Precision Teaching and Curriculum Based Measurement by Carl Binder Background Precision Teaching (PT) began when Lindsley (1964) first applied the principles of functional be- havior analysis and the use of count per minute measures to the "direct measurement and prosthesis of retarded behavior." By designing a-powerful new tool, the Standard Behavior Chart (Pennypacker, Koenig, and Lindsley, 1972), and conventions for using it to graph and make deci- sions about behavioral and curriculum interven- tions, Lindsley literally put science in the hands of students and teachers (Lindsley, 1990). By the early 1970's, PT had become a new force in both regular and special education (Lindsley I968;L972). Its practitioners had begun to make imponant discoveries about the use of count per minute fluency standards or "aims" (Haughton, 1972), and about how to move sftdents through curriculum sequences on the basis of fluency stan- dards at each step along the way (Starlin, 1972). These were powerfrrl new insights that added force to the practice and concepts of criterion-referenced instruction by defining mastery as accuracy plus speed, or fluency -- not accuracy only. Demonstration projects during the late 60's and early 70's confirmed the power of this approach, showing thar as little as 20 to 30 minutes per day of Precision Teaching in regular and special class rooms could boost children's achievement test scores by as much as 20 to 40 percentile points (Beck, 1979). Various large-scale assessment pro- Sarns demonsffated the predictive validity of brief count per minute performance samples in distin- guishing between "at risk" and successful students (e.g., Magliocca, Rinaldi, Crew, and Kunzelmann, r977). During the early 1980's, many papers and articles about Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM) appeared in the professional literature (e.g., Deno, 1985), exhibiting a number of striking conceptual and practical similarities to Precision Teaching. Interestingly, some of the earliest hecision Teach- ing work in curriculum and assessment was carried out in Minnesota (Starlin, 1972;Starlin and Starlin, L973a; 1973b: 1973c), the binh-place some years later of CBM. One of the more common references in CBM articles is a text on Precision Teaching (White and Haring, 198tr). Evidence suggests that those now promoting CBM were strongly influ- enced by emly work in PT. At the 8th Intemational Precision Teaching Conference in San Diego (March, 1989), practitioners of CBM attended and held discussions with Precision Teachers. This article is an effort to clmify some of the simi- larities and differences between hecision Teaching and Curriculum Based Measurement. Hopefully it will stimulate furttrer discussion and clarification of methods and assumptions between these two "rela- tives" in the field of education. Similarities Perhaps the most obvious commonality is that both PT and CBM use frequent, and usually brief (e.g., 1 to 5 minutes) timed measures of student perfor- mance on specific curriculum pinpoints to make de- cisions about individual students' placement and programming. The use of time-based performance measures separates them from mainsffearn educa- tional practice, and allows practitioners of each ap- proach to make sensitive distinctions between mul- tiple levels of student achievement, not possible with conventional untimed measurement proce- dures (Barrett,1979). Both PT and CBM use graphic displays of perfor- mance over a calendar base for recording and deci sion-making. They each rely on graphic analysis by teachers as a tool for individuahznd instmctional programming. They even use some of the same graphic conventions, e.g., upside down "tear drops" for displaying median performances on the charts (Kunzelmann et al, 1970; Deno, 1986). Both use the term "fluency" to describe the objec- tive of mastery leaming at each step in the curricu- lum sequence. They each appreciate that meaning- frrl statements about performance, and meaningful performance objectives must include the time di- mension in order to distinguish between begrnning leveis of performance and mastery (Deno, 1986; Binder, 1988). 33 Binder, C. (1990, Fall). Journal of Precision Teaching, 7(2), 33-35.
Transcript
Precision Teaching and Curriculum Based Measurementby
Carl Binder
Background
Precision Teaching (PT) began when Lindsley(1964) first applied the principles of functional be-havior analysis and the use of count per minutemeasures to the "direct measurement and prosthesisof retarded behavior." By designing a-powerfulnew tool, the Standard Behavior Chart(Pennypacker, Koenig, and Lindsley, 1972), andconventions for using it to graph and make deci-sions about behavioral and curriculum interven-tions, Lindsley literally put science in the hands ofstudents and teachers (Lindsley, 1990).
