Figure 1
Instructional Entering Instructional Performance
objectives behaviour procedures assessment
(feedback)
The fundamental principle may be stated thus: without assessment there can be no adequate teaching; without teaching there can be no adequate assessment. Glaser’s paradigm, in essence a repeating test-teach-test cycle, has stimulated the development of a variety of curriculum-based approaches, often referred to as assessment-through-teaching or data-based instruction. The features of this model have been discussed by Blankenship and Lilly (1981) and are summarised as follows:
- Attention is directed to the specific behaviour of concern, ignoring ‘underlying causes’.
- Categorical or diagnostic labels are avoided.
- The assessment is functionally related to the educational programme and occurs within the educational setting.
- The use of specific objectives provides a clear focus for instruction and enables expected learning outcomes to be agreed by teachers, advisors and parents.
- The approach does not rely on any particular method of teaching.
- Whilst the educational objectives and monitoring of progress are individualised, the teaching may be group- or class-based.
- Continuous data are collected so that programme effectiveness can be determined simultaneously with teaching, and appropriate decisions made to continue or modify the programme as necessary.
- Where the pupil fails to attain the stated objective, attention is focused on inadequacies in the programme rather than in the pupil.
This model has increasingly been informing the practice of psychologists and teachers working in special educational settings in the UK, particularly in schools for the mentally-handicapped (e.g. Perkins, Taylor and Capie, 1976; Gardner, Murphy and Crawford, 1983). The essential elements are also to be found in the Portage Project, aimed at helping parents to be effective teachers of their mentally-handicapped children (Smith et a!., 1977; Cameron, 1982). Applications in special schools for children with mild to moderate difficulties have been amply demonstrated by the objectives-based approach of Ainscow and Tweddle (1979, 1981; see also Ch. 4 of this Monograph). Whilst there can be no doubt that these initiatives have had considerable influence on psychologists and specialist teachers over the last few years, widespread and consistent application of the assessment-through-teaching model in ordinary schools, is, at present, much less in evidence.
One possible reason for this has been the lack of sufficiently fine-grained day-to-day measurement techniques to underscore the general model and provide a greater degree of discrimination needed for evaluating the curricular performance of pupils in ordinary schools. As a consequence, many psychologists, whilst espousing the salient principles of assessment-through-teaching, have continued to supplement their assessment strategy by the use of psychometric instruments; in effect, to ‘mix their models’. To be sure, the implementation of assessment-through-teaching poses major practical and organisational problems, not least being the necessary in-service training of classroom teachers in the essential techniques, and generally ‘nurturing the host culture’ (Georgiades and Phillimore 1975) where the programmes are to be run. This issue will be returned to later in the chapter. From a technological point of view, however, whilst such formative evaluation approaches can accurately locate where a child is in terms of skill-development, they have been less than adequate in providing the means for (a) setting empirically-determined proficiency levels for different educational tasks and (b) measuring the rate of educational growth and predicting future growth (Howell, Kaplan and O’Connell, 1979). These deficiencies in the model have been made up, to a considerable extent, through advances in the application of Behavioural Analysis, especially Precision Teaching.
Origins of Precision Teaching
Two particular technological developments, within the assessment-through-teaching framework, have facilitated a form of continuous evaluation, especially applicable to children with mild to moderate learning difficulties. These are (i) the application of rate measurement for the daily monitoring of children’s performance on specific curricular tasks and (ii) the use of ratio charts. These developments originated in the work of Ogden Lindsley (1964, 1971, 1972), an ex-student of B. F. Skinner, at the University of Kansas during the mid-sixties. Lindsley’s use of rate measurement, drawn directly from the frequency recording used in operant psychology, was a logical yet innovative step within the context of special education programmes. Similarly, the invention of the Standard Behaviour Chart, a type of ratio, or semi-logarithmic graph was a natural progression from the graphical presentation of frequency data in operant research. This has provided the means for a highly sophisticated form of analysis of the daily progress of children. The features of these two technological innovations will be elaborated later. They characterise a form of assessment-through-teaching which has generally been referred to as ‘Precision Teaching’ (e.g. Kunzelmann, 1970; Howell, Kaplan and O’Connell, 1979) though other workers have employed alternative nomenclature, for example ‘Precise Educational Measurement’ (White and Liberty, 1976) and ‘Exceptional Teaching’ (White and Haring, 1976, 1980). The term Precision Teaching has also, at times, been used synonymously with behaviour modification (e.g. Meacham and Wiesen, 1974), though misleadingly in the present writer’s view.
The essence of PT lies in collecting, interpreting and making use of performance data. Thus, whilst employing the basic principles of measuring behavioural change, Precision Teaching does not necessitate the use of behavioural change principles per se. To quote Owen White (1977):
‘Virtually no mention is ever made of previously established “behavioural principles” (e.g. conditioning, shaping, schedules of reinforcement, extinction). It is assumed that a teacher who carefully documents and analyses a pupil’s response to an instructional plan will derive all of the “principles” he or she needs.’
Paradoxically then, Precision Teaching is not a method of teaching, but a set of procedures for direct and daily measurement, charting and continuous evaluation of the progress of individual pupils towards mastery of specific curricular tasks. The obverse of this process is that it provides daily feedback on the effectiveness of instruction: it helps to find out ‘what teaches best’. It is therefore fully compatible with the model of assessment-through-teaching described earlier.
The Rationale of Precision Teaching
The fundamental assumption is that pupils who are retarded in the acquisition and development of basic educational skills, however those pupils may be categorised or labelled, require teaching which is not only successful but which is also highly cost-efficient. Their rate of skill development must be positively accelerated if they are to have any real chance of catching up with their peers and taking full advantage of the school curriculum.
