The Fundamentals of Educations 1

Lecture - Discussion Series

No. 45 SYSTEMS ANALYSIS A N D EDUCATIONAL DESIGN

by T . A . Razik

ntsrnatlona! Institute for Educational Planning

No. 4 5 SYSTEMS ANALYSIS A N D EDUCATIONAL DESIGN
by T . A . Razik
 IIEP/TM/45/69

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE F O R E D U C A T I O N A L P L A N N I N G
(established by Unesco)
7-9, rue Eugne-Delacroix, 75016 Paris

S Y S T E M S ANALYSIS A N D E D U C A T I O N A L DESIGN

by
T.A. Razik

This document is part of 'Fundamentals of Educational Planning: lecture-

discussion series', designed by the IIEP to provide basic training materials in the
field of educational planning.

By their very nature these materials, which draw upon tape recordings,
transcriptions and s u m m a r y notes of seminars, lectures and discussions conducted
by IIEP as part of its training and research programme, are informal and not subject
to the type of editing customary for published documents. They are therefore not to
be considered as 'official publications'. The opinions expressed in this lecture are
those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Institute.

The use, adaptation or reproduction, in whole or in part of these materials

is limited to institutions and persons specifically authorized by IIEP.
 IIEP/TM/45/6 9

CONTENTS

Page

I Introduction and definition of a systems approach 1

II Systems approach and its significance to education 9
III The design of the system 24
IV Implementation and quality control 34
V Conclusion 37
References 39
 IIEP/TM/45/6 9 - page 1

I INTRODUCTION A N D DEFINITION O F
A SYSTEMS A P P R O A C H

The special meaning of the term systems and such related terms
as systems concept, and systems approach and systems analysis ,
emerged during and after World W a r II as a result of research and
development in problem solving, efficiency analysis and most important,
the development of complex man-machine systems . A classic example
of this is the development of combat aircraft during World War II.
In building such aircraft, designers realized that they could not
simply take an existing airplane and add communications and detection
equipment, weapons, bomb and fuel storage space. Adding such
equipment at random restricted the plane's carrying capacity,
speed manoeuverability, range of flight, and other vital functions.
Thus a new method of planning and development emerged, in which
designers learned that they first had to identify the purpose and
performance expectations of the system before developing the component
parts of the whole system . It is the system as a whole - and not its
separate parts - that must be planned, designed, developed, installed
and managed. What is really important is not how the individual
components function separately, but the way they are integrated
into the system to achieve its goal.

From the above example, systems can be defined as deliberately

designed and structured organisms , comprised of inter-related
and interacting components which should function in an integral
whole to attain a predetermined and specific purpose .

Since World W a r II the concept described above has become more

sophisticated and has rapidly expanded into new areas . Systems
surround us everywhere. In the h o m e , the housewife, cooking equipment,
lighting, water supply, storage and disposal facilities, food, dishes, all
interact in a planned way to make up a meal-production system. (1)
The stove, lighting, heating and plumbing are components of such a
system. Their functions are determined by the purposes of the system.
Such purpose is attained by execution of the component processes of the
meal-production system in order to produce a predetermined outcome
- edible food. A further analysis suggests that the purpose of a system
IEP/TM/45/69 - page 2

- in this case, meal production - determines the kind of processes

to be followed within the system. These processes include planning
the meal, acquiring, storing, preserving and preparing the food as
well as the sanitation and environmental control. They are further
structured into sub-processes . Procedures for achievement of the
purpose of the system govern the selection and employment of specific
components, based on the assessed effectiveness in carrying out these
processes . For example , food acquisition requires the introduction
of such processes financing, selecting sources of supply, purchasing,
delivery etc. The components employed in selecting sources of supply
may include wife-husband team, other members of the family, friends,
newspapers etc. The process of delivery can be-performed by members
of the family, by a delivery m a n , by the milkman or by some other
means .
This example illustrates the three main aspects of systems: purpose,
content and process . The first aspect is that systems have purpose .
Systems are built from parts or components, and the sum of these
is the content of the system , for the accomplishment of a specific
purpose. The operations and functions in which the content is engaged
in order to accomplish the purpose of the system sum up the process
of the system.
Systems thus have purpose, process and content The relationship
of these three aspects is demonstrated in Figure 1.

CL

Figure 1. Variables of the system

 / T M / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 3

Supra-systems

The supra-system , from which the meal production system, in the

previous example, receives its purpose, resources, demands and ,
limitation is the home . Systems operate in the larger context of their
environment. This larger context of any particular is known as the
supra-system. For example, the larger context of education is society.
Society is the supra-system of education. Figure 2 depicts the relationship
of education to society.

Figure 2 . Supra-system

There are also other systems which are usually called sub-systems
of society (supra-system) . They are called peer systems of education.
Business, industry, religion and government are examples of other
peer systems. The supra-system has its own purpose, process and
content. It surrounds the peer systems and interacts with them and
from it -the=.other systems receive their impact. From society, for
example, education receives its purpose as well as its students, personnel,
material and resources. It is into the supra-system that the system
I I E P / T M / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 4

sends its output. In the case of education, these outputs include the
person being educated and the knowledge thereby developing. If a
system is to maintain itself the adequacy of its output must be assured.
In order to achieve this , the system has to provide for continuous
assessment of its output and for its feedback into the system. The
feedback of the output assessment emerges as a basis for system adjustment.
The structural relationship of input-output and feedback is shown in
Figure 3 , which depicts the first major adjustment demand to be satisfied
towards maintaining compatibility of the system within its environment.

Figure 3 Inpi: t- output and feedback relationships

The system must adjust to the constraints imposed by its environment,

the available resources of which are usually limited; the efficiency
of the system will be judged by the utilization of these resources .
The system must be sensitive to the changing needs and purposes of
the environment for which it was created. The major purpose of the
environment influences or determines the purpose of its component
systems thus the system must be continuously aware of this major
purpose and must be ready to adjust its own purpose if necessary.
 I I E P / T M / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 5

Sub-systems

A sub-system is a part of a total system (gestult). Each sub-system

is also designed to carry out a purpose , the attainment of which is
necessary in order to achieve the overall purpose of the system.
The processes of each sub-system are determined by its purpose.
Selection of its content is also based on ability to perform a specific
process.
Sub-systems must be integrated. In the meal production example,
system planning is integrated with and influenced by food acquisition,
which interacts with storage, preservation, preparation and other
sub-systems . The effectiveness of the system depends on how well
the sub-systems are integrated and how well they interfunction. Figure 4
illustrates this concept.

