Gardner, J., & Jeon, T. K. (2009). Creating task-centered instruction for web-based instruction: Obstacles and solutions. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, (38)1, pp. 21-34.

Task-centered instruction: obstacles and solutions

1

Creating task-centered instruction for web-based instruction: Obstacles and solutions

Joel Gardner

John Jeon

January 9, 2009


2

Abstract

Merrill proposes First Principles of Instruction, including a problem- or task-centered strategy for

designing instruction. However, when the tasks or problems are ill-defined or complex, task-centered

instruction can be difficult to design. We describe an online task-centered training at a land-grant

university designed to train employees to use Banner, an administrative suite supporting student,

financial aid, finance, HR and advancement systems. Our training solution, housed in Blackboard Vista,

includes desktop capturing application screencasts, interactive HTML, and Flash. We present several

obstacles in designing and developing the training, including (1) implementing effective technology

solutions, (2) identifying, analyzing, and documenting real-world tasks, and (3) creating a systematic

process for design. We describe our solutions and prescribe methods for designing a course with a task-

centered instructional strategy.


3

Introduction

The authors of this article are Instructional Designers in the Department of Information

Technology at Utah State University (USU). Our specific goal as members of a team of Instructional

Designers is to provide instructional services “to improve the quality of instruction across the Utah State

University system through technology, production assistance, training, consultation and support”

(it.usu.edu, 2008). We work primarily with departments and instructors at USU to design and develop

instruction, and most of this development takes place within the Blackboard Vista Learning

Management System.

While we primarily work with instructors at USU, the authors have recently taken the

responsibility to develop an introductory training for Banner, “the world’s most widely used collegiate

administrative suite of student, financial aid, finance, human resources, and advancement systems”

(www.sungardhe.com, 2008). Banner embodies hundreds of unique tasks requiring unique steps,

screens, and functions. Traditionally at USU, administrators, faculty and staff who use Banner in their

work receive a one day face-to-face training from USU-employed Banner subject matter experts (SMEs).

However, it became clear from our analysis that this training was what Merrill (2006) calls “information-

only,” ineffective in teaching faculty and staff to perform the intricate tasks. Our goal in creating this

training has been to provide a sound instructional product to supplement the current face-to-face

training and maximize the time employees must spend to understand and complete tasks in Banner.

First Principles of Instruction

In alignment with current Constructivist views of learning and because of the application-

oriented nature of this instruction, we determined that a task-centered instructional strategy (Merrill

2007) would be most appropriate for this training. By demonstrating real-world tasks and allowing


4

learners to apply these tasks, we hoped that students would develop what has been called case-based

reasoning,” (Schank, Berman et al. 1999) wherein the functionalities of Banner are learned by viewing

and performing real-world tasks. To accomplish this goal, we employed Merrill’s First Principles of

Instruction (Merrill 2002; Merrill 2006). See Figure 1. Merrill prescribes increasing student learning by

implementing instruction that:

• Is centered on real-world, relevant Tasks or Problems and is presented to learners in a

progression of increasingly difficult tasks.

• Activate learners’ relevant cognitive structures by directing them to recall, describe, or

demonstrate relevant prior knowledge or experience; and provides learners with a structure for

organizing the new knowledge.

• Demonstrate new knowledge and skills to the learner in the context of a real-world

task, guiding them to relate new knowledge to the organizing structure.

• Direct learners to Apply new knowledge in the context of a real-world task and provide

them with appropriate feedback and coaching.

• Encourage learners to Integrate their new knowledge by having them reflect on,

discuss, defend, or publicly demonstrate their new knowledge.


5

Figure 1: Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction (2002). The phases of instruction proceed from Activation clockwise to Integration.

Before developing our training, we wanted to gain a better understanding of the kind of

instruction employees were already receiving. To do this we evaluated the current face-to-face Banner

training and resources, including a website provided by SMEs. We also met with the trainers and asked

them about their strategy for teaching and observed them teaching students to use Banner. Based on

these observations, we determined that only one of the principles was being used in the trainings:

Demonstration. This demonstration appeared to focus on information about Banner rather than how to

use it, and appeared to be distracting to the learners. Based on our observations, much time was spent

describing finite functionalities of Banner with little time spent on the demonstration of real-world

tasks. We noted that students were not given the opportunity to apply what they had learned, thereby

excluding the possibility of receiving feedback or guidance in that application.

