Carl Binder, Ph.D. - Veriobinde1.verio.com/.../Binder2003RemovingCeilings.pdf · Binder Riha...

Precision Teaching 2003 - Columbus, OH

1

Removing Ceilings / PT 2003 1Binder Riha Associates © 2003

Removing Ceilings on PerformanceEarly Discoveries and Important Implications


Carl Binder, Ph.D.Binder Riha Associates

4966 Wilshire DriveSanta Rosa, CA 95404

1-800-FLUENCY www.Binder-Riha.com




Carl Binder, Ph.D.Binder Riha Associates

4966 Wilshire DriveSanta Rosa, CA 95404

1-800-FLUENCYwww.Binder-Riha.com/publications.htm


2


OverviewOverview

Background

Four Types of Ceilings: a Sequence of Discovery– Measurement-defined

– Teacher-imposed (AKA Procedure-imposed)

– Deficit-imposed

– Handicap-defined …… but still trying.

Another big one: Endurance

The New Language: Fluency Blockers & Builders

Discussion?


Background and ContextBackground and Context

From Experimental Psychology to the PT Classroom– B. F. Skinner and Rate of Response– Beatrice H. Barrett: Mother to Scientist-Practitioners– Og’s “funny blue graph paper” – and what a difference it made!– Eric Haughton and his pervasive influence

Synergistic Discoveries, Communications & Applications– Boston, Ontario, Kansas, Florida, and elsewhere– The Data Sharing Newsletter

From Discrete Trials to Parameters of Pupil Freedom


3


Measurement-Defined CeilingsMeasurement-Defined Ceilings

Behavioral checklists – absence/presence

Trapped in the 100% Correct Box!

Removing the measurement-defined ceiling:timing, counting and using the Standard Chart


Trapped in the 100% Box!We’ve All Grown Up in A Percent Correct World

Trapped in the 100% Box!We’ve All Grown Up in A Percent Correct World

100%

0%

Days

?? “Overlearning” ??

We cannot detect importantdifferences in performance.

We cannot detect importantdifferences in performance.

Acc

urac

y or

Qua

lity

It won’t let us see “above the ceiling!”

It won’t let us see “above the ceiling!”


4


NO Ceiling on Time-based Measures!NO Ceiling on Time-based Measures!

Days

The only upper limits are physiological or environmental.

The only upper limits are physiological or environmental.

Count per minute is a truemeasure of performance.

Count per minute is a truemeasure of performance.

Countper

Minute


STATE SCHOOLSTUDENTSAGES 12-54

PUBLIC SCHOOLSTUDENTSAGES 5 - 7

PROFESSIONALADULTSAGES 21 - 34

The difference between competence andincompetence is ...

The difference between competence andincompetence is ...


5


STATESCHOOLSTUDENTSAGES 12-54

PUBLICSCHOOLSTUDENTSAGES 5 - 7

PROFESSIONALADULTSAGES 21 - 34

We can’t tell the difference with % correct!We can’t tell the difference with % correct!


.001

.01

.1

1

10

100

1000

0 14 28 42 56 70 84 98 112 126 140Successive Calendar Days

ErrorsSkipsCorrects

0 4

CALENDAR WEEKS

8 12 16 2002 13 77 03 13 77 04 10 77 05 08 77 06 05 77 07 03 77

G.R. See/Say Words1-minute probe before teaching

Exitwomenout

openclosecup

inbluebox

putredon

withballpaper

underpencilyellow

littlebigwhite

Change to arrays onworksheets for practice

Cou

nt P

er M

inut

e

Remove Ceiling

Jump-up&

Turn-up

Removing the Measurement-defined Ceiling:Now We Can See a Teacher-imposed Ceiling!

Removing the Measurement-defined Ceiling:Now We Can See a Teacher-imposed Ceiling!


6


Teacher-imposed Ceilings (discrete trials)….Teacher-imposed Ceilings (discrete trials)….

Prevent us from seeing our students’ deficits.

Prevent students from moving at their own pace.

Enforce dependence on teachers.

Discourage self-initiation or continuous behavior.

Keep students at performance levels far below fluency.

Repeatedly interrupt students’ attention with “Wait!”

Unintentionally cause problem behavior.

