precision teaching and direct instruction: measurably superior...

..... -----

Precision Teaching and Direct Instruction:

Measurably Superior Instructional Technology in

Schools

Carl Binder Precision Teaching and Management Systems, Inc.

Cathy L. Watkins

California State University

ABSTRACT

Although educators, policy-makers,

business leaders, and the general pub

lic have become increasingly concerned

about the "basic skills" crisis in Ameri

can schools, research-based solutions

have existed for over two decades in the form of measurably superior teaching

methodologies: Precision Teaching and Direct Instruction. In federally vali

dated research, each of these instruc

tional technologies has been shown to

produce far greater achievement and

self-esteem among students than more

traditional teaching practices, with favorable cost-benefit ratios when imple

mented in schools. These results have

been obtained despite adverse socio

economic influences on students so of-

Introduction Although systematic, empirically

derived instructional technology in many forms has existed for decades, mainstream educators have, by and large, resisted it. Such criterionreferenced approaches as the "Personalized System of Instruction" (PSI) or "Keller Pan" (Sherman, Ruskin, & Semb, 1982) have been rejected in many university settings, despite measurable improvements in students' learning, because many

74

ten blamed for failure in the classroom. These methods have not been widely

adopted, partly due to political and

philosophical resistance to measurably

superior instructional technology

among educators.

This article provides overviews of Precision Teaching and Direct In

struction, discusses their origins and

research backgrounds, cites effec

tiveness data, and describes how they can complement one another when

used together. It provides sufficient

references to the literature and

pointers to existing programs to enable interested readers to learn more

about each of these measurably su

perior educational solutions.

educators and administrators cannot accommodate systems that disturb the normal distribution of grades in the student population. An analysis of the contingencies that affect adoption of instructional methods in the educational establishment reveals forces that oppose change at all levels and which must be overcome in order for measurably effective instructional technology to take hold (Watkins, 1988).

PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY

In elementary and schools, and in the uni e grams thatprepare teache schools, educational fad con go. To an observer it often een "new" methods are valued bea their newness, and mature me including measurably effec are rejected simply becau e -no longer new. U nfortunatel of the most mature and effect structional methods fall int.o -· h a v i o r a l "

category-a school of thought that is now very much out of vogue in mainstream education . Among the measurably effective instructional technologies that have been implemented in

Decade

applict

Precisi

Dire,c

regu

clas

capab

Arm "basii

br([_

schools over thelast twenty fiveyear areP Teaching and Direct In tru fact, these two approache to tion may be the most thoro dated and consisten ly e methods yet developed in 1 speaking schools (Binder

Watkins, 1988). Decade of1

and application suggest tha I Teaching and Direct regular and special cla roo be capable of eliminating -current "basic skills cri · i: adopted. However, mo e and policy-makers are no

these methods. And hen

aware of them, there i o

VOLUME 3, NUMBER 4/1990

nction: ,echnology in

C.

:nrfailure in the classroom.,., have not been widelydue to political and

r istance to measurablyuctional technology

lc.::O ·�.

provides overviews of� �ching and Direct In• .;;c ses their origins and.. e.,.grounds, cites effec-

and describes how theyen one another when

�r. I provides sufficient:o he literature and

· ring programs to enreaders to learn more

_ ese measurably su

onal solutions.

d administrators candate systems that distal distribution of grades?°pulation. An analy-

-lilgencies that affect· tructional methods·onal establishment

hat oppose changeand which must beor�er for measurablyc onal technology to. s, 1988).

�JPROVEMENT QUARTERL y

In elementary and secondary schools, and in the university programs that prepare teachers for those schools, educational fads come and go. To an observer it often seems that "new" methods are valued because of their newness, and mature methods, including measurably effective ones, are rejected simply because they are no longer new. Unfortunately, some of the most mature and effective instructional methods fall into the "beh a v i o r a l "

sophical and political resistance to their use (Binder & Watkins, 1989).

An important message that performance technologists and systematic instructional developers can deliver to those concerned about America's educational failures is that the keys to

a solution lie in better instructional

methods, not in the socio-economic

and cultural factors that are so often blamed for the problem. Results of effectiveness research demonstrate

that with the category-a school of thought that is now very much out of vogue in mainstream educat ion . Among the measurably effective instructional technologies that have been implemented in

Decades of research and

application suggest that

Precision Teaching and

implementation of sup e r i o ri n s t r u c tional methods it is possible to o v e r c o m ethe effects ofsuch variables as inn e r - c i t yp o v e r t y,single-parent families,

Direct Instruction in

regular and special

classrooms may be

capable of eliminating

America's current

"basic skills crisis," if

broadly adopted.

schools over the last twenty five years are Precision Teaching and Direct Instruction. In fact, these two approaches to instruction may be the most thoroughly validated and consistently effective methods yet developed in Englishspeaking schools (Binder, 1988; Watkins, 1988). Decades of research and application suggest that Precision Teaching and Direct Instruction in regular and special classrooms may be capable of eliminating America's current "basic skills crisis," if broadly adopted. However, most educators and policy-makers are not aware of these methods. And when they are aware of them, there is often philo-


t e l e v i s i o no v e r d o s e,

and other influences outside the classroom (e.g., Watkins, 1988). Nonetheless, most educators and policy-makers continue to blame factors beyond teachers' control for failure in the classroom.

This article provides overviews of Precision Teaching and Direct Instruction, discusses their origins and research backgrounds, and describes how they can complement one another when used together. It provides sufficient references to the literature and pointers to existing programs to enable interested readers to learn more about each of these measurably superior instructional technologies.

75

The fact is that America now has the

best basic skills instructional technol

ogy in the world, yet it is not being

used. We hope that this article will help to inform educators, policy makers, and increasingly concerned business leaders that there are now mature, cost-effective solutions to America's educational crisis, ready to be implemented in a broad variety of educational settings, and able to produce results that are orders of magnitude greater

into the classroom, most behaviorists discarded the measurement framework that had proven so useful in basic research laboratories (rate or frequency of response) in favor of the scale used in virtually all traditional educational evaluation-percentage correct (Lindsley, 1990). Despite Skinner's ( 1950) conclusion that "rate of responding appears to be the only datum which varies significantly and in the expected direction

under condithan the results of mainstream educational practice.

Precision Teaching

Origins

During the 1960s, many of the stu-dents and

By using daily charts,

teachers and students

were able to make timely

decisions about the

effectiveness of methods

and materials in helping

students to achieve

defined performance

goals.

tions which are relevant to the learning process," most behav

iorally ori

e n t e d

instructional

t e c h n o l o

gists opted

to measure

a c c u r a cy

o n ly , a n d

ge n e r a l lycolleagues of B.F. Skinner moved from basic research laboratories into applied settings. In fact, NSPI (originally the National Society for Programmed

Instruction) was a part of this movement. Most of those who began to apply what had been learned in the laboratory to educational problems created processes and programs based on the findings of basic research. Using reinforcement schedules, behavior shaping, discrimination learning paradigms, stimulus fading, and other principles and procedures derived from laboratory research, these pioneers created teaching programs and revised them based on measured effects. However, when they moved

76

ignored the

temporal dimensions of behavior,

except in particular cases (e.g., typing speed and reading rate).

0. R. Lindsley, the founder of Precision Teaching(Lindsley, 1964, 1972, 1990), who with Skinner had first applied the method of free operant conditioning to humans (Lindsley & Skinner, 1954), had coined the term "behavior therapy" in his work with psychotics, and had made major methodological contributions in areas such as sleep research (Lindsley, 1957), behavioral pharmacology (Lindsley, 1962), and geriatric behavior prosthesis (Lindsley, 1964b), took a different approach. Instead of creating programs and "recipes" based on laboratory findings, he emphasized


"' ... ::, z

... z

CA

DEPOSITOR AGEN

.,,

the measurement frameu

proven so powerful for : his associates in the lali created the "Standar Chart" (a.k.a. Stand.an Chart), a 6-cycle emi

graph for charting beha\l (or rate) against calen he taught teachers and

to count and time behm complishments in the cl: Figure 1). He reasoned· ting science in the han and students" it would b them to discover, in the

individual learner ha

and materials produced provements in learning mance. In effect, Lin leJ

VOLUME 3, NUMBER 4/199(

· to the classroom, most behaviorists· ded the measurement frame-work hat had proven so useful in

·c research laboratories (rate orfrequency of response) in favor of the;cale u ed in virtually all traditionalucational evaluation-percentage:orrect (Lindsley, 1990). Despite· er's (1950) conclusion that "ratere ponding appears to be theinly datum which varies signifi-an l and in the expected direction

v charts, students

ake timely wut the ('methods in helping 'Jl-ehieve t.rmance

under con di. tions which are relevant to the learning process," most behaviorally orie n t e d instructional t ech n o l o gists opted to measure acc u r acy o n ly, and ge n e r a l ly ignored the

nporal dimensions of behavior c:ep in particular cases (e.g., typ�� peed and reading rate). ). R. Lindsley, the founder of Preion Teaching(Lindsley, 1964, 1972,}O) who with Skinner had firstJlied the method of free operant· · oning to humans (Lindsley &.nner, 1954), had coined the termhavior therapy" in his work with·cho ics, and had made majorr:hodological contributions in arch as sleep research (Lindsley,) behavioral pharmacologyle , 1962), and geriatric behav-J hesis (Lindsley, 1964b), tookerent approach. Instead of cre" programs and "recipes" basedtboratory findings, he emphasized

L"UR\4ANCE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY

Figure 1. Standard Behavior Chart

500

100

50

10 "'

5

z

z

0 10 20 30

10

20 -v.

