
skill into one of five domains namely, intellectual skill,
cognitive strategy, verbal information, attitude and motor skill
[3]. Intellectual skills refers to the ability to solve problems,
discriminate between facts, concepts and principles; while
cognitive strategy refers to the ability to use appropriate
strategies to monitor progress in problem solving and thinking
activities. Verbal information on the other hand refers to the
ability to narrate facts of knowledge. Lastly, Gagné’s
definitions of attitude and motor skill are similar to the
affective and psychomotor domains as defined by Bloom [4].
Learning tasks in TVET is often job related and thus many
TVET courses are dominated by motor skills demonstrations.
Nonetheless, the ability to demonstrate these motor skills are
also dependent on skills acquired from the other two domains
[5]; the fact that instructors often missed. For example to be
good at arc welding (learning outcome in the psychomotor
domain), one needs to know the associated procedures
(cognitive skills) and to actually want to learn to perform the
task in the first place (affective skills). Thus, the dominant
motor skill goal is achieved through the support of cognitive
and affective skills which must precede the dominant goal. In
short, although learning/training can be targeted at a particular
learning domain, other domains are also invoked in the process
of achieving a particular learning goal.
One factor that leads to the poor appreciation of the
complexity of a training task is the lack of instructional design
knowledge and skills among instructors in TVET [6].
Instructional design knowledge serves to inform an instructor
on the importance of planning for instruction through a proper
analysis of the job and learning content before implementing
instructions [7]. Since, training tasks in TVET are related to job
tasks, instructors also need to understand the demand of the job
task – achieved through task procedural analysis - before the
training demands can be appropriately identified. Thus the
purpose of this paper is to illustrate the application of two
related analysis techniques – procedural task analysis and
learning task analysis – that can be used to identify important
pre-requisites for a specific higher level learning outcome
using an example from a unit on automotive air conditioning
installation in a mechanical engineering course. The scope of
this paper is limited to design and development excluding
impact evaluation on actual setting.
II. PROCEDURAL TASK ANALYSIS: CONCEPT, PROCEDURE AND
ILLUSTRATION
Procedural task analysis is a process of analyzing the
sequence of steps in a performance-based task. Performance-
based task is typical in TVET where trainees are expected to
accomplish a task that is related to a specific occupation [8].
Before a task can be understood for teaching purposes
however, the instructor has to identify the sub-tasks related to
the main task. Thus, to identify the sub-task and sequence of
activities involved, a procedural task analysis must first be
conducted [9]. The sub-tasks can then be further analyzed to
identify their training/learning pre-requisites [10]. The outcome
of the procedural task analysis is a flow chart of the associated
sub-tasks. The application of the procedural task analysis
technique in TVET is here illustrated on automotive air
conditioning installation task; a unit from a mechanical
engineering course.
The procedural task analysis is conducted by asking the
first question and a follow up question. For this specific unit,
the first question is, “What should be the first activity in a test
and commission task?” and the follow up question is, “What is
the next activity”. The follow up question is asked till
completion [11]. The answer to the first question is “taking
safety precautions” and the next activity is “troubleshooting” to
the car air conditioning system. If the system did not show any
failure symptoms, routine maintenance will be conducted. If
otherwise, the failing component is replaced with a new one.
Upon completion, test and commission will be conducted to
make sure the system is running properly. All the activities and
their sequences are shown in Fig 1.