Teacher-imposed ceilings handicap our students!Teacher-imposed ceilings handicap our students!


Removing Teacher-imposed CeilingsRemoving Teacher-imposed Ceilings

From cards “trials” to arrays to practice sheets.

From single opportunities to continuous opportunities (e.g., fromimitation “trials” to continuous imitation).

From single sets of materials to multiple sets (e.g., fromcounting “trials” to counting beans into multiple numbered cups).

From teacher-presented to teacher-prompted and “coached.”

Breaking through to “do another one” or “keep going.”

Other strategies?


7


Whoops!Removing Teacher-imposed Ceilings

revealed Deficit-imposed Ceilings

Whoops!Removing Teacher-imposed Ceilings

revealed Deficit-imposed Ceilings

Academic tool skills limit basic skills (e.g., see/say digits, free/writedigits limit see/write sums).

Motor elements limit self-care and vocational chains (e.g., “Big 6”:reach, point, touch, grasp, place, release limit dressing, writing,assembling, etc. ).

Oral motor components limit speech.

And so on…….

Component-Composite analysis became a central curriculum strategy in Precision Teaching.

Component-Composite analysis became a central curriculum strategy in Precision Teaching.


Links and Chains

Discriminations and skilled movements

Coordinated movements

Elements of associations or equivalent terms

Language used to describe these relationships:– Part / Whole

– Tool Skill / Basic Skill

– Element / Compound

– Component / Composite

Component-Composite RelationshipsNon-fluent Components Limit Composite Fluency

Component-Composite RelationshipsNon-fluent Components Limit Composite Fluency


8


Fluent Components Enable Fluent Composites(“Application”)

Fluent Components Enable Fluent Composites(“Application”)

Component fluencysupports

composite fluency

This is true withall kinds of skills

component

com

posi

te


ROBERT SIEGEL: You practice a lot?

RAY CHARLES: Whenever I can. I don’t -- I don’t practice as much as I would like to,because I’m not around a big piano all the time. But I try to, you know, I try to practice alittle bit every day for the most part.

ROBERT SIEGEL: And when you practice, I mean, do you practice the tunes that you’llbe playing at the next concerts......?

RAY CHARLES: Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.....

ROBERT SIEGEL: I guess the answer is no, you’re saying?

RAY CHARLES: No. No. I practice things like scales and chords and movement of myhands and things like that, because, I mean, I -- what I’m going to play on stage, I know.What I’m practicing for is to try to improve what I might play, you know. You gottapractice. I mean you gotta keep your fingers loose, you gotta keep your mind active, youknow, because what your mind think of -- the question is: what your mind think of, can yourfingers play it?

ROBERT SIEGEL: Right. Interview on National Public RadioCelebrating Ray Charles 50 years in recordingSeptember 23, 1997

Ray Charles on Practicing ComponentsRay Charles on Practicing Components


9


Practicing Components in IsolationDramatically Improving Application

Practicing Components in IsolationDramatically Improving ApplicationApplication

Workshop assembly tasks – adolescents with autism

Using toilet paper – severe DD adults

Putting on a shirt – DD teenagers

Grasp/Release with all kinds of objects & devices

Big Six elements and Body Control Movements

Terry Harris – overcoming severe CP


Frequency-building in a MediatedTransfer Paradigm (“Generativity”)Frequency-building in a MediatedTransfer Paradigm (“Generativity”)

1. Baseline assessment:• See/Say objects and actions – “naming” (yes)

• See/Say follow spoken instructions (yes)

• See/Say printed words – “reading” (no)

• See/Say place printed word(s) by object – “matching” (no)

• See/Do printed instructions – “following directions” (no)

2. Teach See/Say printed words

3. Test same as before (“pre-test”)• Untaught behavior emerged – matching and following directions

4. Build frequency (“probability”) of See/Say printed words

5. Test same as before (“post-test”)• More untaught behavior emerged – following directions

• All previously emergent behavior increased in frequency


10


.001

.01

.1

1

10

100

1000Co

unt p

er M

inut

e

Paul A. - Reading Mediated TransferMay, 1977 and July, 1977

Practiced

See/Say Words See/Place 1 word by object

See/Place 2 words by object

See/Do 4-word written directions

Emerged ("Got for Free")

2-minute timings before and after frequency-building on See/Say words(Range of 5 timings with median)

Pre Post Pre Post Pre PostPre Post


Stages of LearningStages of Learning

Stage OneAcquiring new

behavior

Stage TwoPracticing

components forfluency & endurance

Stage ThreeApplying and

combining fluentcomponents

Each requires different procedures and materials.