Pitoches

Figure 4 ., System/sub-system relationship

I I E P / T M / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 6

Micro-system

Micro-system, applied to education, is derived from the sub-system

and is considered the smallest unit of curriculum in which all characteristics
of the sub-system are still reflected. It is developed around a clearly
defined objective. The mastery of at least one learning task is required
and alternatives can be considered for content, learning experiences ,
motivation and component selection. Furthermore, it can be installed
and tested as a unit of the curriculum or lesson or part of a lesson.
F r o m the above discussion a comprehensive definition of the special
meaning of the term systems should be as follows:

Systems are combinations of variables well designed and organised

to attain specific purposes . The purpose of a system is realized by
and controls the processes in which the components interact to produce
a predetermined output. A system receives its purpose, input, resources
and constraints from the relative supra-system . T o justify itself,
a system must produce an output indispensable to the supra-system.

Systems appraisal and development

Examination of the contemporary use of the systems approach indicates

at least three major areas of application. The example of the weapons
system presented earlier introduced systems development. The systems
approach has been applied to at least two other areas - the analysis
of the effectiveness and economy of existing systems , and the solution
of complex problems . Generally the terms s;>rstems analysis and operations
research refer to these applications . The basic systems concept underlines
all three above methodologies of systems; m a n y of their strategies
are similar. There are, however, several different aspects thus
warranting separate treatment and explanation. B y design the subject
of this discussion has been limited to systems development, which
does not, however, imply that the educational application of systems
analysis or operations research are of lesser significance. Systems
analysis is being used with increasing frequency to evaluate efficiency
and effectiveness of educational systems . Operations research offers
unique strategies for the solution of complex educational problems .
The systems approach to the development of a system offers a decision-
making structure and a set of decision-making strategies, thereby
the designer has a self-correcting, logical process for the planning,
development and implementation of m a n - m a d e entities available to
him . This provides a procedural framework within which the purpose
 / / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 7

figure 5 . Development of a systerr,

I I E P / T M / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 8

of the system is first specified and then analyzed to find the best way
for its achievement. O n the basis of this analysis , the components that are
most functional for the effective performance of the system should
be selected. Thereafter the design of systems planning will ensure
that the necessary components will be available at the appropriate
time, and will interact with each other as planned. Furthermore continuous
evaluation of the system will also ensure the implementation of the
purpose and provide a basis for planned change in improving economy
and performance . Figure 5 illustrates the above points .
The application of the systems approach to the development and maintenance
of systems makes possible the realization of the performance specifications
prescribed for the output of the system. If the expected output is not
m e t , the shortcomings can be assessed and the reasons for failure
identified. Appropriate adjustments can then be m a d e in both the content
and the process to achieve the desired output and optimize the effectiveness
of the system .
 I I E P / T M / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 9

II S Y S T E M S A P P R O A C H A N D ITS SIGNIFICANCE

TO EDUCATION

In assessing the significance of systems approach to education, it

should first be determined whether education is really a system .
Education is a m a n - m a d e structured entity with a specific purpose .
Its purpose is usually integrated with and influenced by the purpose
of its supra-system, that is society. Any educational activities receive
their input, resources, constraints and evaluation of adequacy from
society. Education is composed of numerous sub-systems such as
curriculum, instruction, guidance, administration etc. Each of these
sub-systems has its own objectives that each serve the overall educational
purpose. Education is , furthermore, product oriented, its products
being the educated person and knowledge provided through research
results . Those responsible for education try to promote and practise
economy and should attempt to maximise output, while continually
improving the product performance with the most economical use of
resources . It should be concluded that education is a system evolved
in line with the theories of the above discussion and should, therefore,
benefit from the application of the systems approach.
M a n y educators , therefore , realizing the systems nature of education
and the unique potential that systems approach can bring to cope with
complex problems and the design of educational programmes , have
turned to this approach. The designer of instructional systems has
only limited reliable research data available to him and m u s t , on account
of this , m a k e pragmatic and intuitive design decisions . A considerable
experimentation and testing in educational applications of the system
approach is urgently required. In order to utilize fully the systems
approach in education the most important characteristics relevant
to systems approach should be reviewed. These characteristics are
as follows:
Insistence upon a clear definition of the purpose of the system: clearly
formulated performance expectations to enable construction of criteria
that will subsequently indicate the degree to which these expectations
have been fulfilled.
Examination of the input characteristics .
Consideration of alternatives and identification of what has to be
done, h o w , by w h o m or what, when and where etc. , to ensure attainment
of the predetermined performance .
Implementation of the system and evaluation of its output to measure
I I E P / T M / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 10

the degree of fulfilment of the expected performance.

Identification and implementation of any adjustments needed to ensure
attainment of the purpose, and to optimize systems output and systems
economy.
Translating these major system characteristics into the main domain
of educational strategies requires:
Determination of specific learning objectives in behavioural terms ,
clearly stating what is expected of the learner, what he knows , and
feels as an outcome of his learning experiences .
Construction of performance measures to evaluate the degree to
which the learner has attained these objectives .
Examination of the input characteristics and abilities of the learner.
Identification of the types of learning as well as events that provide
the necessary conditions enabling the learner to perform as expected.
Identification of forms of instructional events to facilitate the teaching-
learning situation.
Consideration of alternatives for the selection of learning content,
experiences , components and resources needed to achieve the stated
behavioural terms
Installation of the system- and collection of information from the
findings of performance as well as testing and evaluation.
Regulation of the system , the feedback from testing and evaluation
will determine modifications of the system to ensure ever-improving
learning achievement and optimum system, economy.

A survey of contemporary educational trends will lead to the realization

of the presence of marked inadequacies in the eight strategies stated
above. Statements of educational objectives drawn up by educational
policymakers are usually in such general terms that they permit too
broad an interpretation of what actual learning tasks are and what content,
learning experiences and components would best achieve them Teachers
are not usually accustomed to defining learning outcomes in operational
and measurable terms: when questioned on outcome expectations teachers
are mostly concerned about finishing the book, or having their students
pass their examinations .
Without adquately specified objectives, it is difficult to assess input
capabilities relevant to objectives and information on student characteristics
is seldom complete. Learning content is usually equated with textbooks
and is determined by committees selecting the textbooks . Without
clearly identified learning objectives such textbook selections lack
relevance. Vague objectives cannot serve as bases for designing output
measures and as a result of this students are often uncertain about
what is expected of them . They are sometimes tested on materials
 I I E P / T M / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 11

they have not learned, sometimes obliged to study subjects already

mastered or, they are scheduled to master tasks upon which they are
never given an opportunity for assessment. In contemporary instructional
programmes there is an obvious lack of clearly designed and well-
integrated curricula and of internal congruence of objectives , curriculum and
testing. There are only a few provisions for improvement of instructional
programmes and the learner 's performance.

