Building fluent performance: Measuring response rate and multiplying response opportunities.

Abstract

Other articles in this special issue describe state-of-the-art measurement and instructional methodologies that use the tools of precision teaching and specific strategies that have evolved in its application with particular learner populations. The present author has participated in this work from the early 1970's and can cite examples of successful using these methods with learners that span the range from students suffering from severe developmental disabilities in now-defunct institutions to 21st century corporate training with senior sales executives and customer service personnel. Rather than focusing on one or more populations, or on the specific instructional strategies associated with them, the purpose of this article is two-fold: 1) to describe a framework originally articulated in the 1970's for the evolution of precision teaching and fluency-based instruction (Binder, 1978, 1993) that provides a larger context for understanding other contributions in this field, and 2) to illustrate the elements of that framework with examples of measurement and instructional strategies from a range of different populations. Particularly at this time, when many of our colleagues in behavior analysis have not made contact with the work that led to precision teaching, or with early publications that emerged from that work, it seems worthwhile to establish a broader understanding of what precision teaching and its derivatives have brought to our field, and why. A Framework for Evolving Instructional Technology In the late 1960's and early 1970's, precision teaching involved a small and vibrant community of dedicated Skinnerian behavior analysts, led by Ogden Lindsley, Eric Haughton, and a handful of their colleagues and students. Lindsley (1964,1972) was committed to bringing the power of Skinner's method of free operant conditioning into the field of education, and this commitment drove the research and development of the time. It was the most pristine translation among behavioral educators and applied behavior analysts of Skinner's methodology and discoveries into education because it preserved without compromise Skinner's sensitive measure of behavior (response strength), rate of response or behavior frequency As the impact of measuring response rates in instructional procedures with freely emitted behavior became clear (Lindsley, 1992), precision | teachers saw that discrete trial procedures coupled with percentage correct evaluation had the effect of leaving behind what Skinner (Evans, 1968) and others considered to be his most important contribution. With under the influence of Eric Haughton, who referred to blocks of various kinds that prevent acceleration of learned behavior, Binder (1978) framed the evolution of instructional methods in precision teaching as a process of removing that obstruct the acceleration of behavior toward useful levels of performance supported by natural contingencies. Four Kinds of Ceilings that Prevent Growth of Skill The four ceilings originally named during the 1970's offer a framework for understanding how using response rate measures in instructional settings led to development of a new technology of teaching. The ceilings are: 1. Measurement-defined ceilings 2. Procedure-imposed ceilings (also called Teacher-imposed ceilings) 3. Deficit-imposed ceilings 4. Handicap-defined ceilings As Binder and his colleagues working in B.H. Barrett's laboratory classroom (Barrett, 1977) removed each ceiling, the next ceiling appeared as a flat data line on standard celeration charts above which students' performance would not accelerate. As each ceiling appeared, the need for changes in materials, procedures and behavior pinpoints become clear. The remainder of this section describes each ceiling with examples from different populations to illustrate underlying principles that drove the evolution of more effective and efficient performance development strategies. …