By the early 1970's, PT had become a new force inboth regular and special education (LindsleyI968;L972). Its practitioners had begun to makeimponant discoveries about the use of count perminute fluency standards or "aims" (Haughton,1972), and about how to move sftdents throughcurriculum sequences on the basis of fluency stan-dards at each step along the way (Starlin, 1972).These were powerfrrl new insights that added forceto the practice and concepts of criterion-referencedinstruction by defining mastery as accuracy plusspeed, or fluency -- not accuracy only.
Demonstration projects during the late 60's andearly 70's confirmed the power of this approach,showing thar as little as 20 to 30 minutes per day ofPrecision Teaching in regular and special classrooms could boost children's achievement testscores by as much as 20 to 40 percentile points(Beck, 1979). Various large-scale assessment pro-Sarns demonsffated the predictive validity of briefcount per minute performance samples in distin-guishing between "at risk" and successful students(e.g., Magliocca, Rinaldi, Crew, and Kunzelmann,r977).
During the early 1980's, many papers and articlesabout Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM)appeared in the professional literature (e.g., Deno,1985), exhibiting a number of striking conceptualand practical similarities to Precision Teaching.Interestingly, some of the earliest hecision Teach-ing work in curriculum and assessment was carriedout in Minnesota (Starlin, 1972;Starlin and Starlin,L973a; 1973b: 1973c), the binh-place some years
later of CBM. One of the more common referencesin CBM articles is a text on Precision Teaching(White and Haring, 198tr). Evidence suggests thatthose now promoting CBM were strongly influ-enced by emly work in PT. At the 8th IntemationalPrecision Teaching Conference in San Diego(March, 1989), practitioners of CBM attended andheld discussions with Precision Teachers.
This article is an effort to clmify some of the simi-larities and differences between hecision Teachingand Curriculum Based Measurement. Hopefully itwill stimulate furttrer discussion and clarification ofmethods and assumptions between these two "rela-tives" in the field of education.
Similarities
Perhaps the most obvious commonality is that bothPT and CBM use frequent, and usually brief (e.g.,1 to 5 minutes) timed measures of student perfor-mance on specific curriculum pinpoints to make de-cisions about individual students' placement andprogramming. The use of time-based performancemeasures separates them from mainsffearn educa-tional practice, and allows practitioners of each ap-proach to make sensitive distinctions between mul-tiple levels of student achievement, not possiblewith conventional untimed measurement proce-dures (Barrett,1979).
Both PT and CBM use graphic displays of perfor-mance over a calendar base for recording and decision-making. They each rely on graphic analysisby teachers as a tool for individuahznd instmctionalprogramming. They even use some of the samegraphic conventions, e.g., upside down "teardrops" for displaying median performances on thecharts (Kunzelmann et al, 1970; Deno, 1986).
Both use the term "fluency" to describe the objec-tive of mastery leaming at each step in the curricu-lum sequence. They each appreciate that meaning-frrl statements about performance, and meaningfulperformance objectives must include the time di-mension in order to distinguish between begrnningleveis of performance and mastery (Deno, 1986;Binder, 1988).
33
Binder, C. (1990, Fall). Journal of Precision Teaching, 7(2), 33-35.
Differences
An important difference between CBM and PT istheir choice of graphic display (Deno, 1986).CBM uses equal interval or "add/subtract" graphs,not always standardized with a count per minutescale. Precision Teaching is founded on theStandard Behavior Chart (a.k.a. the StandardCeleration Chart), a six-cycle semi-logarithmic (or"multiply/divide") count per minute graph(Pennypacker, et al, 1972). The Standard Chart isa powerful tool for communication and analysis, inlarge part because of its standardization. Onceteachers and students become accustomed to its di-mensions and features, they are able to communi-cate and make decisions rapidly about behaviorsoccurring throughout the entire range of human fre-quencies, within a single graphic format. In fact,Lindsley (1990) reports that standardizatton of thechart cut teachers' analysis and communication timeby a factor of ten.