Based on this evaluation, we decided to emphasize the following in our web-based training:

• Video of real-world tasks demonstrating the steps in a whole task.

• A text display of steps with accompanying images, allowing students to review

each step at their own pace.


6

• Student application of key steps, including guidance and feedback.

We will describe our instructional solutions in greater detail later in this article. The following

section describes the pebble in the pond model of design (Merrill 2002), a process for creating task- or

problem-centered instruction. We then describe the processes we used to create the Banner

instruction.

Designing Task-Centered Instruction

Merrill (2002)recommends five steps for designing problem- or task-centered instruction (pp.

40-41). These include: (1) identify the problem or task that students will be expected to solve or do; (2)

identify a progression of increasingly difficult and increasingly complex problems or tasks; (3) identify

the knowledge and skills required to complete the problem or task; (4) create an instructional strategy

for helping learners acquire the necessary knowledge and skills; (5) develop the instruction and

incorporate it into the delivery system. See Figure 2. Note that this approach is centered on the content

to be taught, with each phase or step being based on a real-world task.

Figure 2: Pebble in the pond model of instructional design, including the steps in the designing task-centered instruction. When the

pebble is cast into the pond, each ripple represents a step in the design process, beginning with Task.


7

Task

After analyzing this training, it was evident that the tasks should be of the proper granularity:

large enough to be meaningful, yet small enough to maintain the attention of and be useful to the

learners. Based on our experience as designers and the nature of the content, we chose to demonstrate

tasks that take less than two minutes to perform. This length of time is appropriate for the kinds of tasks

normally performed in Banner. Because the initial tasks are those first viewed by the learners, we

presented them without ancillary details to ease learner understanding.

Analysis

As the beta version of this training, we have included only a few basic tasks. To create a

progression of increasingly complex tasks for future development, we will meet with SMEs and

stakeholders to identify the most useful tasks and to sequence those tasks from simple to complex. The

tasks chosen at that stage will be those which employees have the most difficulty accomplishing and

which are common tasks across the units and departments. In this way, we hope to reduce employee

frustration in accomplishing these tasks.

Strategy

To identify the component knowledge and skills for the tasks, we analyzed the screencasts

recorded by SMEs and documented the individual steps for accomplishing tasks. In the previous face-to-

face trainings, we noticed that the learners were given many details on the function of Banner tools but

received little exposure to the entire process for completing tasks. Therefore, for the first task, we

focused on providing only those steps which were necessary to complete the task. The subsequent tasks

we selected use a similar framework and process, with each task adding a few more details on Banner

tool functions.


8

Design

To create an effective instructional design, we drew on the example of a task-centered course

described by Mendenhall (2006). We were impressed with her use of video-based demonstration of

whole tasks, the interactive demonstration of the task components, and the simple web-based

application of the tasks. Although our tasks were significantly smaller than those in Mendenhall’s

course, her execution of effective design seemed particularly relevant to what we were trying to

accomplish. Therefore, we determined to focus on the entire task, providing multiple demonstrations

and basic application of the task. While creating our strategy and developing the training, we reflected

on Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction and refined our strategy.

Applying First Principles of Instruction, we created four tabs that embody the principles

prescribed by Merrill: The “Begin it” tab is designed to activate, the “Watch It” tab demonstrates new

knowledge in video, the “Read It” tab demonstrates new knowledge in text and images, and the “Do It”

tab allows students to apply the key steps using Flash-video. We describe the strategy and technologies

used in greater detail later in this article in the section titled “Implementing effective technology

solutions.”

Production

Because of the confidential nature of the data within the Banner database, we did not have

access to the Banner system. Therefore, we recorded the tasks being performed by SMEs using a

desktop capturing application. While recording the tasks, we noted that the SMEs had a hard time

understanding and demonstrating real-world tasks. When performing tasks to be recorded, they

invariably included highly detailed information about Banner functions, information which would only

be useful later in the training. It appeared that their understanding of the Banner system was function-


9

oriented. The SMEs’ focus on the functional nature of the system is perhaps one reason learners have a

difficult time gaining any useful knowledge from the current training.