_,.

so -·

,

100 -2

200

-5

500 -8

1000-16

-24

SUCCESSIVE CALENDAR DAYS

SUPERVISOR ADVISER

DEPOSITOR

MANAOU

AGENCY TIMER

the measurement framework that had proven so powerful for Skinner and his associates in the laboratory. He created the "Standard Behavior Chart" (a.k.a. Standard Celeration Chart), a 6-cycle semi-logarithmic graph for charting behavior frequency (or rate) against calendar days, and he taught teachers and their students to count and time behaviors and accomplishments in the classroom (see Figure 1). He reasoned that by "putting science in the hands of teachers and students" it would be possible for them to discover, in the case of each individual learner, what procedures and materials produced greatest improvements in learning and performance. In effect, Lindsley emphasized


BEHAVER

COUNTER CH,1,RTER

the evaluation and revision components of systematic instruction by encouraging teachers and students to

pinpoint behaviors, count, time and chart them every day, and "try, try again" when initial procedures did not produce the desired results (Lindsley, 1972).

The Standard Behavior Chart itself (Pennypacker, Koenig, & Lindsley, 1972; Kazdin, 1976; West, Young, & Spooner, 1990) proved to be an important contribution to the study of learning and performance. Its logarithmic or "multiply-divide" count per minute scale along the left axis enabled students and teachers to chart and directly assess ratios of correct and error frequencies, and to view

77

and quantify progress in the form of straight-line trends rather than "learning curves" (since the logarithmic scale straightens out the traditional learning curve) formed by sequences of daily frequency measures on the chart. By using daily charts, teachers and students were able to make timely decisions about the effectiveness of methods and materials in helping students to achieve defined performance goals (White & Haring, 1976). By creating linear representations of learning ( trends in performance) on the semi-logarithmic chart, and quantifying them as multiplicative factors per week (e.g., correct responding multiplying x 2.0 per week, errors dividing by /1.5 per week), Lindsley defined the first simple measure of learning in the literature: celeration (either a multiplicative acceleration of behavior frequency; or a dividing deceleration of behavior frequency per celeration pe

riod, e.g., per week). The chart enabled users to measure learning against standard angles on the chart (resembling those on a protractor) to obtain direct read-outs of learning, independent of performance level. The chart's standard dimensions and proportions would enable users (including non-educational performance technologists) to avoid the distortion inherent in conventional non-standard "stretch-to-fill" graphs and to directly compare trends and magnitudes of effect and variability.

Precision Teaching Philosophy and Strategies

At the beginning of the paper that represents his initial contribution to the educational literature, Lindsley (1964a) wrote: "Children are not retarded. Only their behavior in aver-

78

age environments is sometimes retarded. In fact, it is modern science's ability to design suitable environments for these children that is retarded" (p. 62).

A key element of Precision Teaching is the dictum that "the child knows

best" (Lindsley, 1972). Based on Skinner's famous statement that "the

organism is always right," Lindsley taught Precision Teachers to assume that learners respond in lawful ways to environmental variables and that if learners behave in an undesirable way it is the responsibility of teachers to alter those variables until they produce the desired result. This assumption, perhaps obvious to most current-day performance technologists, flies in the face of traditional psycho-educational practice which tends to label and to blame students

for failure, not instructional methods.

Daily measurement of performance was another important element of Precision Teaching from the beginning. As in the basic operant condi

tioning laboratory, where continuous cumulative response graphs allowed researchers to observe ongoing variability of performance, daily recording of students' performance enabled Precision Teachers and their students to identify and to take advantage of variables that cause changes in performance dur:ing the learning process.

Self-recording by students and sharing of results among teachers and students was another component of Precision Teaching that came from the methods practiced by laboratory behavior analysts who met frequently to share cumulative response records (Lindsley, 1990). The standard chart became a primary communication tool


among thousands of Pre1 Teachers and their studen ai of sharing discoveries and tively solving problems. operant conditioning labo

Precision Teachers anal zt: sults and designed interven individuals while collec in comparing individual reco hope of identifying general

ciples of learning and perfo The Standard Celeration Chm like conven-t i o n a l "stretch-tofill" charts), b e c a u s e i t allowed for

d i r e c t graphic com-p a r i s o n

Precis

the te

refer i

speed

among individuals and inter serves as an efficient tool 101

purpose. Early Precision Teacher

categories of functional be analysis when analyzing and

ing interventions. Theydis · � between operational or descr definitions of events (an events, movement cycles an " quent events) and functional ti tions (stimuli, respon e consequences), which could o� determined by changing eve continuing to measure beha quencies (Lindsley, 1964a) to« mine functional relation behavioral and environmen ables. Thus, for example, o el only call a subsequent even a r quence" if measuremen strated that changing tha e an effect on the frequenc of -havior it was arranged to follo

An extension of this fun approach, derived originall


:vironments is sometimes re. In fact, it is modern science's

de ign suitable environ-

o hese children that is rep. 62). element of Precision Teach

edictum that "the child knows · d ley, 1972). Based on

-r' famous statement that "the · always right," Lindsley

Preci ion Teachers to assume rrners respond in lawful ways ronmental variables and that e behave in an undesirable

e responsibility of teachers r those variables until they � e desired result. This as:m, perhaps obvious to most ·,lay performance technolo-

in the face of traditional ed cational practice which , label and to blame students

rre not instructional meth-

ea urementofperformance other important element of n Teaching from the begin-

in he basic operant conditaboratory, where continuous ·ve response graphs allowede o observe ongoing vari

performance, daily recordents' performance enabled

!l eachers and their students t:fy and to take advantage of

at cause changes in pere dm'.ing the learning pro-

�rding by students and o results among teachersen was another componention eaching that came from

practiced by laboratory analysts who met frequently :umulative response records r 1990). The standard chart primary communication tool

A:. 'CE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY

among thousands of Precision Teachers and their students, a means of sharing discoveries and cooperatively solving problems. As in the operant conditioning laboratory, Precision Teachers analyzed results and designed interventions for individuals while collecting and comparing individual records in the hope of identifying general prin

ciples of learning and performance. The Standard Celeration Chart (unlike conven-

operant conditioning laboratory, was an emphasis on definition of behavior as active, and measurement of its products whenever possible. Precision Teachers applied the "dead man's test" to descriptions of behavior. "If a dead man can do it, then don't try to teach it." This rule helped teachers avoid setting teaching objectives such as "keeps eyes on paper" or "sits quietly in chair" which are not countable behaviors. Likewise, early Precision

T e a c h e r s t i o n a l "stretch-tofill" charts), b e c a u s e i t allowed for d i r e c tgraphic com-

Precision Teachers use t r i e d t om e a s u r e" b e h a v i o r tracks"-the r e s u l t s o f b e h a v i o r rather than

the term "fiuency" to

refer to accuracy plus

speed of performance.

p a r i s o namong individuals and interventions, serves as an efficient tool for this purpose.

Early Precision Teachers used the categories of functional behavior analysis when analyzing and changing interventions. They distinguished between operational or descriptive

definitions of events (antecedent events, movement cycles, and subsequent events) and functional defini

tions (stimuli, responses, and consequences), which could only be determined by changing events and continuing to measure behavior frequencies (Lindsley, 1964a) to determine functional relations among behavioral and environmental variables. Thus, for example, one would only call a subsequent event a "consequence" if measurement demonstrated that changing that event had an effect on the frequency of the behavior it was arranged to follow.

An extension of this functionalist approach, derived originally from the


the behavior itself-whenever possible. This principle was related to the recognition that automatic laboratory apparatus actually counted switchclosures caused by sufficiently robust movements on the part oflaboratory subjects, and did not necessarily measure each of the subject's barpresses. Precision Teachers, for example, could neither measure nor change the frequency of"feeling good." But they could certainly help students to increase their frequency of tallying "good feelings" during the day, a kind ofbehavior track. Gilbert (1978) expressed the same idea, perhaps more elegantly, by stressing accomplishments rather than behaviors as the proper subject of performance engineering.

Combining these principles and practices, Precision Teachers and their students have treated each project as an individual experiment, and for more than 25 years have continued to make discoveries about how to improve

79

learning and performance in a broad range of student populations.

Research and Development of

Precision Teaching Early practitioners discovered that

brief timed samples of academic performance (e.g., 1 minute per day) were sufficient for monitoring progress and making decisions, and that it is often unnecessary to record performance for longer periods, as had been the practice at the very beginning of the movement. Subsequently, most Precision Teachers began using daily one-minute timed samples of performance for charting and decision-making (Kunzelmann, Cohen, Hulten, Martin, & Mingo, 1970; White and Haring, 1976).

One of the most significant contributions of Precision Teaching research was the use of frequency aims

(Haughton, 1972; Wood, Burke, Kunzelmann, & Koenig, 1978; Koorland, Keel, & Ueberhorst, 1990). Because early practitioners were strongly influenced by operant conditioning and its applied offshoot known as "behavior modification," they initially viewed behavior frequency (response rate) as a "performance variable" able to be arbitrarily increased or decreased through the use of consequences. However, when teachers began measuring behavior frequencies of academic skills (e.g., writing answers to simple arithmetic problems), they noticed that consequences were often not sufficient for increasing performance. For example, while most students could achieve performances of 40 to 50 correctly written answers to addition problems per minute by engaging in daily practice, some seemed unable to move beyond 20 per minute. No matter

80

what consequences teachers arranged for improving performance (e.g., tokens, praise, notes home, etc.), these low-rate performances remained below the desired levels. After discovering that these students' rates of writing and reading digits were considerably lower than the levels exhibited by successful students, Haughton and his associates found that by practicing the more elementary or "tool" skills (writing and reading digits) until they reached higher levels, students were able to attain higher rates of writing answers to problems.