Teachers are constantly under severe pressures in the apportionment of their time, particularly their ‘contact’ time, to the children in their care. This pressure is often most strongly felt in mixed-ability teaching situations in the normal school. A considerable amount of attention and research has recently been focused on the notion of ‘engaged time’ (Brophy and Evertson, 1976; Rosenshine and Berliner, 1978; Bloom, 1979). The actual amount of time during which productive learning occurs, as opposed to time ‘scheduled’ for different activities within the school day, appears to be a crucial determinant of educational success. It seems logical to suggest that the notion of engaged time is even more critical in its effects on the progress of children with learning difficulties, and that the teacher requires help in using whatever planning and contact time she has available for such children to their best possible advantage.
In practice, this necessitates firstly knowing precisely when a task has been mastered so that the pupil can be ‘moved on’ without unnecessary time spent in overlearning, and secondly obtaining rapid, daily feedback regarding the success of a particular instructional strategy so that, again, time is not wasted on a strategy which is patently not ‘paying off’.
The philosophy of PT has been closely associated with the main-streaming movement in the USA and is in tune with current thinking in this country about normalising the experience of educationally handicapped pupils as much as possible (DES, 1978). Clearly, if this is to be a viable proposition, there is an urgent need to examine ways of maximising and sustaining the effects of ‘remedial’ and ‘special’ teaching (Leach and Raybould, 1977).
Basic Methodology and Procedures
Whilst various writers have produced slightly different lists, the essential components of PT may be stated as follows:
- Specifying the desired pupil performance in observable, measure-able terms.
- Recording the performance on a daily basis.
- Charting the performance on a daily basis.
- Recording the teaching arrangements in relation to the pupil’s performance.
- Analysing the data on a daily basis to determine:
- whether progress is satisfactory or unsatisfactory
- whether changes are needed in the teaching arrangements in order to maintain or further accelerate progress.
Each of these main ingredients will be discussed in turn and then subsequently placed within a typical sequence of operations involved in conducting an individualised teaching programme.
1. Specifying performance
This component is as much a pre-requisite for PT as it is for behaviour analysis approaches in general. Having decided on what is to be taught, the teacher must formulate this in terms which describe a behavioural outcome. Thus, the desired behaviour of the pupil, following instruction, must be both observable and measurable. As all overt behaviour involves some form of movement (e.g. speech and motor) the specific terminal behaviour of the pupil is referred to, in the majority of the American PT literature, as the movement cycle denoting a precise ‘ bit’ of behaviour which has an identifiable beginning and end, thereby making it ‘countable’.
Behavioural or instructional objectives are the means normally employed for operationalising learning outcomes. The formulation and use of these have been amply described by many American writers (e.g. Mager, 1962) and increasing use is being made of them in this country in devising individual teaching programmes for children with special needs and in curriculum-development in special schools (see also Chapter 4).
The vital consequence of specifying pupil performance in objective terms is that relatively well-defined domains (or classes) of learner behaviours can be generated, which in turn can be used in the construction of criterion-referenced or more properly, domain-referenced tests (see Martuza, 1977) for evaluating pupil performance and ascertaining whether specified objectives have been achieved.
2. Recording performance on a daily basis
The potentially time-consuming problem of daily assessment is overcome in PT by making the testing period extremely brief. Once the task has been carefully specified, a small sample of the pupil’s performance is taken with a type of domain-referenced test called a probe. The exact administration time set for the probe is known as the record length and may be as short as 1, 2 or 3 minutes. The pupil’s performance on the probe is recorded each day, for as long as the teaching objective to which it refers is being worked on. A probe might consist of a sheet displaying a domain of number operations, a group of sight-words, words of a certain level of phonic complexity etc. Many more examples of the domain would be provided than the pupil could be expected to achieve in the time limit set, to avoid the problem of reaching a ceiling level. Other types of probe might involve a group of spellings dictated by the teacher, or the child reading aloud a continuous passage of prose. With practice, probes can readily be devised by the teacher to check the child’s performance on specific tasks in most basic skill areas, and a stock of ready-made, re-usable probes built up. Detailed guidance on probe-construction and use is provided in White and Haring (1976, 1980) and Formentin and Csapo (1980).
The Importance of Rate Measurement
By adhering to an exact, fixed testing time, it becomes possible to count the number of correct and incorrect responses made by the pupil and express each of these in terms of rate per minute (often referred to as ‘movements per minute ‘). The crucial use of rate measurement in PT is based on the principle that, in the development of basic skills, we are not merely concerned with what a child can do, but how quickly he can do it, as an indication of increasing proficiency or mastery. Accuracy (usually assessed by frequency measures) is seen as a necessary but insufficient condition for mastery of a skill. For the vast majority of basic skills, the child needs to develop speed or fluency (most appropriately assessed by rate). The key distinction between these two initial stages of skill-learning and the subsequent stages of generalisation and adaptation have been represented in a hierarchical way by Haring and Eaton (1978) together with the types of teaching strategy which they and co-workers at the Experimental Education Unit, University of Washington at Seattle (Haring et al., 1978), have found through research to be most appropriate at each stage. A version of this hierarchy, adapted to make the stage of skill-maintenance more explicit, is presented in Figure 2.
Measuring performance in terms of correct and incorrect movements per minute enables the teacher to observe small changes in a child’s performance from day to day. For the so-called slow learner, these changes might be very significant, yet pass unnoticed without this fine degree of monitoring. The advantages of rate measurement over simple frequency counts and percentages are discussed by Vargas (1977).
3. Charting performance on a daily basis
Following the assessment of performance through the use of a probe, each day’s data are plotted on a chart in order to provide easily inspected knowledge of results for the benefit of (a) the teacher, as an aid to interpreting changes in performance and planning subsequent remedial action and (b) the pupil, to enhance and sustain motivation. Charting is seen, not as something merely cosmetic or peripheral which the teacher does for the pupil, but a process in which teacher and pupil are actively and conjointly engaged. Indeed, the intention is that pupils should, whenever possible, learn to chart their own performance (Lovitt, 1973) thereby taking on greater responsibility for their own learning and internalising the ‘locus of control’.