Bases for design of an educational system

Systems are developed around a purpose, which is the nucleus around

which it grows- What is the purpose around which systems in education
should be built? A s Bloom (1956) states , education has three domains:
The cognitive domain which is mainly concerned with knowledge,
information;
the affective domain, which includes feelings, attitudes, emotions
etc. and
psycho-motor skills in which the learner should master a physical
skill.
One of the purposes of education, therefore, is to impart specific
knowledge , attitudes and skills . In other words , the purpose around
which systems should be designed is instructional. O n the other hand,
one can propose that the purpose of education is to ensure the attainment
of specific knowledge, attitudes and skills. T h u s , learning is the
purpose around which the educational system is to grow.
F r o m this it is evident that there are crucial differences betwe en instruction
and learning. The following discussion demonstrates an educational
system with learning as its nucleus . Although the aim here is not to
explain the crucial differences between learning and instruction, s o m e
points should be mentioned to indicate these differences.
The typical classroom sets up an environment, one person (the teacher)
faces 35 or 50 students. This environment is uniformly controlled
through regulated instruction. If the learning process was to be seriously
studied no=one would seriously support such methods: obviously 35
or 50 persons cannot learn with such limiting uniformity.
40 or 50 minutes is found to be the time usually scheduled for one
class period. If learning were in focus , such rigid scheduling would
not exist in as m u c h as w e know students learn at different speeds.
There is , therefore, an urgent need for variation in the periods of
time allowed for the mastery of particular learning tasks . In the methodology
described above, the teacher's role provides the main source of information:
I I E P / T M / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 12

he is to impart knowledge and the students are his audience . In a

learning oriented system, the roles would change; the learner would
be on the stage and the teacher would manage the teaching/learning
situation.
Hedegard (1967) supports the distinctions m a d e above. H e juxtaposed
two kinds of educational systems, in the first, the learner's role
is 'reacting ' while the teacher fs role is 'active "; the teacher selects
the content and learning experiences and the learner reacts to them .
The teacher-taught processes involve organization, while the student
only reacts by making passive connections of impressions. The learner 's
unique motives are rarely accepted, often discouraged. In the second
system, the learner assumes an aciive role in selecting content and
learning experiences . His thought processes involve organization
and he is required to do m o r e than passively connect impressions .
In the learning environment, experiences are sought that are personally
satisfying to the learner. Rogers (1967) reports on an instruction-
focussed approach according to which
l)the student was usually not trusted to pursue his own learning;
2)presentation was assumed to equal learning and any information
covered in the classroom was assumed to have been learned by the
student;
3) only what is considered to be established knowledge was covered;
4)the student learned passively, and
5)the student had to give an account of his progress at regularly scheduled
examinations , the passing of which was the main goal.
In curriculum design, learning should be the focus; systems in education
should be built primarily for the promotion of learning. Accordingly
instruction is the process rather than the purpose of education. F r o m
a systems viewpoint, instruction denotes processes and functions introduced
into the learner 's environment, to facilitate the mastery of specific
learning tasks . Therefore any interaction between the learner and
his environment through which the learner is making progress towards
the attainment of specific knowledge , attitudes and skills is viewed
as instruction.

A n instructional"system can be assessed by the degree to which it

provides an effective system for the learner. Such a system serves
its purpose to the extent of achievement in the environment of the learner
of all the possible interactions that will result in the attainment of
the desired performance. Through the line of reasoning developed
here, it is believed that instruction can become fully compatible with
learning. By this means of rationale the subject Instructional Systems
was selected here for this discussion.
 U F P / T M / 4 5 / 69 - page 13

The Design of an Instructional System

The development of an instructional system (system for learning) is

a decision-making operation. Decisions have to be m a d e on what should
be learned, h o w , by w h o m , when and where, how learning should be
evaluated and improved and what resources should be involved in preparing
and providing for learning. The systems approach to instructional
design and its development offers a logical structure and the efficient
use of strategies for making these curriculum decisions .
Figure 6 introduces the structure and describes the systems strategies
that can be utilized in the development of any instructional system
The objectives of the system determine the relative design and action
needed to attain them. The design is then implemented and the output
tested by criteria developed on the basis of objectives specifications .
The test findings are interpreted to measure the extent of the accomplishment
of these objectives and, if necessary, the system redesigned to ensure
this .
In considering the structure as illustrated in Figure 6 the following
points should be considered;
Identify behavioural objectives .
Determine and formulate a precise account of what the learner is
expected to do, know and feel as a result of his learning experiences
(formulate behavioural objectives) .
Construct performance measures to be based on objectives and use
them to test terminal proficiency (develop test).
Find out what has to be learned by the student so that he can behave
in the way described by the objectives specified. In the course of
this analysis , the input capabilities of the learner must also be assessed
(analysis of learning tasks) .
Consider alternives and state action proposed to ensure that the
learner will master the tasks (function analysis) .
Determine who or what has the best potential to accomplish these
functions (component analysis).
Decide when and where the functions are to be carried out (design
of the system).
The designed system can now be tried out or tested, implemented
and installed. The performance of the learner, who is the product
of the system, should be evaluated in order to assess the degree to
which he behaves in the way described (implement and test output).
Establishing the evaluation and then feed back into the system to
forecast any necessary changes that might be needed to improve the
system (modify or change and improve) .
IIEP/TM/45/69 - page 14

Figure 6 . The design of an instructional s7/stem

 I I E P / T M / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 15

With a broad framework as presented above, it is important to identify

and discuss the component strategies of" the development and design
of an instructional system.

Determination and Formulation of Objectives

First, the overall purpose of the system must be established by determining

the goal for attainment by the learner . Performance objectives can
then be derived and carefully described.
A n educational system can best be identified by its purpose, which
establishes the nucleus around which the system should grGw. In general
terms this purpose is the reason for the system fs existence, and should
provide key information on the whole system, as well as describing
its environment and the broad constraints under which it operates .
The broad objectives are significant as specific constraints will be
considered only during the design phase of the development of the system.
T o illustrate the purpose, consider for a hypothetical course entitled
'The Application of Systems Approach ! the emphasis would be on the
application of the systems approach towards development of a system
for learning. A s an output, the student is expected to construct a
system in a subject area of his own choice. The course would aim
to:
Develop an understanding of the systems concept from which a systems
view of the purpose would be evolved;
assist learners to select a purpose around which to build their systems;
demonstrate to the learner the potential and the strategy of the systems
approach in systems design;
guide the learners in the application of the systems approach to
their selected project;
provide opportunities for the learner to demonstrate their competence
in the use of the systems approach.
The following statement describes the environment of the above proposed
course and its constraints:
"This course - The Application of Systems Approach -
is offered broadly, to the working environment
of learners such as teachers , curriculum specialists ,
educational planners, and administrative personnel,
who most likely will take this course as part of
their professional development p r o g r a m m e .
The above proposed course is taught by an instructor
I I E P / T M / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 16

in fifteen three-hour sessions . Only limited

library facilities are available."
A statement of the purpose, however, is not a statement of objectives,
but it serves the point of departure in formulating such objectives .