The discovery that rate of correct responding in prerequisite skills, not merely the successful performance of prerequisites at any rate, is a limiting factor in the development of subsequent skills, became the driving force in curriculum-based decision-making among Precision Teachers. Later, Precision Teachers began using the term fluency to refer to accuracy pl us speed of performance, a goal of Precision Teaching efforts at every level in a student's progress through any curriculum sequence (Binder, 1988). Precision Teachers have developed curriculum guides, assessment inventories, and decision-making strategies based on objectively determined aims or fluency standards established in many different curriculum areas (Starlin, 1972; White & Haring, 1976; Barrett, 1979). In discovering the importance of fluency, not mere accuracy, as a definition of true mastery, Precision Teachers confirmed findings from a broad array of other fields about the relationship between automaticity or "second nature" responding and improved retention, transfer of training, and "endurance" or resistance to distraction (Binder, 1987, 1988; Binder,


Haughton, & Van Eyk 199 beyond mere confirmatio research about "overlearn 100% correct, Precision been able to accuratel quired performance le e

per minute frequencie an itly plan for their differen · on key outcome variabl

Another key developme sion Teaching was the use

ing screening" proce 1

independently assessing per levels and celeration (me

learning as change in per

over repeated daily sampl cific tasks to identify tude of failure in academic devE A massive project in Was� ( Child Service Demo 1 grams, 197 4) collected app:n:

150,000 daily performance cies ofnearly 3,000 skill fro students in three school Teachers charted 7 to 10 da: per student per skill (3 tostudent) to determine me

quencies and celera tio of learning). Project problem learners as tu e

less than half the median 1

quency or weekly celera tion«

skill. This procedure iden · than 70% of the studen costly and time-consuming subsequently diagno ed a learning problems. In a Ia1 with pre-school children ' Rinaldi, Crew, & Kunzelmm single "snapshot" mea ur � mance on a set of five e E

skills enabled teachers to ide: of the students who were referred for special servi and Kunzelmann (1981) htJ celeration, a direct mea ure ing, is not racially di cm:


•ha consequencesteachersarrangedimproving performance (e.g., to

praise, notes home, etc.), these -rnte performances remained bethe desired levels. After discover

ta hat these students' rates of ·· · g and reading digits were conerably lower than the levels exhib

ed b successful students, Haughton o.d hi associates found that by praccing the more elementary or "tool"

(writing and reading digits) until e reached higher levels, students ere able to attain higher rates of riting answers to problems. The discovery that rate of correct sponding in prerequisite skills, not erely the successful performance of �requisites at any rate, is a limiting clor in the development of subse-ent skills, became the driving force

1cu1Ticulum-based decision-making ong Precision Teachers. Later,

recision Teachers began using the fluency to refer to accuracy plus

reed of perform�nce, a goal of Precion Teaching efforts at every level a tudent's progress through any · · cul um sequence (Binder, 1988).

· ion Teachers have developedrrriculum guides, assessment inm ories, and decision-making rategies based on objectively deterined aims or fluency standards es.bli hed in many different mculum areas (Starlin, 1972; hite & Haring, 1976; Barrett, 1979).

· covering the importance of flu-not mere accuracy, as a defini

m of true mastery, Precision �chers confirmed findings from a oad array of other fields about the La · onship between automaticity or �nd nature" responding and imo ed retention, transfer of training,

d endurance" or resistance to disu:tion (Binder, 1987, 1988; Binder,

'ERFoRMANCE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY

Haughton, & Van Eyk, 1990). Going beyond mere confirmation of prior research about "overlearning" past 100% correct, Precision Teachers have been able to accurately measure required performance levels as count per minute frequencies and to explicitly plan for their differential effects on key outcome variables.

Another key development in Precision Teaching was the use of "learning screening" procedures for independently assessing performance levels and celerations (measures of learning as change in performance over repeated daily samples) on specific tasks to identify students at risk of failure in academic development. A massive project in Washington State (Child Service Demonstration Programs, 197 4) collected approximately 150,000 daily performance frequencies of nearly 3,000 skills from 17,996 students in three school districts. Teachers charted 7 to 10 days of data per student per skill (3 to 5 skills per student) to determine median frequencies and celerations (measures of learning). Project staff defined problem learners as students with less than half the median class frequency or weekly celeration on a given skill. This procedure identified more than 70% of the students whom more costly and time-consuming procedures subsequently diagnosed as having learning problems. In a later study with pre-school children (Magliocca, Rinaldi, Crew, & Kunzelmann, 1977), single "snapshot" measures of performance on a set of five elementary skills enabled teachers to identify 90% of the students who were subsequently referred for special services. Koenig and Kunzelmann (1981) showed that celeration, a direct measure of learning, is not racially discriminatory,

VOLUME 3, NlJMBER 4/1990

while isolated performance frequency samples may correlate with racial or socio-economic factors since they represent levels of current achievement . Thus celeration may be the first truly unbiased measure of aptitude in the educational literature. A combination of performance frequency measures and celerations (change in performance per week of daily measures) may offer the most sensitive, cost-effective and culturally unbiased assessment framework for defining performance standards and monitoring progress in schools-a subject of considerable debate among educators and policy-makers in recent years.

Precision Teachers have conducted extensive research on the process of instructional decision-making. In early practice (e.g, Freschi, 1974), teachers and students simply inspected charted data and made changes when frequencies of correct and/or incorrect performance were not changing in the desired direction. Liberty and her associates have conducted extensive research on the use of decision rules based on both levels and trends (celerations) of performance (Liberty & Haring, 1990). The use of projected trends on the standard chart (called dynamic aims) as guides for decision-making substantially increased the frequency with which teachers made instructionally effective program changes. The use of"learningpictures," named patterns formed by data on the chart used by students to decide if and how to change procedures, has been among the most powerful and effective strategies for decision-making in Precision Teaching classrooms (All, 1977; McGreevy, 1983; Lindsley, 1990).

Finally, Precision Teaching research and practice have revealed that

81

the suppression of errors can often retard learning and that encouraging students to respond at very high rates from the beginning of their work on a given skill, even when most responses are incorrect, can significantly increase learning rates (Bower & Orgel, 1981; Lindsley, 1990). Thus, Precision Teachers call errors "learning opportunities" and often encourage students to take large "leap-ups" through curriculum sequences, making many errors and

ing to attain breakthroughs that improve on already impressive results. Lindsley (1990), for example, suggests that learning at the rate of doubling performance per week (a x 2.0 celeration on the daily chart) is a good benchmark for Precision Teachers. Steady progress at a x 2.0 celeration produces orders of magnitude greater net performance improvement than is typical in schools.

To confirm Precision Teaching eff ecti vene s s

c o r r e c t i n g the errors as an integral part of the l e a r n i n gp r o c e s s .M cG r e e v y (1978) summarized this

The improvements themselves are dramatic;

but when cost/benefit is considered, they are

staggering.

on measures t h a t a r ec o m m o n l y used and accepted in educational evaluation studies, the

strategy with the slogan "Easy to do, hard to learn; hard to do, easy to learn." Substantial published research supports the conclusion that placement on more difficult tasks can result in faster learning rates

(Johnson, 1971; Neufeld & Lindsley, 1980; Scott, Wolking, Stoutimore, & Harris, 1990).

Effectiveness of Precision Teaching

Because data collection and analysis-the evaluation and revision cycle of systematic instruction-are inherent in the practice of Precision Teaching, every successful intervention adds to the Precision Teaching effectiveness database. Literally hundreds of thousands of charted instructional projects have demonstrated the effectiveness of this approach. Rather than attempting to demonstrate effectiveness per se, Precision Teachers are always striv-

82

most widely cited demonstrations were conducted in Great Falls, Montana, during the early 1970s(Beck, 1979). Over a fouryear period students and teachers in the Sacajawea Elementary School engaged in 20 to 30 minutes per day of Precision Teaching, with curriculum and instruction that were otherwise similar to what was practiced elsewhere in the school district. Students advanced an average of 19 to 40 percentile points (depending on the subtest) on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills higher than comparable students elsewhere in the school district. These results were confirmed by the Joint Dissemination Review Panel of the U.S. Office of Education, and led to the Precision Teaching Project, a federally funded dissemination effort operated from Great Falls over a number of ensuing years. The improvements themselves are dramatic; but when cost/benefit is considered, they are staggering, since the time


allocated to Precision Teac relatively small and the ma used (primarily standard chart' mimeographed practice shee quite inexpensive. Impro emei

two or more grade-levels per YE instruction are common in Pref Teaching classrooms (e. Young, & Spooner, 1990).

Current Efforts and Futu.r Trends

Precision Teaching as a' mo, is still quite small in the con

mainstream education. One that may have prevented wid � adoption is that it has been de,el primarily by practitioner academics. Consequently, there been relatively few publicatio Precision Teaching becau e teac unlike academics, have neith interest nor tangible incen · .e publication. On the other ham cause it has been driven by cl � practice rather than by granported or tenure-motivated r Precision Teaching ha adv� technically by leaps and ho based on daily practice and m mentation by thousands of ew and their students. The re ula quarter of a century, is a re mature and extremely poten 1

discoveries and practices tha widely acknowledged or acce the academic community.

Some states, districts and lJ.ill1 ties are Precision Teaching holds (e.g., Utah, Grea Montana, the Universitie of and Washington). A number o mercially available compu :er programs for instruction (e. Tutor marketed by Schol authoring and delivering· (Exemplar from BehaviorTec±


to a ain breakthroughs that imrove on already impressive results. · dsle (1990), for example, suggests

learning at the rate of doublingerformance per week (a x 2.0 tleration on the daily chart) is a good

chmark for Precision Teachers. tead progress at a x 2.0 celeration roduce orders of magnitude greater .- performance improvement than

ical in schools. o confirm Precision Teaching ef

fe cti vene s s

�m,ents dramatic; 'benefit is ihey are

ug.

on measures t h a t a r ec o m m o n l y used and accepted in educational evaluation studies, the most widely

:ed demonstrations were conducted Great Falls, Montana, during the ly 1970s (Beck, 1979). Over a four-

ar period students and teachers in e acajawea Elementary School sci-ged in 20 to 30 minutes per day of ec· ion Teaching, with curriculum

instruction that were otherwise rrilar to what was practiced elsetere in the school district. Students anced an average of 19 to 40 per

tile points (depending on the sub) on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills

�er than comparable students ewhere in the school district. These ml were confirmed by the Joint "'emination Review Panel of the -._ Office of Education, and led to i Precision Teaching Project, a fedLil funded dissemination effort ,ra ed from Great Falls over a rn.ber of ensuing years. The im• ements themselves are dramatic·

hen cost/benefit is considered' '

y are staggering, since the time

:RR'.)RMANCE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY

allocated to Precision Teaching was relatively small and the materials used (primarily standard charts and mimeographed practice sheets) were quite inexpensive. Improvements of two or more grade-levels per year of instruction are common in Precision Teaching classrooms (e.g., West, Young, & Spooner, 1990).