The Ratio Chart
A special type of chart is used in PT, the one in most common use particularly in the USA being the Standard Behaviour Chart (see Figure 3) originated by Ogden Lindsley. The horizontal axis uses equal intervals to indicate successive days (day lines). The vertical axis, however, uses a logarithmic or ratio scale, in this case arranged in a series of six repeating cycles. The purpose of this complex-looking chart (also known as the six-cycle, semi-log chart) is to allow for plotting, all on the same chart, increasing and decreasing rates of a very wide range of human behaviours, both academic and social, which might be of concern to the teacher or observer. Behaviours of a relatively high rate of occurrence (i.e. more than once per minute) such as reading words, completing sums, would be plotted within the upper section of the chart (cycles 1-10; 10-100).
FIGURE 3
The Standard Behaviour Chart (6 cycle, semi-logarithmic) shown in
reduced size; actual size: 54 in. by 8 in.
Relatively low-rate behaviours (i.e. occurring less than once per minute) such as tantrums, calling out, fights etc. would be plotted within the bottom three cycles. This particular chart also permits the simultaneous display of interrelated behaviours. A variety of conventions is now well established for completing ratio charts, such as using dots to denote correct rates (or behaviours to be increased), crosses to denote incorrect rates (or behaviours to be decreased), vertical ‘phase change’ lines to denote changes in the teaching programme etc.
Whilst the Standard Behaviour Chart continues to be the most widely used in the USA and referred to in the Precision Teaching literature as a vehicle for exchanging information about individual cases and reporting research, it is not without its critics. Many psychologists would regard the six cycle chart as unnecessarily cumbersome especially when focusing primarily on academic behaviours, and the response of most teachers (within the writer’s experience) is less than enthusiastic. As a consequence, other types of ratio chart have been devised (see Formentin and Csapo, 1980). These employ the same ratio-scale principles but present one, two or perhaps three cycles only, chosen to cover the most suitable frequency ranges for the type of behaviour under observation and to make data-plotting and inspection a less bewildering experience. An example of a 2.4 cycle chart is presented in Figure 4. This shows a child’s increasing accuracy and fluency on each of 3 steps in a phonic skill sequence.
FIGURE 4
A completed ratio chart (2.4 cycle)
In this particular illustration a level of proficiency was set at a rate of 50 words per minute correct with no more than 2 words per minute incorrect. The criterion for ‘moving on’ was this proficiency level demonstrated on 2 consecutive days.
Essential Features of the Ratio Chart
The key difference between the ratio chart and an ordinary equal-interval graph is that the former presents a visual display of the proportional increases (or decreases) in the pupil’s performance. Thus, regardless of a pupil’s initial levels of fluency on a task, the magnitude of his weekly increases or decreases can be represented by the use of consistent slopes (known as ‘ celeration lines ‘, referring to degrees of acceleration or deceleration in performance).
For example, a weekly increase from 10 correct to 20 correct sums per minute would constitute a ‘Times 2’ (x 2) change and be represented by the same slope as a change from 1 correct to 2 correct, which is a change of the same relative magnitude. Both are essentially a ‘doubling’ of performance. Conversely a weekly decrease from 10 to 5 errors per minute would constitute a ‘Divide 2’ (÷ 2) change. This type of proportional decrease can also be represented consistently by a particular slope.
The distinctive feature of the ratio chart in representing degrees of acceleration and deceleration in performance has enabled the development of a variety of techniques to help the teacher make important daily teaching decisions. These will be discussed in Section 5.
4. Recording the teaching arrangements in relation to the pupil’s performance
This refers to the planned, systematic changes which the teacher might make in (i) her own management of the child’s learning (e.g. use of praise, attention, other rewards; timing and duration of instruction etc.) and (ii) in the nature of the teaching programme (e.g. task requirements, difficulty level, particular teaching method, published scheme employed etc.).
The teacher keeps a detailed teaching plan sheet and also denotes on the chart any planned (and unplanned) changes in the teaching programme so that these may be related to changes in the pupil’s performance and interpreted accordingly. This makes the teaching ‘experimental’ in the sense used by Leach and Raybould (1977). That is to say, where the pupil’s progress on a task is judged to be unsatisfactory, the teacher can systematically manipulate those features of the task, teaching arrangements and (if necessary) aspects of the classroom environment, over which she has control. The teacher can find out what’ works best’, and in this sense, systematic instruction takes on the prime qualities of a single-case experimental study, exploring the functional relationship between dependent and independent variables (Skinner, 1966). A systematic change in the teaching programme is indicated on the ratio chart by a vertical line placed between two day lines. (This is known as a ‘phase change’ and may be seen in Figure 4.)
5. Analysing the data
Daily analysis of charted data enables the teacher to determine (i) whether the pupil has reached the proficiency level specified (known as the Static Aim Rate) and (ii) whether the pupil’s rate of improvement on a specific skill, or acceleration, is rapid enough (known as the Dynamic Aim Rate). The empirically-based procedures used in PT for making such decisions, together with their rationale, are fully described by Eaton (1978) and White and Haring (1980). Only a brief account is possible here.
(i) Proficiency level (or Static Aim Rate): Several techniques are available which, whilst not infallible, provide the teacher with guidelines for setting appropriate levels of task proficiency. For example, comparison may be made with a pupil’s previously demonstrated terminal performance on similar tasks, or with the median rate achieved on the same task by a sample of age-peers whose performance on that task is considered to represent ‘ competence’. Another technique (Tool skill assessment) involves making appropriate allowances, when specifying proficiency in rate terms, for pupils whose slowness of physical movement, perhaps due to some degree of speech or motor handicap, would place constraints on their ability to develop high fluency levels.
The various guidelines available, however, are generally regarded as of a provisional nature. The ultimate validity of the proficiency rate chosen is determined functionally, that is to say, whether or not it leads to maintenance of the skill. Short-term checks for skill maintenance can be readily undertaken by re-administering the relevant probes at selected intervals. Longer-term checks on maintenance and generalisation can be made by the use of’ mixed’ probes, which test for discrimination among a combination of related skills. A simple illustration of this would be a probe sampling a mixture of phonically regular words (e.g. CYC, CVCC, CCVC etc.)