Specification of objectives

The systems approach confronts the planner with specific requirements

as to how the objectives should be stated. Evolving these requirements ,
Mager 1962, Tyler 1964, Smith 1966 and Gagne^l965 provide some valuable guidelines
in this regard. Objectives are deduced from the purpose of the system
therefore a statement of objectives should specify:
What the learner is expected to be able to d o . by
using verbs that denote observable action;
indicating the stimulus that is to evoke the behaviour of the learner;
specifying resources (objects) to be used by the learner and those
with w h o m he is closely associated.
H o w effective the behaviour of the learner will be displayed by identifying
accuracy or correctness of his response,
response length, speed, rate etc.
Under what circumstances the learner is expected to perform by specifying
physical or situational circumstances ,
psychological conditions.
If the objectives are formulated in this m a n n e r , their attainment will
be measurable and they can also serve as a basis for the development
of the system. The following example demonstrates the formulation
of the objectives derived from one of the purposes of the above proposed
course, namely, The Application of the Systems Approach.

Objectives for Demonstrating Competence in the

use of the Systems Approach to the Development
of a sub-System and/or Micro-S:/stem

Applying the strategy of the systems approach, learners of the above

proposed course will be able to develop, install and evaluate a micro-
system of their choice . It is expected that the user of this micro-
system will attain predetermined objectives or, if not, the designer
of the system will be able to adjust his system so that the objectives
will eventually be attained.
 / / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 17

H o w do these objectives describe what is expected?

D o the verbs used denote observable action? D o the learners describe
the micro-system they developed, noting both the process and the
product?
These verbs indicate the stimulus that should evoke the expected
behaviour?
H o w do these objectives state the performance expectations?
The use of this microsystem is anticipated to attain predetermined
objectives or, if not, the designer can adjust his system in order to
ensure attainment.
Submission of the microsystem the learner develops noting both
the process of development, installation, evaluation, modification
and/or change and the products of the developmental efforts .
H o w do the objectives state the circumstances under which the learner
is expected to perform? There are two factors:
The designer is expected to install his system; this implies operation
in an instructional environment.
A written statement which must explain the criterion behaviour demonstrated
by the learner.
The above analysis of the sample objectives indicates that the criterion
suggested for the determination and formulation of objectives was
applied. But are these objectives, in the form stated, specific enough?
H o w refined or specific should these objectives be? B y continual refinement
the designer should arrive at a level of precision that specifies each
individual task. The above objectives can be further characterized
on the task level as follows:
A statement of purpose of the selected system defining the anticipated
learning environment and constraints .
Description of the processes and products of the planning and development
of the micro-system. Descriptions should include all the following
items: (i) A statement of objectives which should specify what the
learner is expected to be able to know, do and feel as an outcome of
his learning experiences . It should also specify how well the learner
is expected to perform and under what circumstances The description
should include the expected' behaviour, use verbs denoting observable
action and indicate the stimuli that produce such action. The expected
behaviour should be specified in terms of the smallest independent
unit performance, (ii) A description of the assessment measures for
learner performance at the output point. These measures are also
used for the quality control of the system, (iii) A n inventory of learning.
This is the result of an analysis of learning tasks . Based on a description
of performance tasks , the analysis identifies what the individual has
to learn and what performance is expected of him . (iv) A statement
I I E P / T M / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 18

of expected input competence, which is an assessment of capabilities

of the learner in relation to the inventory of learning tasks . (v) A
description of the test by which the input competences will be measured,
(vi) A statement of actual learning tasks which is evolved by computing
the difference between the inventory of learning and the learner 's
assumed knowledge at the input point, (vii) The characteristics
of learning tasks . Identification of the type of learning the task
represents and estimation of learning difficulty, (viii) A presentation
of the learning structure which is the product of the arrangement of
learning task categories . This arrangement is guided by an inquiry
into a logical sequence = the attainment of Class A is a prerequisite
of the learning of task etc . (ix) A n identification of functions ,
that provides for the acquisition of specified learning tasks and
thus for the achievement of stated objectives; this is the outcome of
functions analysis . The following variables should be considered here:
a) selection and organization of content;
b) selection and organization of learning experiences;
c) management of learning;
d) provision of effective learning;
e) evaluation of the system and continuous progress of the learner.
Describe plans for carrying out the above selected functions and
consideration of alternatives and rationale for selection of particular
alternatives, (x) A description of the survey of components. Consideration
of all feasible components , h u m a n media and other material resources that
have the potential to carry out these functions Rationale for distribution
of the above functions among components . (xi) A schedule of what
functions will take place , when and where they will be conducted,
and by w h o m , (xii) A description of plans and procedures for the
preparation of instructional materials for systems training and
systems testing, (xiii) Report on how the system was installed,
(xiv) A report on the results of evaluating the students , noting
modification and/or change, which are planned to improve the system,
as based on the findings of the output testing.

F r o m the above points it is noted that objectives samples should

be very specific in stating the expected outcome of learning. There
are three factors necessitating such specific objectives . They
are as follows:
A description of terminal performance forms the basis for the
construction of the criterion test. This is the measuring instrument for
assessment of achievement of the objective as the key means to the quality
control system. Objectives should, therefore, be stated in measurable terms.
Objectives should also be stated in operational terms , which
means that there should be sufficient detail as bases of departure
for the actual development of the system under description.
Objectives should be formulated to communicate accurately what
is to be achieved by the learner, the teacher and all personnel involved.
 I I E P / T M / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 19

Reviewing the objectives further considerations can be m a d e . The

processes involve stating the purpose of the system , deriving objectives
from the purpose and specifying objectives and appear to be of two
kinds: analysis and synthesis . The purpose is subjected to an analysis
to obtain operational and measurable descriptions of objectives . A
further analysis should lead to refinement on the task level. The formation
of these objectives also includes synthesis inasmuch as they have to
be constructed according to predetermined criteria. In systems design
these two processes are often interwoven. However initial strategies
of systems development lay m o r e emphasis on analysis than in subsequent
strategies.

Analysis of learning tasks (1)

Once the specific performance expected of the learner has been identified,
the next steps aimed at successful performance must be considered.
The systems designer should analyse and formulate the learning tasks;
this is a structural procedure composed of a set of strategies as shown
in Figure 7- If, from a statement of objectives, the particular terminal
performance expected of the learner is known, the h u m a n capabilities
of learner-skill, knowledge and attitudes that the individual needs to
carry out specified output performance must be determined.
It is important that the difference between performance and learning
tasks is understood. Performance tasks, as described in the statement
of objectives , indicate the behaviour of which the product of the system
should be capable at the output point. Learning tasks and their analysis
identify the extent of learning to be undertaken to enable demonstration
of the performance described. Although the need to conduct an analysis

(1) The process implied by the phrase - the analysis

of learning tasks - differs from that denoted by
- task analysis . This term usually involves a
detailed listing of component behavioural elements
of a job or task and their inter-relationships .
I I E P / T M / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 20

DESIGNING THE" SYSTEM,

WSTfiULATtoN Ato S^ftUTY C O N T R O L

Figure 7 . Analysis and formulation of learning tasks

of learning tasks is of great importance , it m a y be argued that an

objective should inform the learner clearly what has to be learned.
If the expected performance is described in behavioural terms , this
also surely describes the learning tasks It m a y well be that for certain
behaviour, a description of output performance would identify the learning
tasks . This could be the case when the process of acquisition of certain
behaviour falls into such categories as response and chain learning.
 I I E P / T M / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 21

M o r e specifically, whenever the attainment of a performance task

requires only imitative behaviour, its statement could also cover
the learning task. Learning to open a box by observing someone
else doing it or memorizing dates of a history lesson as a verbal
chain would fall into this category. . Even for these tasks , there is
a need to learn to want to do them .