Current Efforts and Future

Trends

Precision Teaching as a "movement" is still quite small in the context of mainstream education. One factor that may have prevented widespread adoption is that it has been developed primarily by practitioners, not by academics. Consequently, there have been relatively few publications about Precision Teaching because teachers, unlike academics, have neither the interest nor tangible incentives for publication. On the other hand, because it has been driven by classroom practice rather than by grant-supported or tenure-motivated research, Precision Teaching has advanced technically by leaps and boundsbased on daily practice and experimentation by thousands of teachers and their students. The result, after a quarter of a century, is a relatively mature and extremely potent set of discoveries and practices that are not widely acknowledged or accepted in the academic community.

Some states, districts and universities are Precision Teaching strongholds (e.g., Utah, Great Falls, Montana, the Universities of Florida and Washington). A number of commercially available computer-based programs for instruction (e.g., Math Tutor marketed by Scholastic), for authoring and delivering instruction (Exemplar from BehaviorTech, Inc.


in Irving, Texas), and for charting and decision-making (e.g., AC-CEL, developed at Utah State University and marketed by Precision Teaching Materials and Associates, Sarasota, FL) have been based on Precision Teaching principles and procedures. A small but active network of private schools and tutoring agencies (e.g., Morningside Academy in Seattle, Quinte Learning Centre in Ontario, Children's Workshop in San Diego, Ben Bronz Academy in West Hartford, Evergreen Center in Milford, Massachusetts, Haughton Learning Center in Napa, California) exists for various student populations. The National Diffusion Network continues to support Precision Teaching, based on the Great Falls Precision Teaching Project. And a number of companies supply Precision Teaching materials and training (Precision Teaching Materials and Associates, Inc., in Sarasota, Florida; Behavior Research Company in Kansas City, Kansas). Precision Teachers gather annually for an international conference (most recently in Boston, November, 1990). And an increasing number of Precision Teachers are making an effort to communicate with a broader audience of educators, policy-makers, and business leaders. However, until there is greater demand for measurably effective methods in the public schools, this approach may continue to be a minority movement within the educational mainstream.

From the perspective of performance technology, Precision Teaching offers a critical set of tools for instructional planning, implementation, evaluation, and decision-making. Precision Teachers do not hesitate to experiment with a variety

83

of different teaching methods and practice strategies, as long they can continue to measure and chart the

effectiveness of such new approaches. Fluency aims represent a universal,

objective standard for educational

planning and evaluation. The practice of Precision Teaching is compatible with any other educational

approach, given measurable objec

tives. There is reason to believe, therefore, that as educators and oth

ers become more desperate in the

current mood of educational crisis, there may yet be an opening for greater use of this powerful, adapt

able, and measurably effective in

structional technology.

Direct Instruction

Direct Instruction (DI) is a researchbased approach to instructional de

sign and implementation based on over 25 years of development. In is an

educational philosophy and a set of

teaching procedures and programming principles derived from that

philosophy. DI is best represented by

over 50 commercially available teaching programs ( the majority published by Science Research Associ

ates) each of which has been field tested to ensure its effectiveness. In

recent years some teachers and instructional designers have combined

DI methods and materials with Precision Teaching. Like Precision

Teaching, Direct Instruction encounters resistance among mainstream

educators, often because of its detailed scripting of teacher's behavior.

However, Direct Instruction has been

consistently shown to support greater

academic achievement, self-esteem and problem-solving abilities in chil

dren than any mainstream approach

to teaching (Watkins, 1988).

84

Origins

With a background in philosophy,

Siegfried Engelmann originally derived his approach to teaching basic aca

demic skills to children from a logical

analysis of concepts and operations

followed by testing of teaching materi

als and procedures. The forerunner of Direct Instruction was the Bereiter

Engelmann preschool program funded

by the Carnegie Foundation during the 1960s at the University of Illinois

at Urbana (Bereiter & Engelmann,

1966). This program produced dramatic effects with disadvantaged chil

dren (Engelmann, 1970) and a request for Engelmann and his associates to participate in Project Follow Through.

Project Follow Through was a federally funded effort to identify effective teaching programs for students who

are at high risk for failure. The approach to instruction developed in the Bereiter-Engelmann preschool was

combined with the principles of behavior analysis to form Direct In

struction through Engelmann's collaboration with Wesley Becker at the Universityoflllinois. Engelmann

and Becker later moved to the Uni

versity of Oregon.

Strategies for Teaching More in

Less Time

The Bereiter-Engelmann program was based on the assumption that

disadvantaged children can "catch up" with their more affluent peers if

they are provided with effective and

efficient instruction. This "more in less time" notion is critical to the mission of Direct Instruction because even if students with academic deficits are taught with effective pro

grams that result in their gaining at the same rate as more affluent peers,

they will al ways remain behind. Only


by teaching at a faster than a e1 rate can the gap be closed.

Direct Instruction realize the l

of teaching more in less time b

teaching procedures that m

the time students spend in · tion and by developing ma teri

seek (whenever possible) to tea< "general case." A general case

egy is one that uses the maJ

possible number of example t;o J duce the largest possible amo

l e a r n i n g .

For example, by teaching

40 s o u n d s

and blending skills, Direct

Instruction

gives stu

dents a gene r a l i ze d

d e c o d i n g skill that is

Agenen .

is one

smallest of exam_

the la amou1

relevant to one-half of the more c

mon English words ( Gersten , 1983). Animportantpartofthe

phase of developing a Direct tion program is identification of s

general case strategies.

Direct Instruction Design

Principles According to Engelmann

Carnine(1982), designing ins e for cognitive learning requir

analyses: the analysis of beha,

the analysis of communicatio the analysis of knowledge s

The analysis of behavior ee

pirically-basedlawsorprincipl how the environment influen havior. This analysis conce1

factors as how to motivate how to present examples as part o struction, how to prompt and rei:m

responses and how to correc e


}rigins

· i h a background in philosophy,· egfried Engelmann originally derived· approach to teaching basic acalemic skills to children from a logicalnal is of concepts and operations>Ilowed by testing of teaching materi-

and procedures. The forerunner of>irect Instruction was the Bereiter,

elmann preschool program funded the Carnegie Foundation during

ne 1960s at the University of Illinois rbana (Bereiter & Engelmann,

9 6). This program produced dra-1atic effects with disadvantaged chilren (Engelmann, 1970) and a request >r Engelmann and his associates toarticipate in Project Follow Through.'roject Follow Through was a federOy funded effort to identify effective�ching programs for students whore a high risk for failure. The aproach to instruction developed in theereiter-Engelmann preschool was

bined with the principles of be-1vior analysis �o form Direct In;ruction through Engelmann's illaboration with Wesley Becker at ie · mversity ofillinois. Engelmann 1d Becker later moved to the Uni. · ty of Oregon.

ategies for Teaching More in

"' s Time

e Bereiter-Engelmann program based on the assumption that

:;advantaged children can "catch 1 with their more affluent peers if e are provided with effective and 1cient instruction. This "more in

time" notion is critical to the ion of Direct Instruction because

�n if students with academic defiare taught with effective pro

that result in their gaining at ame rate as more affluent peers, will always remain behind. Only

ERroRMANCE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY

by teaching at a faster than average rate can the gap be closed.

Direct Instruction realizes the goal of teaching more in less time by using teaching procedures that maximize the time students spend in instruction and by developing materials that seek (whenever possible) to teach a "general case." A general case strategy is one that uses the smallest possible number of examples to produce the largest possible amount of l e a r n i n g .

The analysis of communications seeks principles for the logical design of effective teaching sequences. These principles allow the designer to describe the range of generalization expected to occur when the learner receives specific sets of examples. The analysis of communications examines the samenesses and differences among sets of stimuli. It supports design of instructional sequences that prevent misrules, restricted generalization

(failure to re

For example, by teaching 40 s o u n d s and blending skills, Direct Instruction gives students a gene r a l i z e dd e c o d i n gskill that is

A general case strategy

is one that uses the

spond to app r o p r i a t e examples), or overgeneralization (responding to inappropriate examples).

smallest possible number

of examples to produce

the largest possible

amount of learning. The analysis of knowl-

relevant to one-half of the more common English words ( Gersten & Maggs, 1983). Animportantpartoftheanalysis phase of developing a Direct Instruction program is identification of such general case strategies.

Direct Instruction Design

Principles

According to Engelmann and Carnine (1982), designing instruction for cognitive learning requires three analyses: the analysis of behavior, the analysis of communications, and the analysis of knowledge systems.

The analysis of behavior seeks empirically-based laws or principles about how the environment influences behavior. This analysis concerns such factors as how to motivate students, how to present examples as part of instruction, how to prompt and reinforce responses and how to correct errors.


edge systems seeks to logically organize or classify know ledge. In order for a classification system to have maximum utility for the instructional designer it must provide information about how to communicate skills to a learner. Because concepts that are structurally similar can be taught similarly, this analysis looks for similarities across seemingly different types of learning outcomes. The logical analysis of the structure of knowledge forms underlies Engelmann and Carnine's theory of instruction (1982). They identify three major categories of cognitive knowledge which are presented in order from simple to complex: Basic Forms, Joining Forms, and Complex Forms.