(ii) Rate of improvement (or Dynamic Aim Rate): This relates, in essence, to the expectations which a teacher sets for rapidity of growth. As in the determination of proficiency, procedures are provided to supplement the teacher’s subjective judgement. Using the ratio chart’s facility to represent weekly rate of growth by consistent slopes, the procedures have two alternative functions:
(a) to indicate the rate of improvement or acceleration required to reach proficiency in a specified time or
(b) to provide a guideline against which the teacher can judge whether the pupil is improving at a pre-determined rate.
Two illustrations are presented. (In these illustrations, proficiency is set at 60 responses per minute and a short baseline of 3 days’ initial data has been used to establish the pupil’s starting rate more reliably.) Figure 5 shows how an achievement date can be predicted, given a desired rate of acceleration.
FIGURE 5
Using desired rate of acceleration to predict achievement date
Conversely, Figure 6 shows how a slope can be plotted, indicating required acceleration, when an achievement date is specified in advance. In both cases, the slope, expressed as a Minimum Progress Line, shows the minimum rate levels to be achieved or exceeded on each successive day if the pupil is to remain ‘on target’.
FIGURE 6
Using desired achievement date to plot rate of acceleration required
The Minimum Progress Lines employed depend on previous evidence concerning the rate at which the pupil may realistically be expected to improve, whether under typical or enhanced teaching conditions. The’ safest’, most lenient slope is usually regarded as that representing a x 1 .25 change (i.e. 25 per cent weekly increase in performance) but in practice, when tasks are accurately selected and teaching is efficient, changes well in excess of x 1.5 (50 per cent increase) or x 2.0 (100 per cent increase) are frequently achieved by pupils.
By the use of such procedures, the teacher is helped (a) to make her expectations realistic (i.e. based on data), (b) to make them explicit and (c) to make rapid decisions regarding any changes which may be necessary in the teaching programme where the pupil fails to maintain the desired rate of improvement.
Before moving on to how the various procedures in PT may be put together in individualising a teaching programme, let us first consider the main types of changes in the programme which can be made by the teacher.
Making Changes to the Programme - The Principle of Parsimony
The need for highly cost-efficient teaching of children who exhibit learning difficulties has already been stressed. It follows, therefore, that when a child is judged to be failing to make the required rate of progress ameliorative strategies should be considered in accordance with the Principle of Parsimony. This means choosing first the simplest, most obvious, least disruptive changes likely to bring about improvement in the pupil’s learning. Whilst in no way minimising the importance of the ‘pastoral care’ of the child within the school, of relationships with teachers, of home-school links and the home environment itself, it seems that the most direct ameliorative strategies open to the teacher involve (i) changing the task; (ii) changing the teaching approach, and (iii) improving pupil motivation. These have an immediate bearing in the classroom situation on the child’s likelihood of success and each will be considered briefly here.
(i) Changing the task: This can be done in two ways. The current teaching objective may need to be broken down into a series of intermediate, enabling objectives for the pupil. This involves the task being analysed into a sequence of pre-requisite components each of which, in turn, contributes toward mastery of the terminal skill. Space precludes reference to wide literature concerning skill-hierarchies and the process of task analysis, but helpful guidelines have recently been provided by Gardner and Tweddle (1979). Another way of changing the task is to reduce the size of the task requirements whilst preserving the essential operations required (e.g. presenting fewer words to be learned). This is better referred to as task slicing.
(ii) Changing the teaching approach: This might refer to changes in the teacher’s management of the child, or to changes in the actual method of teaching or of materials used etc.
(iii) Improving pupil motivation: Most pupils improve their performance markedly when they are given firstly teaching programmes which are individualised to their needs, and secondly appropriate approval and feedback and allowed to participate in the charting of their own progress. For rather more recalcitrant learners, some form of ‘contingency contracting’ between the teacher and pupil may be necessary. This involves certain small rewards (e.g. favourite activities selected by the pupil) being made contingent upon charted evidence of daily increases in correct performance or reduction of errors. More ‘valued’ rewards can be negotiated and made contingent upon the attainment of longer-term objectives, for example, reaching proficiency level on specific tasks. (The ‘terms’ of the contract can be specified explicitly at the foot of the child’s chart.)
The effectiveness of a variety of direct intervention strategies involving curriculum change, different instructional techniques and behaviour modification is discussed by Lovitt (1976, 1977) on the basis of many small-scale empirical studies evaluated by Precision Teaching methodology.
Putting It All Together—an Individualised PT Programme
Whilst the principles and procedures of precise educational measurement can be used with some flexibility to inform practice, an attempt will now be made to represent the main sequence of operations. The sequence bears a close relationship to those outlined by White and Haring (1980), Howell, Kaplan and O’Connell (1979) and Leach (1980), though some freedom of choice is incorporated in the way in which expectations are set by the teacher for rate of growth. In the experience of the author and many others, teachers often wish to set initial expectations informally rather than using Dynamic Aim Rates, reserving the option, as it were, to use the more technical procedures if their initial expectations are not met. The sequence of operations is presented diagrammatically in two stages. Figure 7 shows the steps in setting up a PT programme.
Figure 8 represents the process of continuous evaluation of the programme, once started, and the key opportunities for decision-making.
A few qualificatory comments should be made here. The identification of relevant teaching objectives (boxes 1, 2, 3) frequently poses difficulties. Objectively stated curricular sequences, particularly suitable for lower-attaining children, are conspicuous by their absence in most ordinary schools (Brennan 1980) and the starting point for instruction and investigation usually involves negotiation between the teacher and psychologist or advisor. A battery of probes sampling the pupil’s proficiency across a range of skills makes a useful contribution to placing the pupil on the appropriate initial task to be worked on (Placement Probing). If satisfactory progress is made during regular, direct teaching (box 11) the teacher may move on to the next task to be taught (box 13).