The performances most in need of facilitation in school are within

the cognitive and relevant domains . Examples of the types of learning
involved here are multiple discriminiation, perception and use of
concepts and principles, problem solving and decision-making.
A description of performance expectation in these domains will rarely
suffice as identification of learning tasks . Although implied, a
learning is not explicit in a statement of performance; this must
be deduced by an examination and analysis of the task itself. T h e
analysis of the tasks usually describes the expected outcome behaviour
which is only a basis for learning tasks and is not in itself a description
of them. A n inventory of learning tasks can be formulated from the
conclusions of what the learner has to assimilate before he can
behave as described in the performance tasks . This inventory,
however, will probably contain m o r e tasks than, in practice, have
to be learned.

Input competence

In most cases the learner brings to the learning situation s o m e

skills , information, attitudes , etc . that are relevant to what he
is supposed to learn. It would be a waste of time to teach competences
already possessed by the learner. These usually tend to be competences
such as initial or input capabilities orienting behaviour. System
designers should assess the capabilities already acquired by the
learner relative to the learning inventory This assessment is
pertinent even in the case of a learner who acquires s o m e esoteric
knowledge . F o r example , the learner of a foreign language will
have at his disposal at the output point, features of his native language
that are transferable into the target language . Native speakers of
English who learn Spanish will find that certain syntactical constructions
and s o m e grammatical elements such as adverbs , prepositions and
conjunctions work in similar fashion in both languages .
I I E P / T M / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 22

Input test

By using an input test w e can determine what a student already knows

about the subject in question. This will vary from one student to another.
T o consider this variation is important. The learner who has not
acquired the capabilities will be frustrated and will not reach the desired
performance. The student who is scheduled to learn what he already
knows will be bored and probably lose interest. A test of input capabilities
would help to avoid both pitfalls and would permit provision of a pre
input p r o g r a m m e to overcome deficiencies in s o m e learners and to
arrange for the advanced placement of others .

Identification of Learning Tasks

It is generally found that the learner has already acquired capabilities

relevant to a particular set of learning tasks T o identify the actual
task of learning one must subtract whatever is already known to the
learner (input competence) from a specific set of learning tasks (inventory
of learning tasks) . The characterization of learning tasks provides
additional information about them to be used as input data for design
of the system .

There are two methods by which the characterization can be accomplished.

The first is to specify the type of learning represented by the acquisition
of a particular learning task, Gagn 19 6 5 (1) identifies a comprehensive
set of learning types such as signal learning, response learning, motor
and verbal chains, multiple discrimination, concept learning, principle
learning and problem solving. These types differ significantly with
regard to particular conditions needed to ensure the mastery of learning
tasks for different types. For example, producing a new foreign language
sound is identified as response learning; the learning of imitations
as a sound. The conditions governing these types of learning are different
from those governing the use of a new sentence structure, which is
a principle learning. The use of grammatical structure, for example,
cannot be learned by imitating or memorizing sentences in which the
structure occurs .
 / / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 23

The second method of characterization of learning tasks characterization

is quantification; This involves the measurement of difficulty in the
mastery of a specific learning task. The information derived is needed
for two purposes: (a) it can be used to project the time needed to overcome
a learning task, and (b) it acts as a guide in estimating the content
needed for treatment of any particular learning task. Quantification
data can be accrued from observing learning over a period of time
and recording information relevant to the time needed for the mastery
of the learning task. For example, in language learning observations
can be m a d e of pronunciation errors and the persistence of these errors .
The m o r e an error persists the m o r e attention, content., and time
needed for the particular task.

Examination of the strategies of learning tasks: analysis and formulation

of learning tasks provide the systems designer with a clear statement
of what has to be learned in the system in general and by specific students
in particular. Figure 8 shows the strategies involved in this process.
The integrated use of analysis and synthesis appears to be a characteristic
process of these strategies and becomes further activated as system
planning moves into the actual design of the system .

H igure 8 . Strategies of learning tasks

 / T M / 4 5 / 6 9 page 24

III T H E DESIGN O F T H E S Y S T E M

Once the tasks for attainment by the learner are identified and characterized,
the planner should then design the system to provide for the mastery of
these tasks. Systems development consists of four major strategies:
1) functions analysis (what has to be done and h o w ? ) ;
2) components analysis (who or what has the potential to do it?);
3) distribution of functions a m o n g components (who or what will
do exactly what?);
4) scheduling (when and w h e r e it will be d o n e ? ) . Figure 9 illustrates
the relationship of these strategies within the whole f r a m e w o r k of
the systems development structure.

1) Functions Analysis

T h e input data for functions analysis is the information gained from

the identification and characterization of the learning tasks T h e
purpose of functions analysis is to identify every variable for inclusion
in the system also to facilitate the attainment of the specified learning
tasks . In designing the system there are four functions that need to
be accomplished. T h e y are as follows:
a) Selection and organization of the content;
b) selection and organization of the learning experiences;
c) m a n a g i n g the learners;
d) evaluation.

a) Selection and organization of the content

M o s t subjects provide unlimited scope for choice of content. Selection

is , therefore , a decision-making operation d e m a n d i n g a sound rational
basis . Characterization of the learning task is a p r i m a r y basis for
content selection as is information on the type of learning represented
by a task. F o r e x a m p l e , in the field of foreign languages, appropriate
considerations affecting and influencing the selection of content include
frequency of occurrence, availability of the item, its flexibility of
expression and its learnability which implies similarity, clarity, brevity
 IIEP/TM/45/69 - page 25

hOf^/wOLATioM O F

1>-; oi>lF-
| ICATION: A N D / O R - C H A S I ^ E J T  IMPROVE

Figure 9 . Relationship of design strategies

I I E P / T M / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 26

and regularity. The actual selection of a course content is m o r e complex

than the above foreign language example suggests . There will be confliction
between the various factors for selection; therefore designers should
consider the specific characteristics of the learning group and the individual
differences of the learner .
The content selected has to be in line with the academic achievement
and aptitude of each individual The span and type of interest of the
learner , his needs , his ability to comprehend the abstract or concrete
and the specific level and style of his learning must also be considered.
This rationale emphasizes the need for available alternatives in the
content.
Organization must follow selection. The most important strategies
here are sequencing, arrangement and presentation. T w o factors
determine the sequences: (i) the type of learning that a learning task
represents and (ii) the notion of a logical sequence. The characterization
of certain learning tasks should be established. Within the domain
of a subject matter, learning tasks that represent response learning
should be pursued before tasks of the chain or multiple-discrimination
type . The learning of specific concepts should precede the learning
of any principle comprised of these concepts. Problem solving cannot
be attempted until the principles to be used in the solution of the problem
are established or mastered.