Although we have just described discrete actions performed for each of the ripples in Merrill’s

pond, these steps did not necessarily occur sequentially. We conceptualized our strategy very early in

the process and refined it as we progressed through the other ripples. Also, our Analysis of tasks

occurred several times over several weeks and was refined at each interval. We find the pebble in the

pond model to be an excellent guide for designing task instruction but also find it useful to allow the

ripples to flow into and over one another, resulting in a more fluid process.

Designing Task-Based Banner Instruction

In this section we describe some of the difficulties and problems we encountered during the

design process, and our solutions to those problems. We noticed three major problems when designing

this training: (1) implementing effective technology solutions; (2) identifying, analyzing and

documenting real-world tasks; and (3) creating a systematic process for designing future modules in this

training. The highly interrelated nature of these problems presents challenges. It served us well to

recognize that each problem and its respective solution would affect every other problem and solution.

Implementing effective technology solutions

Our goal in designing and developing technology solutions was to use technology that is easy to

use and that implements First Principles of Instruction. Banner is used at every organizational level of

the university, including institution administrators, accountants, and staff coordinators. Therefore,

realizing the wide-range of our target audience’s computer literacy, we knew that our solution would

need to be simple and easy to use. In addition to a simple, easy solution, we needed to use technologies

that would enable effective Demonstration and Application of the tasks.


10

We integrated several technologies with functionalities that would be intuitively recognized by

the learners. In the Blackboard Course, we created a learning module that provided Activation,

Demonstration and Application of the real-world tasks selected. The module was designed in HTML

using CSS to position the content and create the layout of the screen. As mentioned previously, each

module contains four different tabs under which content is displayed and the activities take place. Each

of tab corresponds to a phase of instruction prescribed by Merrill (2002).

The first tab is designed to Activate learners and prepare them to gain new knowledge. We used

simple text to introduce the task to be learned and asked the learners simple questions to get them

thinking about the task to be learned.

To Demonstrate new knowledge to the learners, we placed a screencast of the SME performing

and describing the task under the second tab, “Watch It.” This is the first demonstration of the task. See

the top image in Figure 3. The screencast demonstrates sequentially all the steps involved in solving the

problem or task. We limit the steps to no more than 12 steps per task, enabling users to get a feel for

the entire task without being distracted by irrelevant details.

Under the “Read It” tab, we embedded an interactive demonstration of the task. In this tab, the

steps for each task are described in HTML text on the left side of the screen. As the learner rolls the

cursor over a step, an enlarged image detailing the step is demonstrated on the right side of the screen.

This page is designed to allow learners to access the content during the training and later as a job aid

when performing the task at work.


11

Figure 3. The Watch It screen (top) contains a screencast demonstrating the steps to complete a real-world task in Banner. The Read

It screen (bottom) contains the steps for completing a task and when moused over, shows a still image of the steps.

Under the fourth tab, “Do It,” learners can perform limited Application of the task by engaging in

a simple interactive Flash video. See Figure 4. Ideally users would apply their new knowledge in the real-

world setting; however, this was not possible due to the sensitive nature of the information in the

Banner system. Therefore, students were directed to click on an area of the Flash video screen that

would simulate steps in the task. The module begins with a question at the top of the screen in text,

directing students to perform a step in the task by clicking on the appropriate location within an image


12

of the Banner screen. Learners are guided to select one of three highlighted areas. Correct clicks enable

continuation to the next question and provide positive feedback. Incorrect clicks provide corrective

feedback and include simple a description of about the area incorrectly clicked. For each task, we

provide several questions highlighting the key points and steps in the tasks.

Figure 4. The interactive Flash video asks task-based questions of the learners and provides feedback based on their response.

By using HTML to create a tab-like structure based on First Principles of Instruction, we

embodied our use of technology with a clear strategy for teaching learners to use Banner. And with the

sequence of tabs that activate student learning, demonstrate the new knowledge, and enable

application of the task, we integrated the phases of Instruction prescribed by Merrill into our use of

screencasts, HTML, and Flash.