If progress is less than satisfactory (boxes 19 and 21), then the data already gathered serve as a baseline against which the effects of subsequent modifications to the programme can be evaluated. It should be noted that the most likely changes if the pupil shows negligible or no improvement, usually involve changing the task (i.e. the task is probably too difficult). This prompts the teacher to check the appropriateness of the task selected (box 4).
Similarly the most likely changes if the pupil is making progress but at a slow rate usually involve modifications in the teaching arrangements (focusing especially on method and motivation). The decision sequence following boxes 11, 17 and 21 is clearly crucial to any systematic approach to instruction. As indicated earlier, the use of Aim Rates (both Static and Dynamic) provide working criteria which can be tested and substantiated by reference to the daily data collected on the pupil’s performance.
A Brief Review of Practice in the UK
The professional training course for educational psychologists at Birmingham University has, for many years, been associated with a sequential problem-solving approach to the assessment of learning difficulties (e.g. Wedell, 1970; Leach and Raybould, 1977). The compatibility of PT with this general approach was recognised in 1976 and the principles and procedures of PT have increasingly been incorporated in the preparation of trainee psychologists for working with teachers and parents. Subsequently, it is clear, a growing number of educational psychologists have been applying PT in their regular practice and reporting on this in the professional literature (e.g. Raybould and Solity, 1982; Williams and Muncey, 1982; Booth and Jay, 1981; Matthews and Booth, 1982; Branwhite and Becker, 1982).
The compatibility of PT with the principles of Direct Instruction (Engelmann and Carnine, 1982) has also been recognised, and this will, no doubt, be a significant area for future development. The joint benefits of teaching programmes based on such principles coupled with the sophisticated evaluative system provided by PT is likely to prove a very powerful intervention for children with serious learning difficulties. For example, Levey and Emsley (1982) report the use of daily probing techniques in combination with the DISTAR Reading programme in their work with parents as home tutors.
Indeed, PT has been found to provide a valuable framework for enabling parents to supplement the school’s teaching of their children. The PAIRS project (Parent Assisted Instruction in Reading and Spelling), started in 1979 by members of Walsall School Psychological Service, is a notable example (White, Solity and Reeve, in press). Experience thus far indicates that parents respond very favourably to using the essential elements of PT in structuring short, regular, evening sessions with their children and that they obtain very worthwhile results. Pennington (1982) also reports encouragingly on the use of PT with parents. Two further applications are worthy of note. The ‘Data-pac’ project (Direct assessment and teaching: primary aged children), developed by David Tweddle and co-workers on post-experience courses for educational psychologists at the University of Birmingham, has been influenced by PT particularly in the incorporation of fluency-based proficiency levels in teaching sequences of basic skills. Similarly, the daily measurement techniques of PT are an important feature of some local authority training initiatives for teachers. Examples of these are the Special Needs Action Programme (SNAP) of Coventry LEA and the in-service training courses and workshops conducted by Walsall SPS over the last few years. All INSET initiatives of this kind face four important questions:
(i) How can teachers be introduced effectively to innovatory procedures so that they are assimilated into regular classroom practice?
(ii) After training, do the teachers maintain the use of the procedures?
(iii) Do the teachers generalise the procedures?
(iv) What are the resource implications for teachers and support services? The experiences gained in Walsall may illuminate some of these issues and will be commented on briefly.
Walsall INSET in Precision Teaching
A regular, continuing programme of workshops for small groups of classroom teachers was begun in Spring 1980. Generally, these have met with a highly encouraging response from the participants, attesting to the attractiveness and viability of PT in the classroom as a means of individualising programmes for ‘special needs’ children. What successes have been achieved in initial training have been due, in no small measure, to the essentially practical, school-focused approach taken, involving demonstrations, regular classroom assignments, problem-oriented tutorial work and provision of support materials (Solity and Raybould, in preparation).
Two annual surveys of PT usage in the local authority have been completed so far, with data from a third currently being analysed. By July 1981, 66 teachers reported the continued use of PT (79 per cent of the sample), with a total of 422 pupils on programmes and an average of 6 pupils per teacher. By July 1982, 84 teachers reported using PT (also 79 per cent of the sample), with a total of 663 pupils on programmes and an average of 8 pupils per teacher. The vast majority of the respondents were class teachers in the ordinary school. Within a smaller cohort of 52 teachers available for both surveys, 38 were still using PT techniques after 2 years, representing a ‘maintenance’ figure of 73 per cent. Whilst this evidence is of a ‘reported’ nature, supplementary evidence exists to support its overall reliability. In addition, there are increasing indications that teachers have been satisfactorily generalising the principles and procedures to other pupils when the need has arisen, without specific assistance from the psychologist. It is hoped to report on these findings in more detail at a later date.
Some Concluding Comments
One of the outstanding advantages of Precision Teaching from the teacher’s point of view is its flexibility. It can be used to good effect in the ‘here-and-now’, without necessitating full-scale development of objective-based curricular sequences or radical classroom reorganisation. Though the organisational implications of implementing PT efficiently in the classroom should not be minimised, for the committed teacher the task becomes easier with experience. Equally, the methodology can enhance already established objectives-based curricula such as those existing in some special schools (e.g. Bond and Lewis, 1982), adding the extra dimensions of more realistic proficiency levels and more empirically determined instructional decisions. PT also has the advantage of harnessing the teacher’s expectations of a pupil’s performance in a positive way, based on evidence rather than subjective views. The early success of PT programmes, due to the planning precision required, can have a dramatic, positively reinforcing effect on the dispirited teacher and pupil alike (Williams and Muncey, 1982).
Another notable benefit is the introduction of the teacher to two essential features of Applied Behavioural Analysis, through the need for continuous measurement of performance and through the examination of important antecedent variables, particularly those relating to curriculum, teaching method and classroom management (Glynn, 1982; Judson and Solity, in press). Moreover, the technology of PT provides a vast potential for experimental research in the classroom, whether this involves single-subject designs, much favoured in Applied Behavioural Analysis (e.g. Hersen and Barlow, 1976; Kratochwill, 1978; Kratochwill et a!., 1979) or focuses on curriculum problems particularly those relating to the sequencing of learning hierarchies.