Within the realm of a specific kind of learning, tasks should be further

ordered in a logical sequence. The designer should determine what
should be known by the learner to undertake the learning of this specific
task. T o supply this information, arrangement of the learning priorities
can be constructed. These learning priorities will state, for example,
that the learning of task A is prerequisite to the learning of task
and the learning of task to task etc .

The arrangement of a course content is a complex operation which

requires appraisal of the compatability of content units with the types
and amount of learning that a selected content requires.
Presentation is the final phase in the selection and organization of
the content. During this operation the content selected as a result
of the strategies described above, will be integrated into specific learning
sequences , and specific learning units to be presented for the next
phase of instructional systems development.
 I I E P / T M / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 27

b) Selection and Organization of the Learning

Experiences

The result of the content selection and organization determines what

is supposed to be learned and in what sequence but it does not show
how this learning should take place. There are m a n y alternatives
for presenting the selected and organized content to the learners and
m a n y different ways of practising, manipulating and making use of content.

Implementation of the phases of selection and organization of the content,

should accommodate both the individual and the groups already mentioned.
It is important that decision-making of learning experiences should take
these differences into consideration. The processes of selection and
organization of the learning experiences should be designed with m a n y
available alternatives to cope with the manifold varieties of learning
habits . The different periods of time needed for mastery of a specific
task is only one of the manifestations of individual differences. The
ability to deal with the abstract or concrete , the interest span and the
sensory needs , such as audio or visual perception are other manifestations .
There are also differences in the degree of guidance and amount of
practice required as well as the degree to which individuals are able
to deal with complexities and manipulate objects . Furthermore, there
are differences a m o n g individuals in the degree to which their imagination
can be involved, their creativity motivated and in their abilitv to solve
problems . One of the most complex tasks for the designers of a
learning system is to identify and predict the expected differences
of each type of learning experience in relation to the different types
of learners. The designer needs to m a k e assumptions about the
most ideal combination of configurations and circumstances for
optimum accomplishment of certain learning tasks .

In selecting and organizing the learning experiences, there are

several variables such as information on what the learner already
knows to assist him in mastery of the learning tasks specified by
the system, aptitude variables and learning style of the individual
learner or possible alternatives of available learning experiences ,
for eventual selection of those best matching the abilities of the
learner. Criteria can then be formulated for matching appropriate
learning experiences to appropriate learners .

While constructing his system , the designer is often tempted to

speculate on the best m e a n s and resources to be employed to carry
out specific learning experiences . This inclination to reach ahead is
indeed tolerated by the systems approach; in fact, it is the recognition of
the interdependence of the method and media decisions thai m a k e s the
I I E P / T M / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 28

systems approach particularly meaningful. Although the systems

approach offers a specific structure for instructional decision-making,
this structurels not rigid. It has a.'built-in flexibility that enables the
designer to think ahead and is not of one-directional nature , but one
which allows not only feedback, but also 'feed-forward' strategies.
These strategies must be continuously interrelated back and forth
to assess correctly the interaction and mutual influence.

c) Managing the Learners

The third aspect of functions analysis . the management of learners ,

has been described by Smith as the process of identifying and effecting
the functions that keep the learner participating productively in the
learning activities . In developing a design for managemeni of the
learners adequate data about the learner is needed to introduce short-
term and long-term incentives and to meet the individual requirements
so that he can be kept optimally involved in learning. This management
also includes the design of procedures and strategies to provide the
teacher with an appropriate selection of suitable curriculum alternatives .

d) Evaluation

This function provides for the constant monitoring of the learner and
of the system. It poses a continuous inquiry into the learner 's achievements
and into the effectiveness and efficiency of the system. M o r e specifically,
the designer of the system must find answers to the following questions .
O n the basis of the progress the learner is making, is he likely to
attain his terminal objectives? If not, what adjustments ought to be
made? A r e the functions provided by the system the best to achieve
the system's goals. What are some of the shortcomings? It could
be by pursuing these inquiries and monitoring the learner and the system
continuously.

2) Components Analysis

The curriculum resulting from function analysis needs to be qualified

further by the findings of component analysis . This is considered
to be one of the most radical departures from present curriculum
 I I E P / T M / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 29

practices suggested by the systems approach. The term component

analysis refers to the decision to be m a d e as to w h o m or what should
be employed to carry out the specific functions . The application of
the systems concept to education has introduced a new way of looking
at the who 's and what 's of the learning environment. M o r e specifically,
the value of systems expressed by and inherited in the term instructional
media has a different role. The teacher and the instructional media
as diversified variables but as components of a system . They are
used on the basis of their ability to accomplish specific educational
functions . This idea is the central concept of components analysis .
Given a specific function, derived from the components analysis , the
problem is first to consider alternative m e a n s or components which
have the potential required and then to select from among these alternatives
the one that appears to be the best to perform the needed function.
The system designer will choose the h u m a n resource , means , or tools
that will best carry out the function and optimize the attainment of the
predetermined performance . In conducting component analysis , system
designersshould never take any component for granted merely because
it has always been used. O n the other hand, a component should not
be rejected because it has been used for a long time .
One of the precepts of component analysis is that the components should
fit the function and not the function fit the components . The idea of
function fitting the components, or the non-systems way of thinking,
is reflected in the widespread practice of assigning instructional functions
to the teacher simply because he is in the classroom. It is to overcome
the temptation inherent in this habit that the order of identifying functions
first and components next is imperative .

A second precept of components analysis is that the designer should

always consider alternatives . In considering and surveying components
he needs to have the freedom to look for the one that offers the best
possible potential to carry out the function and to select the one that
is the most relevant to the learner. Following this , however, there
are s o m e other criteria such as practicability and economy. Considering
these factors the designer should select the best component from the
various alternatives after consideration of the limitations and constraints
inherent in the system environment. A s a result of this , the final
decisions will not be m a d e until the functions are actually distributed
a m o n g the components .