Classifying knowledge forms provides Direct Instruction programmers with a basis for designing instructional strategies that can be used repeatedly with similar forms of knowledge. In

85

other words, it results in rules for teaching skills in each category. The specific program design principles are described in detail by Engelmann and Carnine (1982).

tion and sequencing of examples and nonexamples. The five juxtaposition principles for sequencing and presenting examples and nonexamples illustrate the precision with which Direct Instruction programming principles guide the design and implementation of instruction (Engelmann & Carnine, 1982). Table 2 contains a script reflecting applica-

Juxtaposition Principles for

Teaching Basic Concepts

An important consideration in teaching basic concepts is the selec-

Table 1

A Logical Classification of Knowledge Forms*

Knowledge Category Type Examples

Basic Forms (sensory-feature Comparatives (one dimension) louder, darker, longer concepts)

Non-comparatives •red, dark (object properties) (one dimension) •on, between (obiect relations)

Nouns (multi-dimension) truck,shoe,boy,pony

Joining Forms (logical or Response transformations • changing any adjective to anempirical relations between adverb by adding "ly"sensory-feature concepts) •add 1 to any number to get the

next number

Correlated features relationships (facts):

• Concrete example -- give • Hot air rises. This air is hot.feature Will it rise? Why? (It's hot.)

• Label a set - give feature •Mammals are hairy, warm-blooded, etc. Are these mammals? Why? (Name identifying features.)

•Name substitution (synonym) •When it's sunny I feel lazy? Say it with another word for "lazy." (When it's sunny I feel indolent.)

• Given a class, tie to higher- • All cars are vehicles. Is thisorder class. [car] a vehicle?

Complex Forms Communications about events • Describing the workings of (fact systems) the heart

• Describing a baseball game

Cognitive problem-solving • Long division routines (behavior chains) • Applying any algorithm

* (from Engelmann & Carnine, 1982)

86 PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY

tion of these principles. This step instructional sequence signed for initial teaching and of the concept "voiced sound. -lar sequence can be applied : initial teaching and testin o ally any single-dimension no

parative concept or opera ·on.

We can summarize the fi e · position principles as follow

1. The wording principlethe teacher's wording shoul similar as possible aero and nonexamples. This hel

students' attention on the de the examples by reducing or confusion that may be ca " variations in the teacher' lam

Note in Table 2 the cons· what the teacher says.

2. The setup principle · bruthe logical assumption tha an. that is the same across examp nonexamples rules out a po correct interpretation. Thei examples and nonexampl ., for the initial teaching of a a should share the grea te p« number of irrelevant fea Table 2 all examples and non� are words of similar length ilia the same first two sounds. This nates the length of the ord initial sounds as possible inte

tions of "voiced sound." Engelmann and Carnine

maintain that using the e principles in the initial eqru most efficient. Later sequence duce systematic changes in and setup to promote maxim eralization.

3. The difference principle

that in order to show the limi concept, we should juxtapo amples and nonexampl similar to one another, and·


o and vequencing of examples andexamples. The five juxtaposition

� ciple for sequencing and pretin examples and nonexamples

a e the precision with which ec Instruction programming ciples guide the design and

_ lementation of instruction CEn'1mann & Carnine, 1982). Table 2

]

· a script reflecting applica-

f Knowledge Forms*

Examples

. - n) louder, darker, longer

•red, dark (object properties)

•on, between (obiect relations)

truck, shoe, boy, pony

• changing any adjective to an

adverb by adding "ly"

•add 1 to any number to get the

next number

e • Hot air rises. This air is hot.

Will it rise? Why? (It's hot.)

e •Mammals are hairy, warm-

blooded, etc. Are these

mammals? Why? (Name

identifying features.)

oym) • When it's sunny I feel lazy?

Say it with another word for

"lazy." (When it's sunny

I feel indolent.)

er- • All cars are vehicles. Is this

[car] a vehicle?

en • Describing the workings of

the heart

• Describing a baseball game

•Long division

• Applying any algorithm

FOR.MANCE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY

tion of these principles. This twelvestep instructional sequence is designed for initial teaching and testing of the concept "voiced sound." A similar sequence can be applied in the initial teaching and testing of virtually any single-dimension non-comparative concept or operation.

We can summarize the five juxtaposition principles as follows.

1. The wording principle states thatthe teacher's wording should be as similar as possible across examples and nonexamples. This helps focus students' attention on the details of the examples by reducing distraction or confusion that may be caused by variations in the teacher's language. Note in Table 2 the consistency in what the teacher says.

2. The setup principle is based onthe logical assumption that anything that is the same across examples and nonexamples rules out a possible incorrect interpretation. Therefore, examples and nonexamples selected for the initial teaching of a concept should share the greatest possible number of irrelevant features. In Table 2 all examples and nonexamples are words of similar length that have the same first two sounds. This eliminates the length of the word or the initial sounds as possible interpretations of "voiced sound."

Engelmann and Carnine (1982) maintain that using these first two principles in the initial sequence is most efficient. Later sequences introduce systematic changes in wording and setup to promote maximum generalization.

3. The difference principle statesthat in order to show the limits of a concept, we should juxtapose examples and nonexamples that are similar to one another, and indicate


that they are different. This sequence facilitates discrimination of concept examples and nonexamples. Steps 5 and 6 in Table 2 illustrate the difference principle.

4. The sameness principle statesthat to show the range of the concept, we should juxtapose examples of the concept that differ from one another as much as possible and indicate that they are the same. This sequence is intended to foster generalization to unfamiliar concept examples. Steps 3, 4, and 5 illustrate the sameness principle.

5. The testing principle calls forrandom presentation of new examples and nonexamples to see if the concept has been learned. Steps 6 through 12 illustrate this principle and would in practice be followed by appropriate reinforcement or correction procedures, depending on students' responses.

Direct Instruction principles include similar principles for programming sequences to teach other types of knowledge and for teaching sets of related concepts (e.g., geometric shapes).

Direct Instruction Teaching

Procedures

Certain features of the practice of Direct Instruction distinguish it from more traditional approaches. Some of the more salient features are described next.

1. Scripted presentations. Lessonscripts specify what the teacher says and does for each task. Scripted presentations support quality control of instruction. The particular examples and sequences in Direct Instruction programs have been pre-tested and empirically established as effective, ensuring the success of students who have mastered essential prerequisite

87

skills. Most teachers lack training in instructional design and therefore are not likely to select and sequence teaching examples effectively without explicit directions. Without guidance, teachers may use language that students do not understand or that

distracts students' attention from examples. Like Precision Teaching, Di

rect Instruction assumes that students learn or fail to learn because of effective or ineffective instruction. Direct Instruction places responsibility for learning in the hands of teachers and instructional developers, and does not

"blame" students for failure-as is so

common in mainstream psycho-edu-

cational practice. Teachers are more likely to use effective instructional sequences when given explicit scripts for using field-tested procedures.

An additional advantage of scripted presentations is that they make it possible for supervisors to readily

evaluate instruction and to provide immediate assistance to teachers, when needed. Scripts allow aides, parents, and other para-professionals to assume teaching responsibili

ties, resulting in increased quality instructional time.

2. Small groups. Direct Instruction lessons are typically taught with

groups of 5 to 10 students. Small

88

Table 2

A Script for Teaching the Concept ''Voiced Sound"

Step Word Type What the Teacher Says

1 Mack Non-example "I'll say some words. Then I'll tell you if each word

ends in a voiced sound. Mack. It doesn't end in a

voiced sound."

2 Mass Non-example "Mass. It doesn't end in a voiced sound."

3 Maz Example "Maz. It ends in a voiced sound."

4 Mag Example "Mag. It ends in a voiced sound."

5 Mad Example "Mad. It ends in a voiced sound."

6 Mat Non-example "Mat. Does it end in a voiced sound?"

(student responds)

7 Mass Non-example "Mass. Does it end in a voiced sound?"

(student responds)

8 Mab Example "Mab. Does it end in a voiced sound?"

(student responds)

9 Maff Non-example "Maff. Does it end in a voiced sound?"

(student responds)

10 Mal Example "Mal. Does it end in a voiced sound?

(student responds)

11 Mat Non-example "Mat. Does it end in a voiced sound?"

(student responds)

12 Mav Example "Mav. Does it end in a voiced sound?"

(student responds)

Note: This table does not include procedures for reinforcing or correcting

student responses.


group instruction is more effici than one-to-one instruction and vides the opportunity for more ai direction, attention, feedback aml dividualization than large gro struction.

3. Unison responding. One or

goals of Direct Instruction i t.o

erate high rates of responding bJ students. If individual studen asked to respond to the each

questions, problems can ari�e. Fi while the

teacher is in-t e r a c t i n g

with one student, other s t u d e n t s

may not be paying at

t e n t i o n . Thus, students might o n l y b el e a r n i n g

Scripte,

make

supe1

evaluate to pron

assista

h

some fraction of the time tha 1 are actually in the learnin tion. This is a waste of time could be spent acquiring aca e skills. A second problem is ha" students respond in sequence raJ than in unison, one student m.a c

the response of the precedi.ru! dent. The teacher has no

knowing whether the second has actually learned the an wer

merely imitating another cl These problems disappear hei

students respond at the same ·.,,.

each question posed by the Unison responding penni'"

greatest amount of practice for•

student and provides the teacher the maximum amount of info:nru;

about each student's perfor

4. Signals. Teachers ensuretaneous responding from all


·onal practice. Teachers are morecely to use effective instructional(!llences when given explicit scripts

· g field-tested procedures.additional advantage of scripted

esentations is that they make it · le for supervisors to readily

alnate instruction and to provide edia te assistance to teachers

te needed. Scripts allow aides: ren , and other para-profession: ro a sume teaching responsibili

re ulting in increased quality ctional time. mall groups. Direct Instruc

ons are typically taught with 111p of 5 to 10 students. Small

ra., ept ''Voiced Sound"

at the Teacher Says

re words. Then I'll tell you if each word

lired ound. Mack. It doesn't end in a

d."

leS!l't end in a voiced sound."

- in a voiced sound."