The specific f,eatures of the Standmd Chart give ittremendous analytic power in contrast to non-stan-dard add/subtract charts (McGreevy, 1984). In par-ticular, the multiply/divide count per minute scaleturns "leaming curves" into learning lines, or'cel-erations (Pennypacker, et al, 1972). The expression of leaming as a multiplicative factor per weekprovides the first simple quantification of leamingin the history of behavioral science. Early empiri-cal research on the predictive power of the chartdemonstrated that straighrline projections reliablypredict the future course of behavior and ttrat thechart maintains homogeneity and symmebry of vari-ance, important features for both scientific analysisand classroom decision-making (Koenig, 1,97 2).
Another difference between PT and CBM is in howthey establish performance criteria. PrecisionTeachers assume ttrat there is a level of performancefor any given skill that will support retention andmaintenance, endurance or attention span, and ap-plication or transfer of training (Mercer, Mercer andEvans, 1982; Binder, 1988). One of the most criti-cal early discoveries in Precision Teaching con-cerned the importance of setting high aims(Haughton, 1972) for prerequisite or "tool" skillsin order to ensure smooth progress through cur-riculum.
CBM seems to suggest using class averages as per-formance criteria (Marston and Magnusson, 1985).This is a dangerous practice in several respects. Ifan entire class performs below the mastery level(i.e., that level of performance required to supporteffective funaion) then the class norm is not a fair
mastery criterion. Because of ,fte decline in teach-ers' use of classroom practicd exercises over theyean, we might guess that this is often the case.For example, most competent adults can write an-swers to between 70 and 100 simple addition prob-lems in a minute. Few classrooms provide eitherthe materials or sufficient practice to enable studentsto achieve this level, although children in PrecisionTeaching classrooms routinely do so. We knowthat students will often come up to high expecta-tions, or settle for low ones. If our objective ismerely to keep students from falling below the av-erage, to keep them out ofthe "special needs" cate-gory, then the CBM strategy may suffice. But ifwe seek to support ffue mastery at each step in thecurriculum, to help all children become masterfulstudents, then we must use performance criteriathat are objective definitions of competence.
This difference is apparent in the two systems' defi-nitions of fluency. Tindal (1989) says that in CBM"There is no objective standard of fluency. Wehave to know the normative information."Precision Teachers, on the other hand, maintain thatfluency represents an objective standard of perfor-mance that can be determined objectively: the levelof speed plus accuracy sufficient to ensure reten-tion, endurance and application of skills andknowledge (Haughton, 1972; Bnder, 1988).
This objective definition of fluency has influenced anumber of Precision Teaching researchers over theyears. For example, Haughton (1972) first demon-strated the relationship between application andminimum levels of performance. Bower and Orgel(1984) demonstrated the relationship between flu-ency and retention. Binder, Haughton and VanEyk (1990) demonstrated relationships betweenfluency and endurance or attention span. And re-search in other fields (e.g., LaBerge and Samuels,L974) have supported many of these findings.
Conclusions
PT and CBM together represent a powerful minori-ty position in education. Precision Teachers, al-though they have been making discoveries anddemonsffating the power of their methods since themid 1960's, have published very little. Therefore,although their methods and understanding of cur-ricuium and behavior have continued to grow overthe last 25 years, broad public or professionalawareness of PT has been lacking.
Curriculum Based Measurement, although in somerespects merely rediscovering or re-stating severalof Precision Te aching's long- standing principles,
34
Binder, C. (1990, Fall). Journal of Precision Teaching, 7(2), 33-35.
has published vigorously in recent years, andtherefore may be more likely to attract a followingwithin the educational establishment. PrecisionTeachers might take notice, if they hope in the endto influence education broadly.