For the educational psychologist, PT provides the basis for a genuinely consultative relationship with the teacher concerning pupils in difficulty, in contrast to ‘one-off’ responses to crisis referrals. In particular, the use of ratio charts and charting conventions is an aid in this professional relationship and can make for more efficient communication and discussion of alternative intervention strategies as well as providing a permanent, continuous record of progress. The accent of the psychologist’s involvement with the teacher, after initial in-service training, is on the’ mediating’ function (Reeve, 1980), i.e. the responsibility to interpret research and psychological knowledge and make it relevant to the teacher.
This professional relationship, very new to many teachers and psychologists, will need considerable development if the type of assessment envisaged by the 1981 Education Act is to become a reality (DES, 1983):
‘Assessment should be seen as a partnership between teachers, other professionals and parents in a joint endeavour to discover and understand the nature of the difficulties and needs of individual children.’ (Para. 2.5.)
School-based assessment-through-teaching in general, and PT in particular, provides a vital framework for this partnership, having a common focus on the pupil’s practical teaching needs, and employing relevant data which are ‘open’ and available to all concerned.
Along with the benefits of Precision Teaching, there are also risks. Berger (1979, 1982) for example has drawn attention to the danger of a ‘mindless technology’, where an assortment of behavioural techniques are employed without a proper understanding of the theoretical framework from which they are derived. A particularly easy and deceptive trap for the teacher when using PT is to allow the relative ease of operationalising certain skills in the form of probes to influence or trivialise her choice of what is to be taught. Whilst every attempt should be made to prevent this (e.g. through careful training), the phenomenon is not peculiar to PT technology. The current use of microcomputers in schools should certainly give cause for concern on the same issue.
There is no doubt that many technological aspects of PT are in need of further research and development, particularly the methods currently available for establishing proficiency levels. This is a crucial area, as pointed out by Bracey (1980) in his critique of Precision Teaching. Another central issue requiring continued research is that of programming for the generalisation of skills (Stokes and Baer, 1977; Ward and Gow, 1982; Carnine and Becker, 1982). However, despite these significant problems, when used rationally as a system of formative evaluation rather than merely as a set of techniques of novelty value to the pupil, Precision Teaching is justified by its promotion of enquiry: it prompts highly relevant questions about where, when and how to proceed in a teaching programme (Raybould, 1981). It is of fundamental importance that all of those involved in the education of children, whether teachers, advisers, psychologists or parents, continue to pursue that spirit of enquiry.
REFERENCES
AINSCOW, M. and TWEDDLE, D. A. (1979). Preventing Classroom Failure: An Objectives Approach. Chichester: Wiley.
AINSCOW, M. and TWEDDLE, D. A. (1981). The objectives approach: a progress report. In Somerset Education Authority: Ways and Means, 2. Globe Education.
BERGER, M. (1979). Behaviour modification in education and professional practice: the dangers of a mindless technology. Bull. British Psycho!. Soc., 32, 418-419.
BERGER, M. (1982). Applied behaviour analysis in education: a critical assessment and some implications for training teachers. Educational Psychology, 2, 289-300.
BETTS, E. C. (1957). Foundations of Reading Instruction. N.Y.: American Book Co.
BLANKENSHIP, C. and LILLY, M. S. (1981). Mainstreaming Students with Learning and Behaviour Problems: Techniques for the Classroom Teacher. N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
BLOOM, B. S. (1975). Mastery learning and its implications for curriculum development. In Golby, M., Greenwald, J. and West, R. (Eds), Curriculum Development. London: Croom Helm.
BLOOM, B. S. (1979). Alterable Variables: The New Direction in Educational Research. Paper presented in Edinburgh: September 1979; Scottish Council for Research in Education.
BOND, J. and Lewis, A. (1982). Daily monitoring—applications in a school for children with learning difficulties. Remedial Education, 17, 8-9.
Boom, S. R. and JAY, M. R. (1981). The use of Precision Teaching technology in the work of the educational psychologist. Journal of the Association of Educational Psychologists, 5, 21-26.
BRACEY, S. A. (1980). The Precision Teaching Model: a critical appraisal. In Formentin, T. and Csapo, M. Precision Teaching (op. cit.).
BRANWHITE, A. B. and BECKER, R. A. (1982). A more direct, empirical model for evaluating educational performance. Educational Review, 34, 47-52.
BRITISH PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY (1976). Summary of evidence presented to the enquiry into special education set up by the D.E.S. Bull. British Psycho!. Soc., 29, 1-6.
BR0PHY, J. E. and EVERTSON, C. M. (1976). Learning from Teaching: A Developmental Perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
BROPHY, J. E. and GOOD, T. L. (1974). Teacher-Student Relationship— Causes and Consequences. N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
BRENNAN, W. K. (1980). The curriculum and slow learners. In Raybould, E. C., Roberts, B. and Wedell, K. W. (Eds), Helping the Low Achiever in the Secondary School (op. cit.).
BURDEN, R. L. (1973). If we throw the tests out of the window, what is there left to do? Journal of the Association of Educational Psychologists, 3, 6-9.
CAMERON, R. J. (1982). Working together: Portage in the U.K. N.F.E.R.: Nelson.
CARNINE, D. W. and BECKER, W. C. (1982). Theory of instruction: generalisation issues. Educational Psychology, 2, (3-4), 249-262.
CARROLL, H. C. M. (1972). Remedial teaching of reading: an evaluation. Remedial Education, 7, 10-15.
CHAZAN, M. (1967). The effects of remedial teaching in reading: a review of research. Remedial Education, 2, 4-12.
CLARK, M. (1976). Young Fluent Readers. London: Heinemann.