13

Identifying, Analyzing and Documenting Real-World tasks

In addition to the struggle to use technology effectively, we also struggled with how to identify,

analyze and document real world tasks to be used in this training. Our goal was to identify tasks that

were large enough to be meaningful and display Banner functionality to the learners but small enough

to maintain student attention and interest. We chose tasks that are used often in the work setting and

that demonstrate the structure and functionality of Banner. However, when working toward gathering

and documenting these tasks, we encountered several difficulties.

As mentioned above, the SMEs we worked with had a hard time understanding what a real-

world task is. When we explained and modeled how these tasks work, the SMEs still wandered from the

task and described irrelevant, distracting details. Part of this problem is that we of necessity used SME

screencasts as the demonstration of the task because of our inability to access the highly sensitive

content and system being used.

To overcome this issue, we did several things. First, we chose to work with a SME that appeared

to be more flexible and willing to adapt to our instructional strategy. Second, we described in detail the

kind of information that was needed in these presentations. Third, we asked the SME to identify some of

the most basic and important tasks that employees need to perform in Banner and used those for the

first tasks in our strategy. When recording, we found that we had to record each task multiple times,

redirecting the SME to focus only on the task. Near the end of the recording, the SME began to

understand what we were looking for and more easily adapted the recordings to our strategy.

This struggle to identify and document real-world tasks is likely an example of the issue of

bridging educational research and theory with educational practice. In our experience, research-based

principles and theories are effective at increasing learning but are often difficult to implement. This is

perhaps a result of the difficult nature of instructional design; however, we have found that the act of


14

struggling to effectively apply theory yields great rewards in the form of high-quality design and a

deeper understanding of instructional theory and effective instruction.

Creating a systematic process for design

When we designed this initial training, we realized that we would later be required to create

several more modules. Therefore, as we began the process, we had the goal to create a standardized,

systematic process that would help us efficiently create theory-based instruction. However, we ran into

several obstacles that slowed our initial design process and made it difficult to streamline future design

work. This section describes some of the problems we encountered, the steps we took to overcome

those problems, and concludes with our process for creating future modules.

One problem mentioned earlier in this article is that Banner SMEs had a difficult time

understanding and producing examples of real-work tasks. This was certainly an obstacle in creating

instruction efficiently. However, by choosing to work with a SME that seemed more flexible in teaching

strategy and educating her about the task-centered approach, we reduced the time required to record

the performance of real-world tasks. Future tasks will therefore be easier to gather as we work with this

SME.

Another obstacle to creating instruction efficiently was the need to create Flash and HTML

programming, which consumed much time. We spent several hours coding and testing the code until we

were satisfied with the product. To minimize this problem in the future, we will use the code from

previous modules and simply insert new task screencasts, interactive HTML, and Flash-movie activities

into our existing framework.

An additional obstacle to creating a systematic approach was our inexperience in designing task-

centered instruction on this large a scale for an online setting. We spent much time reflecting on and


15

discussing how to identify, document, and display tasks to learners, as well as how to provide

meaningful practice. This experience designing task-centered instruction has given us tools and

confidence to develop content more efficiently in the future.

It is worth noting that the steps described in the Pebble in the Pond cannot realistically be

applied strictly in sequence. We found it necessary, for example, to consider the production of the

instruction before the tasks were analyzed or designed. Without considering the end goal, we would

have been unable to do the previous steps efficiently or effectively.

Based on our experience, we have created a contextualized design process for creating task-

based instruction in the Banner training. See Table 1. These steps provide specific guidance on how we

can apply the steps prescribed in the Pebble in the Pond Model. We plan to use this process to create

future modules in the Banner training and recommend that other designers create their own situated

processes based on their work contexts.

Table 1. Specific guidance for applying the Pebble in the Pond Model (2002) to future modules of the Banner training.

Pebble in the Pond (Merrill, 2002)

Contextualization ISD Process based on Pebble in the Pond

Task • Ask Banner SME to identify several tasks. Analysis • With SME, sequence the tasks from simple to difficult. Strategy • Have SME record performance of the tasks using desktop capturing

software. • Type out the steps for completing each task identified.