Fig. 1. Procedural task analysis for automotive air conditioning installation in
Mechanical Engineering course
III. LEARNING TASK ANALYSIS: CONCEPT, PROCEDURE AND
ILLUSTRATION
In contrast to a procedural task analysis, a learning task
analysis is the process of linking the learning outcome and
identifying the pre-requisites performance of learning [12]. As
a result of the analysis, a learning hierarchy that consists of the
skills requirements for the achievement of a specific learning
task will be developed. Thus the learning analysis technique is
also known as the learning hierarchy technique [12]. The
learning hierarchy technique is based on the assumption that
learning occur in a hierarchical manner. According to (Gagné,
1985), learning at a higher level is built from previous
knowledge which is lower level to the higher level knowledge
of learning. Basically, a learning hierarchy illustrates the
relationship between the lower level (pre-requisites) and the
higher skills. In a follow up work by [13], the learning
hierarchy technique is described as,
… a top-down analysis technique that can be used by an
instructional designer (or a teacher) to identify the prerequisites
for an expected learning outcome (learning objective) in the
intellectual learning domain. The top-down analysis of the top-
most expected learning outcome would result in a set of
subordinate intellectual skills that are related to each other in a
hierarchical manner. The top-most expected learning outcome
is known as the terminal objective while the subordinate
objectives are known as the enabling objective [13]
The emphasis of the learning hierarchy technique has
always been on the intellectual domain and was first
introduced in the development of a military training program
by Gagne’ [14]. However, since then many efforts have been
made to establish its usefulness in TVET [13], [15]–[17]. The
assumption behind the technique is that, trainees need to master
the pre-requisite skills before they can proceed to the next
higher level skill. Knowledge gained from using the technique
is in the form of comprehensive skills profiles and their
hierarchical relationships which will help instructors to meet
the needs of trainees with low cognitive skills who are often
enrolled in TVET programs. Although, the technique has been
used predominantly for the intellectual domain, the technique
is equally useful for identifying skills pre-requisites of the other
domains as illustrated by the example in this paper.
The illustration given next is based on the procedural task
analysis result obtained previously in Fig. 1. Based on the flow
chart in Fig. 1, an activity was chosen and translated into a
learning outcome. The activity chosen is “troubleshooting” and
the goal of learning is “to be able to troubleshoot air
conditioning (A/C) system”. The terminal goal is the highest
goal to be achieved while the lower level goals are the enabling
objectives. The next higher level objective in a hierarchy is the
super-ordinate objective to the lower sub-ordinate objective
[3]. To complete the lower level skills in the learning
hierarchy, Gagné proposes that instructor asks the question,
“What should learner be able to do in order to be able to learn
the task stated in the super-ordinate objective”. This process is
done iteratively to complete the learning hierarchy.
Upon completion of the learning task analysis process, the
learning hierarchy in Fig. 2 is constructed which represents the
hierarchical relationship between the knowledge and skills
related to the top most objective. From the hierarchy, it can be
seen that for a trainee to be able to learn to troubleshoot an AC
system, they must have acquired the three learning outcomes
namely, “able to conduct routine maintenance”, “able to
conduct repair” and “able to conduct commissioning”. These
three skills on the other hand can only be acquired if they have
already acquired the sub-ordinate skills shown. Furthermore,
from the hierarchy it can be seen that although a trainees will
be using his/her hands-on skills (motor skills) to trouble shoot a
non functioning AC system, to learn this skill, trainees need to
have the supporting kills that are in the cognitive as well as in
the affective domain. As an example, before a trainee can learn
how to conduct repair, he/she must be “able to understand the
manual” and he/she must also be “willing to conduct the
repairs” (which is an attitudinal dimension to learning). To
identify the necessary attitude dimension, we need to ask the
question “what kind of attitude do they need to have in order to
learn the new task?”. Thus, completing the iterative analysis
process will result in a learning hierarchy that shows the
relationship between pre-requisite skills and the learning
outcomes which can be used to help instructor design
appropriate instructions. In this particular example, the learning
hierarchy has highlighted the importance of cognitive skills and
attitudes as pre-requisites to the hands on skills on
troubleshooting which is the targeted learning outcome.
The usefulness of the skills identifications through the
techniques is not limited to designing and sequencing
instructions but also useful for constructing assessment items
especially in formative or diagnostic testing. The learning task
analysis in Fig. 2 however, only gives the skills profiles for
three domains (intellectual, affective and motor skills domains)
excluding the verbal information domain and cognitive
strategies domain to reduce the complexities of the hierarchy.
The task can be further analyzed to identify those skills.