CLARK, M. (1970). Reading difficulties in schools. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
CRONBACH, L. J. and GLESER, G. C. (1965). Psychological Tests and Personnel Decisions. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
DAVIE, R., BUTLER, N. R. and GOLDSTEIN, H. (1972). From Birth to Seven. London: Longman.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1978). Special Educational Needs (The Warnock Report). London: H.M.S.O.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1983). Assessments and Statements of Special Educational Needs (Circular 1/83). London: H.M.S.O.
EATON, M. D. (1978). Data decisions and evaluation. In Haring, N. G. et al. (Eds), The Fourth R—Research in the Classroom (op. cit.).
ENGELMANN, S. and CARNINE D. W. (1982). Theory of Instruction. N.Y.: Irvington.
FORMENTIN, T. and CSAPO, M. (1980). Precision Teaching. Vancouver: Center for Human Development and Research.
FORNESS, S. (1972). The mildly retarded as casualties of the educational system. Journal of School Psychology, 10, 117-126.
FORNESS, S. (1974). Implications of recent trends in educational labelling. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7, 57-61.
FROSTIG, M. and MARLOW, P. (1973). Learning Problems in the Classroom. N.Y.: Grune and Stratton.
GAGNE, R. M. and BRIGGS L. J. (1974). Principles of Instructional Design. N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
GARDNER, J. M. and TWEDDLE, D. A. (1979). Some guidelines for sequencing objectives. Journal of the Association of Educational Psychologists, 5, 23-30.
GARDNER, J. M., MURPHY, J. and CRAWFORD, N. (1983). The Skills Analysis Model. Kidderminster: British Institute of Mental Handicap.
GEORGIADES, N. J. and PHILLIMORE, L. (1975). The myth of the hero-innovator and alternative strategies for organisational change. In Kiernan, C. C. and Woodlord, F. P. (Eds), Behaviour Modification in the Severely Retarded. Amsterdam: Associated Scientific Publishers.
GERSTEN, R., BECKER, W. C., HEIRY, T. J. and WHITE, W. A. T. (1981). Relationship Between Entry I.Q. and Yearly Academic Gains in a Direct Instruction Model. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, Boston, Mass., April 1981. Cited in: Gersten, R., Direct Instruction in Special Education: A Review of Evaluation Research (Part II). (Direct Instruction News: Winter 1983.)
GLASER, R. (1962). Training Research and Education. University of Pittsburgh Press.
GILLHAM, B. (1978). The failure of psychometrics. In Gilliam, B. (Ed.), Reconstructing Educational Psychology. London: Croom Helm.
GLYNN, T. (1982). Antecedent control of behaviour in educational contexts. Educational Psychology, 2, 215-229.
HALLAHAN, D. and CRUICKSHANK, W. (1973). Psycho-Educational Foundations of Learning Disabilities. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
HAMMILL, D. and LARSEN, S. C. (1978). The effectiveness of psycholinguistic training: a re-affirmation of position. Exceptional Children, 44, 402-414.
HARING, N. G., LOVITT, T. C., EATON, M. D. and HANSEN, C. L. (1978). The Fourth R: Research in the Classroom. Columbus, Ohio: Chas. E. Merrill.
HAIUNG, N. G. and EATON, M. D. (1978). Systematic instructional procedures: an instructional hierarchy. In Haring, N. G., Lovitt, T. C., Eaton, M. D. and Hansen, C. L. (Eds), The Fourth R— Research in the Classroom (op. cit.).
HAYWOOD, H. C., FILLER, J. W. JNR., SCHIFMAN, M. A. and CHATELANAT, G. (1975). Behavioural assessment in mental retardation. In McReynolds, P. (Ed.), Advances in Psychological Assessment, 3, 96-135. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
HERSEN, M. and BARLOW, D. H. (1976). Single Case experimental Designs—Strategies for Studying Behaviour Change. N.Y.: Pergamon Press.
HOWELL, K. W., KAPLAN, J. S. and O’CONNELL, C. Y. (1979). Evaluating Exceptional Children: A Task Analysis Approach. Columbus, Ohio: Chas. E. Merrill.
JUD5ON, S. L. and SOLITY J. E. (in press). Classroom Management: Principles and Practice. London: Croom Helm.
KEOGH, B. (1971). A compensatory model of psycho-educational evaluation of children with learning disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4, 544-548.
KIRK, S. A. and KIRK, W.D. (1971). Psycholinguistic Learning Disabilities: Diagnosis and Remediation. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
KRATOCHWILL, T. R. (Eds), (1978). Single Subject Research: Strategies for Evaluating Change. N.Y.: Academic Press.
KRATOCHWILL, T. R., BRODY, G. H. and PIERSEL, W. C. (1979). Time-series research; some comments on design methodology for research in learning disabilities. J. Learning Disabilities, 12, 257-263.
KUNZELMANN, H. P. (Ed.), (1970). Precision Teaching: An Initial Training Sequence. Seattle: Special Child Publications.
LARSEN, S. C. (1976). The validity of perceptual tests: the debate continues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 9, 3-8.
LEACH, D. J. and RAYBOULD, E. C. (1977). Learning and Behaviour Difficulties in School. London: Open Books.
LEACH, D. J. (1977). Teachers’ perceptions and ‘problem’ pupils. Educational Review, 29, 188-203.
LEACH, D. (1980). Assessing children with learning difficulties: an alternative model for psychologists and teachers. Journal of the Association of Educational Psychologists, 5, 16-23.
LEVEY, B. and EMSLEY, D. (1982). Involvement of parents in the teaching of DISTAR reading to slow-learning children. BPS/DECP Occasional Papers, 6, 43-46.
LINDSLEY, 0. (1964). Direct measurement and prosthesis of retarded behaviour. Journal of Education, 147, 62-81.
LINDSLEY, 0. (1971). Precision Teaching in perspective: an interview with Ogden R. Lindsley. Teaching Exceptional Children, 3, 111-119.
LINDSLEY, 0. (1972). From Skinner to Precision Teaching: the child knows best. In Jordan, J. B. and Robbins, L. S. (Eds), Let’s Do Something Else Kind of Thing. Arlington, Virginia: Council for Exceptional Children.
