History/Definitions of PT

Section 1: History/Definitions

Precision teaching was developed in the 1960s by O.R Lindsley. Lindsley was a follower of B.F Skinner, the father of operant conditioning. According to Zirpoli (2008), “Operant Conditioning refers to the relationship between overt events in the environment and changes in specific target behaviors. These events are classified as either antecedents or consequences.” (p. 7) Precision teaching applies principles of operant conditioning to the classroom environment. Binder (1992) specifies, “Precision Teaching began when Lindsley first applied the principles of functional behavior analysis and the use of count per minute measures to the “direct measurement and prosthesis of retarded behavior.” (para. 1) Teachers make use of daily charts to monitor student progress. Binder (1992) notes, “By designing a powerful new tool, the Standard Behavior Chart, and conventions for using it to graph and make decisions about behavioral and curriculum interventions, Lindsley literally put science in the hands of students and teachers.” (para. 1) Precision teaching often employs logarithmic charts to track student performance. Binder and Watkins (1990) indicate:

“Its logarithmic or “multiply-divide” count per minute scale along the left axis enabled students and teachers to chart and directly assess ratios or correct and error frequencies, and to view and quantify progress in the form of straight-line trends rather that “learning curves (since the logarithmic scale straightens out the traditional learning curve) formed by sequences of daily frequency measures on the chart.” (para. 11)

The utilization of the logarithmic chart allowed teachers and students to make decisions concerning the efficiency of instructional strategies, and specialized materials towards promoting student progress towards specific objectives. PT demands that teachers observe student responses to environmental stimuli. Teachers must modify environmental factors that influence students to behave in an adaptive or maladaptive manner to ensure the demonstration of desirable behaviors.
Proponents of PT hold instructional methods accountable for student failure rather than students themselves. As said by Binder and Watkins (1990), “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.” (para. 13) Teachers employing PT use data charts to communicate progression, regression, and vital information with their students. Students cooperate with their teachers in the development of solutions to problems.
According to Binder and Watkins (1990), “Early Precision Teachers used the categories of functional behavior analysis when analyzing and changing interventions.” (para. 14) Functional behavior analysis focuses on setting events, antecedents, and consequences to holistically assess and modify behavior. Precision teaching and functional behavior analysis both view behavior as dynamic and utilitarian. Binder and Watkins (1990) specify, “Precision Teachers applied the “dead mans test” to descriptions of behavior. “If a dead man can do it, then don’t try to teach it.” (para. 15) This rule was designed to prevent teachers from designing goals that are not measurable like, “sits still in his/her chair.” It is indicated by Binder and Watkins (1990), “Early precision teachers tried to measure “behavior tracks”-the results of a behavior rather than the behavior itself-whenever possible.” (para. 15) This emphasis on environmental reactions recognizes that a measurable action must occur before a reaction. Precision teachers cannot document changes in a student’s mood. However, a precision teacher could assist students with documenting their mood by selecting a value from 1-10 on a likert scale that is representative of depression or happiness.

References

Binder, C. V. (1992). What we know about fluency. Journal of Precision Teaching, 9(1), 40.

Binder, C.V, & Watkins, C.L. (1990). Precision Teaching and Direct Instruction: Measurably Superior Instructional Technology in Schools. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 3, 74-96.

Zirpoli, T.J. (2008). Behavior Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.