11


Handicap-defined CeilingsMeasure and Keep Trying!

Handicap-defined CeilingsMeasure and Keep Trying!

We still found skills whose frequencies we could notbring into normal/competent ranges, e.g., speechsounds, fine motor movements.

We continued to measure and try.

We shifted to other types of behavior for achievingthe same outcomes if possible.

AND we remained aware of the challenges ratherthan being blinded by measurement-defined ceilings.

Since then some of our colleagues have discovered and accelerated components that had imposed the handicaps.

Since then some of our colleagues have discovered and accelerated components that had imposed the handicaps.


Another Big One - EnduranceMetaphor of the Long-Distance Runner

Another Big One - EnduranceMetaphor of the Long-Distance Runner

We had seen that high levels of count per minuteperformance seem to optimize retention andapplication. Now we began to see that prior toachieving high levels, performers had enduranceproblems:

– Extended performance led to easy disruption or interference.

– Increased errors and variability.

– Rapid performance decline over long durations.


12


.001

.01

.1

1

10

100

1000Co

unt p

er M

inut

e


Nudged responsesor thrown pieces

Corrects

0 4

CALENDAR WEEKS

8 12 16 2010 02 80 11 30 80 12 28 80 01 25 81 02 22 81 03 22 81

Neil - Age 9See•Hear/Puts pieces in puzzle

1-minute 15-seconds


Fluency Supports EnduranceFluency Supports Endurance


13


.001

.01

.1

1

10

100

1000Co

unt p

er M

inut

e


0 4

CALENDAR WEEKS

8 12 16 2023 09 79 21 10 79 18 11 79 16 12 79 13 01 8026 08 79

Kim A. See/Write by 2‘s

10 minutes

2 minutes2 minutes

Performance duration can affectboth frequency and celeration.

From C. Binder’s Ph.D. Dissertation


An Early Observation of EnduranceAn Early Observation of Endurance

"I've been putting some of my kids on 10 secondtimings. They've spent weeks on 1 minute timingsand haven't made it. But within a few sessions at 10seconds some of them attained REAPS. Now we areincreasing the timings and so far they haven'tdropped out of the range. I'll let you know whathappens. It may be a quicker way of getting toREAPS. The endurance is the part they don't have.”

Anne DesjardinsReported in Data-Sharing NewsletterApril, 1981, #34 page 3


14


Fluency Blockers with Fluency BuildersA More Recent Terminology

Fluency Blockers with Fluency BuildersA More Recent Terminology

Measurement of performance and learning

Procedures for learning and practice

Materials for learning and reference (ergonomics)

Skill elements (behavior components)

Knowledge elements (behavior components)

Features of Learning and Performance Systems thatEither Prevent or Ensure Fluency.

Features of Learning and Performance Systems thatEither Prevent or Ensure Fluency.


Reasons traditional “drill & practice” fails:– lacks explicit fluency criterion as goal

– long durations stretch endurance and attention

– often the “chunks” are too big

Reasons well engineered practice succeeds:– explicit time-based goal for practice

– brief durations allow peak performance

– builds fluent elements before application

Boiling It Down About Practice...Boiling It Down About Practice...


15


Summary andImplications...


One cannot distinguish between expertand non-expert performance without

measuring the time dimension.


16


It is essential to design materials,procedures, user interfaces, and otherelements of performers’ environmentsto encourage rather than obstruct thedevelopment of fluent performance.

If we do not measure the timedimension, we will likely fail to build

environments that support fluency.


Achieving fluent performance often, if notalways, involves the development of fluentcomponent behavior prior to or at the same timeas development of composite behavior.

Often the greatest obstruction to fluencydevelopment is simply a lack of opportunity toachieve fluency on critical components beforebeing expected to perform compositeapplications.