LOVITT, T. C. (1973). Self management projects with children with behavioural disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 6, 138-150.
LOVITT, T. C. (1976). Applied behaviour analysis techniques and curriculum research: implications for instruction. In Haring, N. G. and Schiefelbusch, R. L. (Eds), Teaching Special Children. N.Y.: McGraw-Hill.
LOVITT, T. C. (1977). In Spite of My Resistance. . . I’ve Learned From Children. Columbus, Ohio: Chas. E. Merrill.
MAGER, R. F. (1962). Preparing Instructional Objectives. San Francisco: Fearon.
MAGGS, A. and MORATH, P. (1976). Effects of direct verbal instruction on intellectual development of institutionalized moderately retarded children: a 2-year study. Journal of Special Education, 10, 357-364.
MARTLJZA, V. R. (1977). Applying Norm-Referenced and Criterion-Referenced Measurement in Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
MATTHEWS, C. F. and Boom, S. R. (1982). Precision Teaching: or how to find out if your teaching is effective without waiting a term or even a year. Remedial Education, 17, 4-7.
MEACHAM, M. L. and WIESEN, A. G. (1974). Changing Classroom Behaviour. 2nd ed. London: INTEXT.
MUNCEY, J. and WILLIAMS, H. (1981). Daily evaluation in the classroom. Special Education/Forward Trends, 8, 3 1-34.
PERKINS, E. A., TAYLOR, P. D. and CAPIE, A. C. M. (1976). Helping the Retarded. Kidderminster: British Institute of Mental Handicap.
PENNINGTON, A. (1982). Parental involvement in Precision Teaching. BPS/DECP Occasional Papers, 6, 39-42.
PIDGEON, D. A. (1970). Expectation and Pupil Performance. London: N.F.E.R.
POPHAM, W. J. (1975). Educational evaluation. Englewood Cliffs Prentice Hall.
RAYBOULD, E. C., ROBERTS, B. and WEDELL, K. W. (Eds), (1980). Helping the Low Achiever in the Secondary School. University of Birmingham: Educational Review Occasional Publications No. 7.
RAYBOULD, E. C. (1981). Precision Teaching: systematising instruction for children with learning difficulties. In Wheldall, K. (Ed.), The Behaviourist in the Classroom: Applied Behavioural Analysis in British Educational Contexts. University of Birmingham: Educational Review Publications.
RAYBOULD, E. C. and SOLITY J. E. (1982). Teaching with Precision. Special Education/ Forward Trends, 9, (2).
REEVE, C. J. (1980). The educational psychologist and children with learning difficulties. In Raybould, E. C., Roberts, B. and Wedell, K. (Eds), Helping the Low Achiever in the Secondary School (op. cit.).
ROSENSHINE, B. V. and BERLINER, D. C. (1978). Academic engaged time. British Journal of Teacher Education, 4, 3-16.
ROSENTHAL, R. and JACOBSON, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the Classroom. N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
SKINNER, B. F. (1966). What is the experimental analysis of behavior? Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 9, 21 3-218.
SMITH, J., KUSHLICK, A. and GLOSSOP, C. (1977). The Wessex Portage Project. Research Report No. 125. Winchester: Wessex Health Care Evaluation Research Team.
SOLITY, J. E. and RAYBOULD, E. C. (in preparation). Precision Teaching: Helping Children with Learning Difficulties.
STOKES, T. F. and BARR, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalisation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349-368.
SUMNER, R. and ROBERTSON, T. S. (1977). Criterion-Referenced Measurement and Criterion-Referenced Tests. London: N.F.E.R.
TANSLEY, A. E. (1967). Reading and Remedial Reading. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
VARGAS, J. (1977). Behavioural Psychology for Teachers. N.Y.: Harper and Row.
WARD J. (1975). Some comments on the current status of psychometry. BPS/DECP Occasional Papers, 8, 380-387.
WARD, J. and Gow, L. (1982). Programme generalisation: a central problem in educational psychology. Educational Psychology, 2, 231-248.
WEDELL, K. W. (1970). Diagnosing learning difficulties: a sequential strategy. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 3, 311-317.
WEDELL, K. W. (1978). Investigation Strategies for Helping Children with Learning Problems. Paper presented at 75th Anniversary Conference of the Dutch Special Education Association; May 1978.
WILLIAMS, H. and MUNCEY, J. (1982). Precision Teaching before behavioural objectives? Journal of the Association of Educational Psychologists, 5, 40-42.
WHITE, 0. R. (1977). Behaviourism in special education: an arena for debate. In Kneedler, R. D. and Tarver, S. G. (Eds), Changing Perspectives in Special Education. Columbus, Ohio: Chas. E. Merrill. WHITE, 0. R. and HARING, N. G. (1976). Exceptional Teaching: A Multimedia Training Package. Columbus, Ohio: Chas. E. Merrill.
WHITE 0. R. and HARING N. G. (1980). Exceptional Teaching. 2nd ed. Columbus, Ohio: Chas. E. Merrill.
WHITE, 0. R. and LIBERTY, K. (1976). Behavioural assessment and precise educational measurement. In Haring, N. G. and Schiefelbusch, R. L. (Eds), Teaching Special Children. N.Y.: McGraw-Hill.
WHITE P. G., SOLITY, J. E. and REEVE, C. J. (in press). Parent Assisted Instruction in Reading and Spelling. Special Education/Forward Trends.
YSSELDYKE, J. E. (1973). Diagnostic-prescriptive teaching; the search for aptitude-treatment interactions. In Mann, L. and Sabatino, D. A. (Eds), The First Review of Special Education. Philadelphia: J. S. E. Press.
YSSELDYKE, J. E. and SALVIA, J. A. (1974). Diagnostic-prescriptive teaching: two models. Exceptional Children, 41, 181-185.
ZEAMAN, D. and HOUSE, B. J. (1963). The role of attention in retardate discrimination learning. In Ellis, N. R. (Ed.), Handbook of Mental Deficiency. N.Y.: McGraw-Hill.