In surveying the components , system thinking requires constant consideration

of all possible h u m a n and material resources relevant to the potential
for accomplishment of the specific functions . A component or a set
of components should be selected on the basis of such criteria as:
I I E P / T M / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 30

(a) potential to accomplish a particular function, (b) ability to integrate

with other components, (c) relevancy to the learner, (d) practicability
and (e) economy. The h u m a n component will include the learner and
the teacher, as well as personnel engaged in a wide variety of educational
support and service functions , whereas the material component would
cover both software and hardware such as textbooks, television, programmed
instruction, films and other media. In considering the teacher as
a component of instructional systems w e should utilize the extensive
research of recent years on the use of programmed instruction. T h e
results of such research, as Hatch 1966 (1) stated, have shown that students
can acquire information with as well as without the personal intercession
of the teacher . Thus the role of the teacher as the source of information
must be re-thought. Systematic component analysis will lead to the
recognition that the teacher m a y best be described as the manager
of learning. This primary function m a y include providing for the motivation
of the learner, the planning and managing of the learning experiences
and examination and utilization with the learner of the information
he has acquired.
In selecting and organizing the content and learning experiences of
a course the subject matter is usually determined by the relative textbooks
or series of textbooks . This selection is generally the responsibility
of the high level of the Ministry of Education. Thus the content of
these textbooks is closely followed in the selection and organization
of learning experiences , with the occasional involvement of the teacher
and his class . The individual learner is seldom considered to have
a valid contribution in the accomplishment of these functions .
During recent years there lias been increasing recognition of the need
to provide for individual differences by having curriculum alternatives .
It has been suggested that variations in initial competence ; aptitude,
rate and style of learning should be met by variation in content and
learning experiences . The factors used to determine what alternatives
to choose, do not usually include the learner himself. It is the teacher
who manages the instructional strategy; the counsellor plays a role
in gathering data on the learner ! s achievements , background interest
and needs . In most advanced instructional systems , a computer m a y
monitor the students ' learning and prescribe from available alternatives
the specific path to follow. Thus in the contemporary educational
spectrum although there is greater emphasis on learning, the learner
does not yet actively participate in decision-making.
 I I E P / T M / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 31

One of the key criteria in this learning-oriented system is to have

a number of alternatives available both in content and in learning experiences .
These alternatives should be designed for the purpose of meeting individual
differences . Another key criterion is that the learner should be considered
a primary participant in making decisions about the selection and organization
of content and learning experiences . These decisions should be m a d e
with him and not for him .
H o w can implementation of such learning and learner-oriented component
selection be effected? In selecting the content, the designer should
provide for alternative sets of content items which are aimed at the
attainment of learning tasks . Alternatives should be related to potential
individual differences and thus provide for variations in level of sophistication
or abstraction, degree of complexity, grade level, length, extent of
coverage and topics of interest. These alternatives should be prescribed
for the learner but the learner should be consulted in selecting the
one most appropriate for h i m . H e , himself, should have an opportunity
to test the alternatives in order to find out which one he responds to
best or which stimulates him m o s t . It is also possible that the learner
can suggest a new alternative , one unique to him . H e will probably
need the co-operation of his teacher, counsellor, fellow- student, or
others in his environment. H e should co-ordinate his decision-making
with that of others in order to m a k e the best possible selection.
The organization of his time is also subject to decisions by the learner,
likewise the point at which he will enter the learning system also depends
on the measured input competence of the learner . The role of the learner
as a component in the accomplishment of the selection and organization
of the learning experiences will probably significantly increase . Variations
in the design of learning experiences naturally will be even greater than
variations in the design of the content. All this will lead to a system
in which the learner will assume increasingly m o r e responsibility
for his learning.

3) Distribution of Functions a m o n g Components

Distribution is the process of assigning functions to specific components

throughout which the designer must consider what component offers
the best potential for accomplishment of a particular function. H e
must also consider the constraints and limitations of the system; this
analysis must be conducted for each component. Sometimes he will
find that the most effective component is also the most expensive one
in terms of both m o n e y and time thus leading him to m a k e s o m e trade-
I I E P / T M / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 32

off and select instead a component that is still within the range of projected
effectiveness and the costs limits of the system. The only aspect
that cannot be compromised or traded off is the attainment of the objectives.
Proper distribution, therefore, will ensure the selection of components
to produce the predetermined output and still be within the limitations
and capabilities of the system. In brief the goal is to achieve the best
possible output within the least possible time and at the lowest possible
cost.
Distribution as discussed above is the stress point in the systems
development process . It is at this point that the key decisions are
m a d e and alternative functions and components are considered, weighed
and then selected or rejected. In view of the critical nature of this
process s o m e clarifications are in order:
It must be emphasized that in making design decisions , function
always leads and components always follow- Although this sounds
logical, making decisions within this logic is not always easy and to
be really effective will necessitate suppression of s o m e of the present
practices . One of the features of prevailing practices in education
is that it is component oriented. Usually components that are already
available - such as the teacher in the classroom and other resources
- are considered first and functions assigned to them. T o break away
from this way of thinking and to consider functions first is one of the
crucial challenges in establishing a systematic way of making design
decisions in education.
Most of the design decisions are m a d e at the time the functions are
distributed to the components. Consequently, the process and product
of this strategy - distribution - will be most frequently reviewed during
the operation of the system. Whenever feedback from output testing
data , operational efficiency or economy indicates a less than desirable
product state, distribution must be re-examined, the resultant decision
re-analyzed and the relevant necessary readjustments m a d e . If systems
objectives are not attained, the most likely area for changes is, in
fact, distribution. If the system does not operate smoothly or if its
economy is questioned, distribution decisions are the first variables
to be re-considered. It is for these reasons the designers of systems
have to keep detailed records of the decisions and include a list of
alternatives , their characteristics together with an explanation for
these decisions .
 / / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 33

4) Scheduling

Another systems strategy is scheduling - which involves decision

making. It is the part of the learning system concerned with time
and place . Once the distribution has been determined and the functions
to be accomplished by relevant components established, the designer
must decide when and where each function should take place . Scheduling
places the information gained from distribution into a time and place
frame , thereby ensuring the relevant human components and material
resources will be available at the appropriate time, and that the location
for the economic and effective execution of these functions will be
available .
 / / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 34

IV I M P L E M E N T A T I O N A N D Q U A L I T Y C O N T R O L

The processes of design and development produce a system which is

ready to be put into operation. Before the system is installed., however,
two additional strategies should be introduced.
System Training. As Gagn 1962 stated, system training is a pre-installation
exercise of the system. It helps to refine the operational inter-relationship
and integration of the components or sub-systems. During the trial of this provisional
pattern it can also be ascertained whether the human variables of the
system really possess the needed capabilities . If deficiencies are
discovered, training or<adjustment process should be introduced to
attain the required competence . At this point the two pre-installation
strategies - training and evaluation - m a y complement each other
and show up inadequacies or weak points in components or functions
that should be adjusted.
Systems Evaluation. The application of the systems concept also requires
testing the system before it is installed. System testing serves the
purpose of ascertaining whether the system can perform the processes
for which it was designed. There are several ways to conduct systems
evaluation or testing. As a minimum requirement the designer must
think through the subsequent steps of the design process, continuously
asking himself if the product of the particular step being tested is the
best one to achieve the predetermined objectives of the system. This
process can be carried out most effectively by a systems analyst.
In fact, it is advantageous that the systems testing be conducted by
someone other than the designer. The use of simulation for demonstration
and evaluation of the functions of the system is one approach. For
more sophistication, the use of computers is advocated. This, howTever ,
is limited to the testing components or strategies that are conducive
for qualification.
The most satisfactory method of testing an instructional system is
by trying it on the learners in the environment or at least in a simulated
environment. As system testing and evaluation is a continual process
it is difficult to determine when the evaluation is actually completed.
The most important point is to provide sufficient pre-installation testing
and make any necessary modifications .
System installation . Systems training and systems evaluation and
testing are two initial strategies for the implementation phase of systems
 I I E P / T M / 4 5 / 6 9 - page 35