- in a voiced sound."

fs in a voiced sound."

end in a voiced sound?"

ponds)

, it end in a voiced sound?"

ponds)

it end in a voiced sound?"

ponds)


!)Onds)

end in a voiced sound?

,ionds)

• end in a voiced sound?"

!)Onds)


JOnds)

forcing or correcting

troRMANCE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY

group instruction is more efficient than one-to-one instruction and provides the opportunity for more adult direction, attention, feedback, and individualization than large group instruction.

3. Unison responding. One of thegoals of Direct Instruction is to generate high rates of responding by all

students. If individual students are asked to respond to the teacher's questions, problems can arise. First, while the teacher is in-

by pre-teaching the entire group to answer on a particular cue or signal and then managing signalled unison responding throughout lessons. Some signals are visual (hand movements) while others are auditory (e.g., hand claps). The teacher's manual specifies how and when to signal for a given task. The signal is an evaluation tool: By having students respond in unison while listening to the responses of all students, the teacher can determine

whether or not each stu

t e r a c t i n gwith one student, other s t u d e n t smay not be paying att e n t i o n .Thus, students might o n l y b el e a r n i n g

Scripted presentations make it possible for

supervisors to readily

evaluate instruction and

dent in the small group h a s t r u l y mastered a part icular skill. Signals make it possible to combine the benefits of

to provide immediate assistance to teachers

when needed.

some fraction of the time that they are actually in the learning situation. This is a waste of time that could be spent acquiring academic skills. A second problem is that when students respond in sequence rather than in unison, one student may copy the response of the preceding student. The teacher has no way of knowing whether the second student has actually learned the answer or is merely imitating another student. These problems disappear when all students respond at the same time to each question posed by the teacher. Unison responding permits the greatest amount of practice for each student and provides the teacher with the maximum amount of information about each student's performance.

4. Signals. Teachers ensure simultaneous responding from all students


one-to-one teaching with the efficiency of group instruction.

5. Pacing. Rapid pacing of instruction is important because it allows the teacher to present more material during each instructional period. This results in increased opportunity to learn, a variable that is clearly related to student achievement (Brophy & Good, 1986). In addition, brisk pacing helps to maintain students' attention to the task which may result in increased learning and fewer behavior management problems. In the process, it is also a way of encouraging fluent performance.

6. Correction procedures. WhileDirect Instruction materials are programmed to minimize student errors, some errors are inevitable. Errors provide the teacher with valuable information about the difficulties stu-

89

dents are having. Errors tell the teacher that students need more practice applying certain skills, and corrections provide those additional teaching trials. Effective instruction includes effective correction procedures. Different types of errors call for different types of corrections. The procedures specified in the Direct Instruction teacher's script provide effective correction for each type of mistake. An important part of the analysis, design, field-testing, and revision of Direct Instruction is the identification of error types and of appropriate correction procedures.

Shifting Aspects of Task Design

Because of its specificity and teacher

scripting, some critics fault Direct Instruction as too rote, too artificial, or too teacher-directed, and, therefore, unlikely to produce generalized conceptual and problem-solving skills able to be applied by students without teacher prompting in novel situations. In fact, students taught with Direct

Instruction exhibit superior problem

solving abilities (Watkins, 1988). Design principles used by Direct Instruction developers for systematically shifting the characteristics of instructional tasks in the course of complete teaching programs prevent the problems anticipated by critics. Becker and Carnine (1981) describe six "shifts" that should occur in any well-designed teaching program.

The first shift is from ouertized to

covertized problem-solving strategies.

Initially, teachers require overt responding at each step in the instructional sequence so that they can identify particular skills with which students have difficulty and apply appropriate reinforcement and correction procedures. Later, teachers

90

may only require overt responding in some of the steps in a problem-solving sequence, perhaps only the last step. This shift facilitates transition from teacher-directed to independent problem-solving.

The second shift is from simplified

contexts to complex contexts. In simplified contexts the teacher empha

sizes the relevant features of a task, while in complex contexts students must apply knowledge under conditions that vary in irrelevant detail, thereby mimicking everyday problemsolving situations.

The third shift is from providing

prompts to removing prompts. Early in instruction supplemental stimuli,

which are later removed, may be added to focus the learner's attention to relevant details of the presentation.

The fourth shift is from massed

practice (to encourage acquisition) to distributed practice (to facilitate re

tention).

The fifth shift is from immediate

feedback to delayed feedback, another condition that mimics everyday situations.

The sixth shift is from an emphasis

on the teacher's role as a source of

information to an emphasis on the

learner's role as a source of informa

tion. Like the other shifts, this one enhances independent performance.

Taken together, these instructional strategies help move students from fixed lessons to more generalized, independent, and real-world application of strategies and skills.

Direct Instruction Research

Background

Direct Instruction principles and procedures are supported by general principles derived from basic behavioral research as well as by the li tera -


ture of effective teaching pracri1 In addition, a multitude of controi research studies provide empir support for the specific desiQ"Il p1 ciples and teaching practice Direct Instruction. These tudies summarized by Engelmann 1 Carnine (1982), and are also reviei

by Becker ( 1984), Becker and an

(1980) and Weisberg, Packer Weisberg (1981).

However, the most impo search basis for Direct Instru o field testing of programs and an sis of errors. Logical anal what is to be taught and ho to it guide the developmen of le,; scripts, which are then tested on' dents to see if they are effec · e. fectiveness is measured in tewhether the procedures produce intended learning. Progr systematically revised ba ed on c from field tests. Most of the co

cially available programs ha e g through three revision cycle Direct Instruction teacher manuals have been revamped : times (Becker & Carnine 19 n.

Effectiveness of Direct

Instruction

Perhaps the most compe dence for the effectivenes of Di Instruction is the evaluation ofPI, Follow Through (Watkins 19

national evaluation compared performance of children in o different instructional mode represented the broad range o rent educational practice. the evaluation has been con

sial (see for example, Ho e G McLean, & Walker's (197 ) of the method of data anal

generally acknowledged tha rect Instruction model w


o.a only require overt responding in = me of the steps in a problem-solving requence, perhaps only the last step.

· hift facilitates transition from

eacher-directed to independent 11:roblem-solving.

The second shift is from simplified ':Clntexts to complex contexts. In sim' · ed contexts the teacher empharize he relevant features of a task, drile in complex contexts students

apply knowledge under condi;io that vary in irrelevant detail,

ereby mimicking everyday problem;olving situations.

The third shift is from providing Jrompts to removing prompts. Early in

·uction supplemental stimuli,drich are later removed, may be added o focus the learner's attention to rel. an details of the presentation.The fourth shift is from massed

,roctice (to encourage acquisition) to fistributed practice (to facilitate remtion).

e fifth shift is from immediate �dback to delayed feedback, andier condition that mimics everya ituations.

e sixth shift is from an emphasis n. the teacher's role as a source ofiformation to an emphasis on the>arner's role as a source of informaon. Like the other shifts, this onenhances independent performance.

aken together, these instructional trategies help move students from xed lessons to more generalized, in -ependent, and real-world applicaon of strategies and skills.

ii.rect Instruction Research

ackground

Direct Instruction principles and rocedures are supported by general wciples derived from basic behavral research as well as by the li tera-

f'ERFOR1v1ANCE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY

ture of effective teaching practices. In addition, a multitude of controlled research studies provide empirical support for the specific design principles and teaching practices used in Direct Instruction. These studies are summarized by Engelmann and Carnine ( 1982), and are also reviewed by Becker ( 1984), Becker and Carnine (1980) and Weisberg, Packer, and Weisberg (1981).

However, the most important research basis for Direct Instruction is field testing of programs and analysis of errors. Logical analyses of what is to be taught and how to teach it guide the development of lesson scripts, which are then tested on students to see if they are effective. Effectiveness is measured in terms of whether the procedures produce the intended learning. Programs are systematically revised based on data from field tests. Most of the commercially available programs have gone through three revision cycles. Most Direct Instruction teacher training manuals have been revamped four times (Becker & Carnine, 1981).

Effectivenes s of Direct

Instruction

Perhaps the most compelling evidence for the effectiveness of Direct Instruction is the evaluation of Project Follow Through (Watkins, 1988). A national evaluation compared the performance of children in over 20 different instructional models which represented the broad range of current educational practice. Although the evaluation has been controversial (see for example, House, Glass, McLean, & Walker's (1978) critique of the method of data analysis), it is generally acknowledged that the Direct Instruction model was clearly


the most effective of all programs on measures ofbasic skills achievement, cognitive skills, and self-concept. (Many of the non-DI programs tested were actually less effective than typical public school programs used with control groups, yet some of these ineffective programs continue to receive funding at higher levels than Direct Instruction.) Other publications provide detailed descriptions of the findings for all of the Follow Through models (e.g., Stebbins, St. Pierre, Proper, Anderson, & Cerva, 1977), as well as for the Direct Instruction model in particular (e.g., Becker, 1977; Becker & Carnine, 1980).

Some researchers have tried to assess the stability of the effects of the Follow Through Direct Instruction model. For example, Becker and Gersten (1982) compared the scores of fifth and sixth grade students who had participated in Direct Instruction programs during earlier grades with the performance of similar nonFollow Through children. Direct Instruction students scored significantly higher on measures of reading and math in 50% of the comparisons made. In other studies, students who had participated in Direct Instruction programs during their first three grades were compared with similar students who did not participate. Results indicate that Direct Instruction students are more likely to receive high school diplomas, less likely to be retained in any grade, and less likely to drop out (Gersten, 1982; Gersten & Carnine, 1983; Gersten & Keating, 1983).