Fig. 2. A learning hierarchy derived through a learning task analysis
IV. CONCLUSION
This paper attempts to promote the use of a systematic
design approach in designing instructions in TVET. Two
potential techniques that can be used at the initial stage of
developing instructions namely, procedural task analysis and
learning task analysis technique are proposed. Procedural task
analysis provides information on the sub-tasks that are
involved in a given job task while a learning analysis on a task
provides information on the pre-requisites to learning a given
task. Examples on the application of the two techniques are
given using a course unit in mechanical engineering. The
learning analysis technique has successfully illustrated the
diverse and associated pre-requisites that are required for a
seemingly motor skills learning. While both analysis
techniques are relevant to TVET instructors, the learning task
analysis through its systematic identifications of skills provides
the detailed picture of supporting skills and their hierarchical
relationships that are essential for making decisions on the
skills to be developed as well as for sequencing of training.
This study illustrated part of an instructional design process
that result in potential teaching and learning material. The
efficacy of the learning material will need to be access in a
different study that look into cause and effect relationship
between learning material and academic achievement.
REFERENCES
[1] D. F. Feldon, “The implication of research on expertise for curriculum
and pedagogy,” Educ Psychol Rev, vol. 19, pp. 91–110, 2007.
[2] P. J. Hinds, “The curse of expertise: The effects of expertise and
debiasing methods on prediction of novice performance.,” J. Exp.
Psychol. Appl., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 205–221, 1999.
[3] R. Gagné, “The Conditions of Learning and Theory of Instruction,” CBS
College Publishing, 1985.
[4] B. S. Bloom, Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The
cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay Co Inc, 1956.
[5] J. Stanley and J. W. Krakauer, “Motor skill depends on knowledge of
facts.,” Front. Hum. Neurosci., vol. 7, p. 503, 2013.
[6] Z. Yasak and M. Alias, “ICT integrations in TVET : Is it up to
expectations ?,” in 4th World Congress on Technical Vocational
Education and Training, 2014.
[7] B. Tracy, R. Reid, and S. Graham, “Teaching young students strategies
for planning and drafting stories: The impact of self-regulated strategy
development,” J. Educ. Res., vol. 102, no. 5, pp. 323–332, May 2009.
[8] W. Eichhorst, N. Rodríguez-planas, R. Schmidl, and K. F. Zimmermann,
“A roadmap to vocational education and training systems around the
world,” 2012.
[9] C. M. Reigeluth, “The elaboration theory: Guidance for scope and
sequence decisions,” in Instructional design theories and models: A new
paradigm of instructional theory, 1999, pp. 425–453.
[10] Zakaria A. Bani-Salameh, Muhammad K. Kabilan, and Lina Bani-
Salalmeh, “Utilising multimedia ESP programme in enhancing flight
attendants’ safety knowledge and problem solving skills,” Br. J. Educ.
Technol., vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1003–1015, Nov. 2011.
[11] R. M. Gagné, “Learning and Instructional Sequence,” Rev. Res. Educ.,
vol. 1, pp. 3–33, 1973.
[12] R. M. Gagne, “Task analysis ‐ its relation to content analysis,” Educ.
Psychol., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 11–18, 1974.
[13] M. Alias, “Learning Hierarchy Technique,” Encyclopedia of the
Sciences of Learning. Springer US, pp. 1884–187, 2012.
[14] R. M. Gagne, “Military training and principles of learning,” American
Psychologist, vol. 17. pp. 83–91, 1962.
[15] M. Alias, T. R. Black, and D. E. Gray, “The Learning Hierarchy
Technique: An Instructional Analysis Tool in Engineering Education,”
Australas. J. Eng. Educ., vol. Aust. J. o, pp. 1–13, 2005.
[16] R. H. Barba and P. A. Rubba, “Procedural Task Analysis: A Tool for
Science Education Problem Solving Research,” Sch. Sci. Math., vol. 92,
no. 4, pp. 188–192, 1992.
[17] P. F. Merrill, “Analysis of a procedural task,” NSPI J., vol. 19, no. 1, pp.
11–26, 1980.