operation. The product of these strategies is the decision either to

install the system or eliminate it. If installation is decided upon,
then the system is put into operation in its planned environment and
begins to process the input for production of predetermined output.
During operation, the system is continuously evaluated in order to
measure its adequacy and the cumulative and terminal performance
of the learner .
Quality Control through Evaluation. The purpose of quality control
of any system is to ensure that its objectives are being m e t . If not,
adjustment should be introduced in order to modify or change the system
so that the pre-stated objectives can be eventually attained. This
phase of systems development is comprised of several strategies with
specific purposes of their own; these are: (a) systems monitoring,
which is used to evaluate continuously the effectiveness of the system,
and (b) performance testing, which is a m e a n s of measuring the progressive
achievement and terminal proficiency of the learner. The continued
accomplishment of these two strategies provides information for effecting
appropriate adjustment to improve the terminal performance of the
learner and optimize the effectiveness and economy of the system .

Systems monitoring requires continuous evaluation and analysis; the

adequacy of the system can be judged from the results of these operations .
A s the system operates the designer must introduce such queries as:
are the objectives clearly stated and formulated along measurable
and operational lines?
does the criterion test truly reflect the objectives?
are the objectives properly interpreted in exploring the learning
tasks?
has input competence been properly assessed and tested?
do the learning tasks identify every variable to enable the learner
to perform in line with the objectives of the system?
were any tasks identified that do not contribute to the attainment
of the objectives?
were all the functions necessary to accomplish the learning tasks
or were s o m e over-productive or inapplicable?
were the best possible and most economical components selected
and do they function effectively?
Performance evaluation and testing. The evaluation of the learner 's
performance is accomplished through continuous checking of the learner
progress and by testing his performance capabilities at the terminal
point.
Evaluations , which are used throughout the p r o g r a m m e are designed
for the purpose of:
I I E P / T M / 4 5 / 6 9 page 36

Measuring the input competencies of the learner in relation to the

pre-established learning tasks;
measuring the degree to which the learner has the competencies
prerequisite to mastery of learning in relation to the pre-established
learning tasks;
diagnosing learning style and learning rate to accommodate the individual
learner;
assessing the progress of the learner in order to introduce any changes
necessary to enable him to perform according to expectation;
indicating specific deficiencies in the system itself.
The test to measure output performance should assess the degree
to which the student is able to exhibit the behaviour specified by the
objectives .
System adjustments: improvement by change or modification. Existing
educational programmes do provide for the measurement of the learner
progress and terminal proficiency. Test results are usually communicated
to the learners to inform them of their progress and achievement.
These results, however, are only occasionally used by the designer
for the modifications and/or changes of the instructional p r o g r a m m e .
One of the most effective aspects of the systems approach is the continuous
feedback of performance data into the system for the purpose of making
adequate adjustments .

The self adjustment characteristics of systems development prescribe

change as a perpetual process in the development operation and maintenance
of systems . It is safe to say that the only valid m e a n s of maintaining
a system is by purposely modifying and changing it. Those responsible
for education and educational planning probably find difficulty in orientating
themselves to this particular characteristic of systems development.
 I I E P / T M / 4 5 / 6 9 page 37

V CONCLUSION

The purpose of this paper is to explain and demonstrate the use

of systems approach as well as to provide guidelines for development
of instructional systems . The development design described presented
a structure and a set of strategies for making curriculum decisions .
The basis of a system for learning is its purpose from which systems
objectives can be derived. F r o m this the designer has to determine
the variables to be learned to ensure the attainment of these pre-
stated objectives . Input competence for the learner can be assessed
to see if he has already acquired capabilities relevant to his learning
task. The differential analysis of learning tasks as opposed to
input competence provides a set of actual learning experiences.
Once the learning tasks have been identified and characterized the
design of the system can c o m m e n c e . It is essential to consider
the functions of the system to ensure the mastery of learning tasks .
Functions have to be distributed among components; decisions m a d e
on this basis lead to the design of the system. After evaluation
and training for the system , installation should follow . Finally ,
the feedback gained from output testing and system monitoring is
used to introduce adjustment and improvements in the system.

Figure 10 summarizes the development of an instructional system

design.
IIEP/TM/45/69 - page 38

AN A L'Y 'IS A N D
hofWUi-ATloN
O F OBJECTIVES

Mcgjpy '^r\/&ir Jf\ a^vgg Cf/u^r^jv'e- I

L. ^ _L __ fi&J&pkl j
Figure 10 . Development of an -instructional system design
 IIEP/TM/45/69 - page 39

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Benathy, Bela H . Instructional Systems, Fearon Publishers, Palo Alto,

California, 1968.
Benathy, Bela H . A Theory of Selection and Organisation of Content in
Foreign Language Curricula, Doctoral dissertation, University of
California, Berkeley 1966.
Bloom, B . S. (Ed. ) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: A Handbook I
Cognitive Domain, New York, McKay, 1956.
Gagn, Robert M . Educational Objectives and Human Performance, in
Krumboltz, J. D . , Learning and the Educational Process Rand McNally,
Chicago, 1965.
Gagn, Robert M . The Condition of Learning, New York, Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1965 (a).
Gagn, Robert M . et al. Psychological Principles in System Development,
New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1962.
Hatch, Winslow R. Approach to Teaching, Washington D . C. , Government
Printing Office, 1966.
Hedegard, James M . An Overview of Historical Formulations, in Siegal
Lawrence Siegel (Ed. ), Instruction: Some Contemporary Viewpoints,
San Francisco, Chandler Publishing Co. , 1967.
Mager, Robert F a Preparing Instructional Objectives, Palo Alto, California,
Fearon Publishers, 1962.
Miller, Robert B . Task Description and Analysis in Gagn, Robert M . (Ed. ),
Psychological Principles in System Development, New York, Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1962.
Rogers, Carl R. The Facilitation of Significant Learning, in Siegel Lawrence
(Ed. ), Instruction: Some Contemporary Viewpoints, San Francisco,
Chandler Publishing Co. , 1967.
Smith Jr0 , Robert G . The Design of Instructional Systems, Technical Report
66-18 (Alexandria Va H u m Pro 1966).
Tyler, Ralph W . Some Persistent Questions of the Defining of Objectives,
in Lindwall, . M . (Ed. ), Defining Educational Objectives, Pittsburgh,
University of Pittsburgh Press, 1964.