More than any other commercially available instructional programs, Direct Instruction is supported by controlled research studies. While it

91

is not possible to summarize all of the research demonstrating the effectiveness of Direct Instruction, interested readers are ref erred to Becker's ( 1984) review ofresearch with broadly divergent populations, in a variety of settings, in numerous content areas. The approach is also supported by studies conducted in Australia. Lockery and Maggs (1982) reviewed more than 30 studies conducted in Australia over a ten year period. The impressive r e s u l t s

learning with Direct Instruction programs. In addition, Direct Instruction has been introduced in seven African countries and there are adaptations of the programs operating in other non-English speaking countries. The Association for Direct Instruction (P.O. Box 10252, Eugene, OR 97440) publishes a newsletter, offers training on DI programs, and operates a state-funded pre-school. Engelmann-Becker Corporation

c o n t i n u e s t o develop

o f t h e s estudies provided theb a s i s fo rchanges inthe way bothnormal andr e t a r d e dchildren aret a u g h t i nAustralia.

Students routinely

improve by two full

grade levels on two

commercial Direct Ins t r u c t i o np r o g r a m s and publish books, and r e s e a r c h continues at the University of Oregon and

skills per month using

a combination of

Precision Teaching

and Direct Instruction.

Current

Status and Future Directions

Advances in Direct Instruction program development continue to occur. Englemann-Becker Corporation (Eugene, OR) has developed DIAL (Direct Instruction Authoring Language), a computer-based training authoring system that incorporates DI design principles. Vachon and Carnine (1984) published criteria based on Direct Instruction for evaluating computer-based training programs. Programs are being designed that will apply Direct Instruction to math and science for high school and college students using videodisc technology.

Becker (1984) estimated that at least 5 million children in the English speaking world are currently

92

elsewhere. In spite of

these advances and evidence suggesting the superior effectiveness of DI, educators continue to resist adopting Direct Instruction programs. Recently, Engelmann won a suit in the state of California directing the state curriculum board to base textbook adoptions on "learner validation"-a policy that had been legally mandated but not enforced (Binder & Watkins, 1989). Engelmann filed the suit when Direct Instruction programs, perhaps the most thoroughly tested of any commercially published teaching materials, were rejected for inclusion on the state approved textbook list. Engelmann plans further efforts in the courts while continuing to develop and refine Direct Instruction programs.


Combining Precisio,1

Teaching with Direc

Instruction More and more practitione

combining the two technologi �. Direct Instruction is a power and knowledge acquisition :eel ogy, Precision Tea�hing offerior tools for practice to the po fluency, criterion-referenced "' ment, and decision-makin . strengths of these methods COD

ment one another. Teacherrect Instruction for initial teachl skills and concepts, then u e Pree Teaching materials and prooeo to help students achieve high lefluency, beyond the acqui i ·on« ria specified in Direct I programs. Educators in publir private settings in Florida ' a nia, Ontario, Seattle, and n E

other locations have used he

ciples and procedures of technologies to produce un.J edented academic achie, e ru their students. The or · Academy in Seattle, for exam 1 ports that students who had ously progressed by only t o 001 months of academic achie em year of public school instTu · o measured on standard tests ro " improve by two full grade le E

two skills per month using a co tion of Precision Teaching and I Instruction methods and ma:(Johnson, 1989).

Conclusion Precision Teaching and Dire

struction are mature and powerful instructional techno that are fully capable of e:r America's "basic skills cri i if1 adopted. Based on systema · c ·


learning with Direct Instruction proams. In addition, Direct Instruc

·on has been introduced in seven· can countries and there are ad

aptations of the programs operating in other non-English speaking coun. e . The Association for Direct In-truction (P.O. Box 10252, Eugene,

OR 97440) publishes a newsletter offers training on DI programs, and operates a state-funded pre-school.

ngelmann-Becker Corporation c o n t i n u e s t o develop

·outinely

two full

�son two

"Jtnth using

ri-tion of

reaching

istruction.

commercial Direct Ins tr u c t i o n p r o g r a m s and publish books, and r e s e a r c h continues at the University of Oregon and elsewhere.· In spite of

hese advances and evidence sug-ting the superior effectiveness of

)I educators continue to resist tdopting Direct Instruction programs. teGently, Engelmann won a suit in he tate of California directing the -ate curriculum board to base textook adoptions on "learner validaion -a policy that had been legallyl.a.Ildated but not enforced (Binder &a kins, 1989). Engelmann filed the· when Direct Instruction pro

rams, perhaps the most thoroughly d of any commercially published

iaching materials, were rejected for tdusion on the state approved text>0k list. Engelmann plans further forts in the courts while continuing , develop and refine Direct Instruc->n programs.

�ORMANCE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY

Combining Precision Teaching with Direct

Instruction More and more practitioners are

combining the two technologies. While Direct Instruction is a powerful skill and knowledge acquisition technology, Precision Teaching offers superior tools for practice to the point of fluency, criterion-referenced assessment, and decision-making. The strengths of these methods complement one another. Teachers use Direct Instruction for initial teaching of skills and concepts, then use Precision Teaching materials and procedures to help students achieve high levels of fluency, beyond the acquisition criteria specified in Direct Instruction programs. Educators in public and private settings in Florida, California, Ontario, Seattle, and numerous other locations have used the principles and procedures of these two technologies to produce unprecedented academic achievement in their students. The Morningside Academy in Seattle, for example, reports that students who had previously progressed by only two to three months of academic achievement per year of public school instruction, as measured on standard tests, routinely improve by two full grade levels on two skills per month using a combination of Precision Teaching and Direct Instruction methods and materials (Johnson, 1989).

Conclusion Precision Teaching and Direct In

struction are mature and extremely powerful instructional technologies that are fully capable of erasing America's "basic skills crisis" if widely adopted. Based on systematic meth-


ods and extensive research, these technologies are perhaps the most fully validated teaching tools ever implemented in American schools. At this time, very few educators or policymakers are aware of these methods, or of their measured effectiveness. Those who know about them often resist adoption for philosophical or political reasons. We believe that policy-makers, corporate and cultural leaders, and the general public will opt for measurably effective instructional methods, if they know of their existence. Hopefully, this article will help to make a wider audience aware of these cost-effective educational solutions.

References All, P. (1977). From get truckin' to Jaws,

students improve their learning pictures. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Barrett, B. H. (1979). Communitization and the measured message of normal behavior. In R. York & E. Edgar (Eds.), Teaching the severely handicapped (Vol. 4). Columbus, OH: Special Press.

Beck, R. (1979). Report for the Office of Education Joint Dissemination Review

Panel. Great Falls Montana: Precision Teaching Project.

Becker, W. C. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvantaged what we have learned from field research. Harvard Educational Review,

47, 518-543. Becker, W. C. (1984, March). Direct In

struction: A twenty year review. Paper presented at the XVI annual Banff International Conference on Behavioral Science.

Becker, W. C., & Carnine, D. W. (1980). Direct Instruction: An effective approach to educational intervention with the disadvantaged and low performers. In B. B. Lahey & A K. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in clinical and child psychology. New York: Plenum.

93

�======-====----�-----=====�-------------------

Becker, W. C., & Carnine, D. W. (1981). Direct Instruction: A behavior theory model for comprehensive educational intervention with the disadvantaged. In S. W. Bijou & R. Ruiz (Eds.),Behavior modification: Contributions to education. Hillsdale,NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Becker, W. C., & Gersten, R. (1982) A follow-up of follow through: Metaanalysis of the later effects of the Direct Instruction Model. American Educational Research Journal, 19,

75-93.Bereiter, C., & Engelmann, S. (1966).

Teaching disadvantaged children in the preschool. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Binder, C. (1987). Fluency-building™

research background. N onantum, MA: Precision Teaching and Management Systems, Inc. (P.O. Box 169, Nonantum, MA 02195).

Binder, C. (1988). Precision Teaching: Measuring and attaining exemplary academic achievement. Youth Policy, 10(7), 12-15.

Binder, C., Haughton, E. & Van Eyk, D. (1990). Increasing endurance by building fluency: Precision Teaching attention span. Teaching Exceptional Children, 22(3), 24-27.

Binder, C., & Watkins, C. L. (1989). Promoting effective instructional methods: Solutions to America's educational crisis. Future Choices, 1(3),

33-39.Bower, B. & Orgel, R. (1981). To err is

divine. Journal of Precision Teaching, 2(1), 3-12.

Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Third handbook of research on teaching (pp. 328-375). New York: MacMillan.

Child Service Demonstration Programs Progress Report N. (1974). Tacoma, WA: Intermediate School District N. 111.

Engelmann, S. (1970). The effectiveness of Direct Instruction on IQ performance and achievement in

94

reading and arithmetic. In J. Hellmuth (Ed.), Disadvantaged child. Vol. 3, Compensatory education: A national debate. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. W. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. New York: Irvington.

Freschi, D. F. (1974). Where we are. Where we are going. How we're getting there. Teaching Exceptional Children, 6, 89-97.

Gersten, R. M. (1982). High school followup of DI Follow Through. Direct Instruction News, 2, 3.

Gersten, R. M., & Carnine, D. W. (1983). The later effects of Direct Instruction Follow Through. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Gersten, R. M., & Keating, T. (1983). DI Follow Through students show fewer dropouts, fewer retentions, and more high school graduates. Direct Instruction News, 2, 14-15.

Gersten, R. M., & Maggs, A (1982). Five year longitudinal study of cognitive development of moderately retarded children in a Direct Instruction program. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 329-343.

Gilbert, T. F. (1978). Human Competence: Engineering worthy performance. New York: McGraw Hill.

Haughton, E. (1972). Aims: Growing and sharing. In J.B. Jordan & L. S. Robbins (Eds.), Let's try doing something else kind of thing. Arlington, VA: Council on Exceptional Children, 20-39.

House, E. R., Glass, G. V., McLean, L. D., & Walker, D. F. (1978). No simple answer: Critique of the Follow Through evaluation. Harvard Educational Review, 48(2), 128-159.

Johnson, K. (1989). Executive summary. Seattle, WA: Morningside Corporation. (810 18th Ave., Seattle, WA 98122).

Johnson, N. J. (1971). Acceleration of


inner-city elementary school preading performance. npubru doctoral dissertation, Uni e -Kansas, Lawrence.