Each of these groups of professionals has things tolearn from one another. Let us be careful not toobscure the power or influence of our commonmethods by engaging in academic disputes thatdistract us from improving educational practice atlarge. On the other hand, as Precision Teachers, letus be clear about the strengths of our approach ascompared with CBM, especially in our use of theStandard Crleration Chart and setting of objectivelydetermined high performance aims.
References
Barrett, B.H. (1979). Communitization and the measuredmessage of normal behavior. In R. York and E. Edgar(Eds.), Teaclring the Severely Handicapped (Yol. 4).Columbus, OH: Special Press.
Beck, R. (1979). Report of the Office of Education JointDissemination Review Panel. Precision Teaching Project,Great Falls, Montana.
Binder, C., Haughton, E., and Van Eyk, D. (1990). Increasingendurance by building fluency: Precision Teachingattention span. Teaching Exceptional Children, 22(3), 24-27.
Bower, R. and Orgel, R. (1984). The behaviorTech learningsystetn: A training tool for rnodern tirnes. Lawrence, KS:Behavior Tech, Inc.
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-Based Measurement: Theemerging altemative. Exceptional Childre4 52(3), 219-232.
Deno, S.L. (1986). Formative evaluation of individual studentprograms: A new role for school psychologists. SchoolPsychology Review, L (3), 358-374.
Haughton, E. C. (1.972). Aims: Growing and sharing. InJ.B. Jordan and L.S. Robbins (Eds.), ter's ffy doingsomething else kind of thing. Arlington, VA: Council onExceptional Children.
Koenig, C.H. (1972). Chari'ing the future course of belavi.or.Kansas City, KS: Precision Media.
LaBerge, D., and Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a theory ofautomatic information processing in reading. CognitivePsychology, 6, 293-323.
Lindsley, O.R. (1964). Direct measurement and prosthesis ofretarded behavior. Jourrnl of Education, 147, 62-81.
Lindsley, O.R. (1968). Training parents and teachers toprecisely manage children's behavior. In SpecialEducationColloquium. Flint, MI: C.S. Mott Foundation.
Lindsley, O.R. (1972) From Skinner to Precision Teaching:The child knows best. In J.B. Jordan and L.S" Robbins(Eds).l,er's try doing something else kind of thing.Arlington, VA: Council on Exceptional Children.
Lindsley, O.R. (1990) Precision Teaching: By teachers forchildren. T eaching Exceptional C hildr en, 22(3), lA -L5.
Magliocca, L.A., Rinaldi, R.T., Crew, J.L., and Kunzelmann,H.P. (1977). Early identification of handicapped childrenthrough a frequency sampling technique. ExceptionalChildren, April.
Marston, D., and Magnusson, D. (1985). Implementingcurriculum-based measurement in special and regulareducation settings. Exceptional C hildren, 52(3), 266 -27 6.
McGreevy, P. (1984). Frequency and the Standard CelerationChart: Necessary components of Precision Teaching.f ournal of P recision T eaching, 5(2), 28 -36.
Mercer, C.D., Mercer, A.R., and Evans, S.E. (1982). The useof frequency in establishing instructional aims. Journalof Precision Teaching, 3(3), 57 -63.
Pennypacker, H.S., Koenig, C.H., and Lindsley, O.R. (1972).Handbook of the Standard Behaviar Chart. Kansas City,KS: Preclsion Media.
Starlin, A. (1972). Sharing a message about curriculum withmy teacher friends. In J.B. Jordan and L.S. Robbins(Eds)."Ler's try doing something else kind of thing.Arlington, VA: Council on Exceptional Children.
Starlin, C.M., and Starlin, A. (1973a). Guides to decisionmaking in computational math. Bemedji, MN: UniqueCurriculums Unlimited.
Tindal, J. (1989). Preconference Institute. EighthInternational Precision Teaching Conference. San Diego,March 5-7, 1989.
White, O.R., and Haring, N.G. (1981). Exceptional teaching(2nd Edition). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
35
Binder, C. (1990, Fall). Journal of Precision Teaching, 7(2), 33-35.