Design • Use the same instructional strategy identified above, including the four-tab structure.

Production For each task: • Type task introduction under Begin It tab • Embed screencast and text of process into new Watch It and Read It pages • Create Flash- movie using framework created for previous modules • Upload files to Blackboard Vista


16

In this section we have discussed three of the difficulties we encountered when designing a

task-based Banner training at Utah State University. While these were not the only problems or

difficulties we encountered, they can be seen as representative of the complex nature of instructional

design and the difficulty designers often encounter when working to create effective instruction. These

difficulties can be very complex, and each problem can affect other problems in the design process. Our

experience has been that a change in any aspect of instructional design affects all others, sometimes in

significant ways.

Discussion and Conclusions

This is the first phase of design for this training. We will be developing 15 to 20 more modules

designed to train employees to accomplish real-world tasks within Banner. Although we have received

and incorporated formative feedback from fellow-designers and from stakeholders in the project, we

have plans to gather more feedback from SMEs and employee using our training.

Our goal is for this training to be used by employees for several purposes. First, as a primer for

the day-long training they will receive from SMEs. Second, we hope that SMEs will use this as a model

for and in conjunction with their trainings. Finally, we foresee that employees will be able to use these

modules as job aids as necessary when performing tasks in Banner. Based on feedback so far, we plan to

incorporate a search function to enable employees to search for the tasks most relevant to their jobs.

As experienced designers, we are aware of the difficult nature of designing effective instruction.

However, we were surprised by the difficulty we experienced creating this training. As we note above,

the task is made difficult because of the interrelated difficulties in producing effective technology

solutions, gathering and documenting worthwhile tasks, and creating a systematic process for designing

later instructional modules.


17

To increase the quality of instruction in any organization, we recommend addressing and solving

problems as groups of designers. Taking time to discuss and debate about how to approach the design

process has yielded a deep understanding of effective design and technology integration. For this

reason, we recommend creating opportunities to discuss and create solutions to problems with

instructional design. The greatest designs, in our experience, come from collaboration with peers and

the incorporation of vital feedback from peers and users.

We found that we naturally used the following process when discussing and solving problems in

the design process. First, identify a problem or difficulty encountered. Problems come from many

sources and can be technological, theoretical or practical in nature. Second, identify what went wrong,

clarifying the problem. Third, compare to individual experiences, knowledge, and any examples of

effective design to search for solutions. Fourth, select and implement a solution. This process was

repeated dozens of times during the process of developing our training.

We also recommend individualizing and contextualizing the design process to the situation at

hand. This contextualization likely takes place somewhat naturally for designers and organizations.

However, we have found that formalizing and refining the contextualized design process has yielded

great rewards in the form off efficiency and instructional quality. In our experience, when designers

share best practices and work to refine the design process, great gains are made. In circumstances

where needed, we will likely develop and refine new contextualized processes and best practices.

References

Faculty Assistance Center for Teaching. Retrieved December 5, 2008, from http://it.usu.edu/fact/. Mendenhall, A., C. W. Buhanan, et al. (2006). A task-centered approach to entrepreneurship. TechTrends 50(4): 84-89.

http://it.usu.edu/fact/


18

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development 50(3): 43-59. Merrill, M. D. (2002). A pebble-in-the-pond model for instructional design. Performance Improvement 41(7): 39-44. Merrill, M. D. (2006). First principles of instruction: A synthesis. In Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology, 2nd Edition, [need city and state] Prentice-Hall, Inc. [pp. ?] Merrill, M. D. (2006). Hypothesized performance on complex tasks as a function of scaled instruction. Handling Complexity in Learning Environments: Theory and Research, Elsevier. 1. Merrill, M. D. (2007). A task-centered instructional strategy. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 40(1): 5-22. Schank, R. C., T. R. Berman, et al. (1999). Learning by oing. In Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory. C. M. Reigeluth. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 2: 169-181.

Gardner, J., & Jeon, T. K. (2009). Creating task-centered instruction for web-based instruction: Obstacles and solutions. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, (38)1, pp. 21-34.

Documents