Kazdin, A E. (1976). Statistical a:c ses for single-case experimenra:i signs. In M. Hersen & D. H. Ba: (Eds.), Single-case experimental signs: Strategies for studying oo ior change. New York: Pe Press, 265-316.

Koenig, C.H., & Kunzelma (1981). Classroom learning scr ing. Columbus: Charles E. er

Koorland, M. A., Keel, f. C Ueberhorst, P. (1990). Setting f

for precision learning. Teach -ceptional Children, 22(3), 64-66_

Kunzelmann, H. P., Cohen, ' L H W., Martin, G. & Mingo, A. (l!l Precision Teaching: An initialing sequence. Seattle: Special C Publications.

Liberty, K. A & Haring, r. G. (Ul

Introduction to decision rule u Remedial and ·special Educai 11(1), 32-41.

Lindsley, 0. R. (1957). Operan ior during sleep: A measw-e oof sleep. Science, 126, 1290-

Lindsley, 0. R. (1962). Operan· oo tioning techniques in the mea.5: ment of psychopharmacolc response. First Hahnemann sium on Psychosomatic Medicine : 383.

Lindsley, 0. R. (1964a). Direct meas ment and prosthesis of retard havior. Journal of Education, . 62-81.

Lindsley, O.R. (1964b). Geriatric be] ior prosthesis. In R. Ka tenhl (Ed.), New thoughts on old age __ York: Springer.

Lindsley, O.R. (1972). From Precision Teaching. In J. B. J and L. S. Robbins (Eds.), Let ing something else kind of thing 1-12). Arlington, VA: Councilceptional Children.

Lindsley, O.R. (1990). Precision ing: By children for teachers. Te


o and arithmetic. In J.m h (Ed.), Disadvantaged

ol. 3, Compensatory edu-1: A national debate. New Br nner/Mazel.

� ., & Carnine, D. W. (1982). , of instruction: Principles and otions. New York: Irvington. D. F. (1974). Where we are.: e are going. How we're gettingTooching Exceptional Children,

lL :'.\iI. (1982). High school follow-I Follow Through. Direct In

on ews, 2, 3. R. .1I., & Carnine, D. W. (1983).rter effects of Direct Instruction, Through. Paper presented atmual meeting of the American·ona1 Research Association,

eal, Canada.. 1., & Keating, T. (1983). DI

,Thrnugh students show fewer fewer retentions, and more

- ool graduates. Direct Inion ews, 2, 14-15.R. M. & Maggs, A. (1982). Fiveo ·tudinal study of cognitive1pment of moderately retardeden in a Direct Instruction pro-

Analysis and Intervention in 1pmental Disabilities, 2, 329-

�- F. (1978). Human CompeEngineering worthy perfor

!'.. ew York: McGraw Hill. E. (1972). Aims: Growing

oaring. In J. B. Jordan & L. S. (Eds.), Let's try doing some

� kind of thing. Arlington, VA::il on Exceptional Children, 20-

. R. Glass, G. V., McLean, L. D., er, D. F. (1978). No simple

er: Critique of the Follow evaluation. Harvard Edu

ial Review, 48(2), 128-159. (1989). Executive summary.

!e WA: Morningside Corpora( 10 18th Ave., Seattle, WA

n.

N. J. ( 1971). Acceleration of

IJA'\lCE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY

inner-city elementary school pupils' reading performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Kazdin, A. E. (1976). Statistical analyses for single-case experimental designs. In M. Hersen & D. H. Barlow (Eds.), Single-case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change. New York: Pergamon Press, 265-316.

Koenig, C.H., & Kunzelmann, H.P. (1981). Classroom learning screening. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill.

Koorland, M. A., Keel, M. C. & Ueberhorst, P. (1990). Setting aims for precision learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 22(3), 64-66.

Kunzelmann, H. P., Cohen, M., Hulten, W., Martin, G. & Mingo, A. (1970). Precision Teaching: An initial training sequence. Seattle: Special Child Publications.

Liberty, K. A. & Haring, N. G. (1990). Introduction to decision rule systems. Remedial and Special Education, 11(1), 32-41.

Lindsley, 0. R. (1957). Operant behavior during sleep: A measure of depth of sleep. Science, 126, 1290-1291.

Lindsley, 0. R. (1962). Operant conditioning techniques in the measurement of psychopharmacologic response. First Hahnemann Symposium on Psychosomatic Medicine, 373-383.

Lindsley, 0. R. (1964a). Direct measurement and prosthesis of retarded behavior. Journal of Education, 147, 62-81.

Lindsley, O.R. (1964b). Geriatric behavior prosthesis. In R. Kastenbaum (Ed.), New thoughts on old age. New York: Springer.

Lindsley, O.R. (1972). From Skinner to Precision Teaching. In J. B. Jordan and L. S. Robbins (Eds.), Let's try doing something else kind of thing (pp. 1-12). Arlington, VA: Council on Exceptional Children.

Lindsley, O.R. (1990). Precision Teaching: By children for teachers. Teach-


ing Exceptional Children, 22(3), 10-15. Lindsley, O.R. & Skinner, B.F. (1954). A

method for the experimental analysis of the behavior of psychotic patients. American Psychologist, 9, 419-420.

Lockery, M., & Maggs, A. (1982). Direct Instruction research in Australia: A ten-year analysis. Educational Psychology, 2, 263-288.

Magliocca, L. A., Rinaldi, R. T., Crew, J. L. & Kunzelmann, H.P. (1977, May).Early identification of handicappedchildren through a frequency sampling technique. Exceptional Children.

McGreevy, P. (1978). Hard to do becomes easy to learn. Journal of Precision Teaching, 1(2), 27-29.

McGreevy, P. (1983). Teaching and learning in plain English (2nd Ed.). Kansas City, MO: Plain English Publications .

Neufeld, K. A. & Lindsley, 0. R. (1980). Charting to compare children's learning at four different reading performance levels. Journal of Precision Teaching, 1 (1), 9-17.

Pennypacker, H. S., Koenig, C. H. & Lindsley, 0. R. (1972). Handbook of the Standard Behavior Chart. Kansas City, KS: Precision Media.

Scott, J., Wolking, B., Stoutimore, J. & Harris, C. (1990). Challenging reading for students with mild handicaps. Teaching Exceptional Children, 22(3), 32-35.

Sherman, J. G., Ruskin, G., & Semb, G. B. (Eds.) (1982). The Personalized System of Instruction: 48 Seminal Papers. Lawrence,KS: TRIPublications. (P.O. Box 844, Lawrence, KS 66044).

Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological Review, 57, 193-216.

Starlin, A. (1972). Sharing a message about curriculum with my teacher friends. JnJ. B. Jordan & L. S. Robbins (Eds.), Let's try doing something else kind of thing (pp.13-18). Arlington, VA: Council on Exceptional Children.

Stebbins, L.B., St. Pierre, R. G., Proper, E. C., Anderson, R. B., & Cerva, T. R.

95

(1977). Education as experimentation: A planned variation model (Volume IV-A: An evaluation of Follow Through). Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

Vachon, V. & Carnine, D. W. (1984). Evaluation of computer software. As

sociation for Direct Instruction News, 3(2), 11-15.

Watkins, C. L. (1988). Project Follow Through: A story of the identification and neglect of effective instruction. Youth Policy, 10(7), 7-11.

Weisberg, P., Packer, R. A., & Weisberg, R. S. (1981). Academic training. In J. L. Matson &J. R. McCartney(Eds.),Handbook of behavior modificationwith the mentally retarded. New York:Plenum.

West, R. P., Young, R. & Spooner, F. (1990). Precision Teaching: An introduction. Teaching Exceptional Chil

dren, 22(3), 4-9. White, 0. R. & Haring, N. G. (1976).

Exceptional teaching. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill.

Wood, S., Burke, L., Kunzelmann, H. & Koenig, C. (1978). Functional criteria in basic math skill proficiency. Journal of Special Education Technology,

2, 29-36.

96

CARL BINDER is Chair of the NSPI

Emerging Technology Committee, Chair of the 9th International Preci

sion Teaching Conference, and

President of Precision Teaching and Management Systems, Inc., a Bos

ton area performance technology

consulting firm. Mailing Address: PT/M S, Inc., P .O. Box 169 ,

Nonantum, MA 02195, (617) 332-2656, or Compuserve electronic mail 73240,1134.

CATHYL. WATKINS is a psycholo

gist who trains teachers, conducts

research, and advocates measur

ably effective instruction. She is

Assistant Professor in the Depart

ment of Advanced Studies. Mailing

Address: Department of Advanced

Studies, California State Univer

sity, Stanislaus, Turlock, CA 95380.

Authors' Note: Copies of the Stan-

dard Behavior Chart can be obtained

from: Precision Teaching Materials and Associates (PTMA), 15 Cross

roads, Suite 230, Sarasota, FL 34239


ERIC Research Abstra

Nancy R. Preston

Syracuse University

A Nation At Risk: The Irr

tive For Educational Refor

Open Letter to the Ame

People. A Report to the

and the Secretary of Edu

Gardner, David P., and o Washington, DC: National Co sion on Excellence in Ed ucatio

1983. 72pp.

This report: (a) inve ti a

declining state of the educa

system in America, as me high school student perfo1

the United States and o her

tries; (b) identifies specific r

areas; and (c) offers multiple

mendations for improvemen

five major recommendations

at appear, respectively, un

headings: content, standar

pectations, time, teaching lea

and fiscal support. Reco tions pertaining to conten ·

the strengthening of high •

graduation requirements b

lishing minimum require e each student of: (a) 4 year o

(b) 3 years of mathematic (c)3

of science, (d) 3 years of sociaJ

ies, and (e) one-half year of co

science. With regard to

and expectations, schoo

and universities are enco

adopt more rigorous and measstandards and higher exp

for academic performance

dent conduct. Four-year coll -universities, in particular �

vised to raise their ad.mis · o

quirements. In order to im ro


precision teaching and direct instruction: measurably superior...

Documents