17


It is helpful to view learning as occurring in threestages: 1) initial learning for accuracy or quality;2) practice of components for fluency andendurance; and 3) application or combination ofcomponents into composite behavior.

Many programs fail to produce mastery becausethey skip or minimize the 2nd stage andprematurely plunge learners into the 3rd stagebefore they can fluently perform key components.


Perhaps the single greatest potential for improvingthe ROI of any program is to allocate more time topractice on critical components prior to requiringapplication or transfer.

This can usually be offset by trimming scope withcareful front end analysis, allocating less time toinitial learning, and reducing time needed forapplication by first building fluent components.

The revised program is almost always significantlymore cost-effective.


18


Everybody Needs Fluency!

Thank You.

Discussion?

14 www.ispi.org • MARCH 2003

MASTER SERIESMasters SeriesMasters Series

What does it mean to be goodat something? How, inother words, do we definecompetence or mastery?

This article and the ISPI Master’s Seriespresentation that it previews summarize acareer-long investigation of this issue,and 30 years of ever-expanding applica-tions of what we have discovered in thatinvestigation.

Everyday Life Outside thePercentage-Correct Box

We all grew up in a percentage correctworld. In most elementary, middle, andhigh schools (at least in America), testsand grades are based on percent-correctcalculations. Similarly, universities, grad-uate schools, and most professional train-ing programs use some form of percent-correct calculation to evaluate learningsuccess and, by implication, to definemastery. Consequently, most of us assumewithout question that percent correct, anaccuracy-only basis for evaluation, is thescale on which to define mastery or com-petence. With rare exceptions in educa-tion and training (for example, typing orspecific job tasks with time-based perfor-mance criteria) we define mastery as aspecified level of accuracy while weignore the time dimension.

This is not true in most fields outside ofeducation and training, or in everydaylife. In athletics, music, dance, automechanics, commercial cooking, heartsurgery, and most other fields of humanendeavor, there is either an implicit orexplicit time dimension included in thedefinition of mastery. For example, didyou know that surgeons often practicemaking sutures to be sure they can sewup their patients quickly without error onthe operating table?

According to John Wooden, the famousUCLA basketball coach, “Skill, as it per-tains to basketball, is the knowledge andthe ability, quickly and properly, to exe-cute the fundamentals. Being able to dothem is not enough. They must be donequickly. And being able to do themquickly isn’t enough, either. They must bedone quickly and precisely at the sametime. You must learn to react properly,almost instinctively” (1988, p. 87).

This is also true in most other athleticactivities. Merely making the right moveor being able to execute a play correctly isnot sufficient for success. There is alwaysa need for quickness, smoothness, and alack of hesitation—passing the ball, mak-ing the throw on time, ducking and turn-ing simultaneously, twisting in the air

Doesn’t Everybody NeedFluency?by Carl Binder, PhD

while flipping, and so on. Likewise in dance or music, theappropriate pace of a performance is obvious in the expertand painfully absent in the nonexpert. In verbal or cognitivetasks such as entering numbers at a cash register, composingnewspaper articles on deadline, or engaging in effective con-versations with customers, achieving the appropriate pace ofperformance is also a necessary criterion for competence.

As the late Dr. Eric Haughton once remarked, “You can takebehavior out of time, but you can’t take the time out ofbehavior” (personal communication, 1976). In other words,all behavior occurs in time and has a temporal dimensionwhich is an essential part of a complete description of thebehavior itself. A description of behavior without its tem-poral dimension is incomplete and ultimately false.Laypeople recognize competence, in part, when they seebehavior occurring in time with smoothness and snappi-ness, or grace and rhythm. Strangely, however, in educationand training, we’ve come to ignore the pace or speed of per-formance with the mostly unquestioned or unconsciousassumption that it’s not relevant except in special cases.From the perspective of everyday life, this is utterly absurd!

This time-based understanding of competence has implica-tions for how we learn and teach, implications that coachesand performing artists have understood for centuries.Musicians, like athletic coaches, know that mastery of anoverall performance often requires one to achieve quick,smooth execution of smaller segments and components (forexample, riffs, scales, chord changes) in preparation forplaying entire compositions at an appropriate unbrokenrhythm and pace. In a 1997 interview on National PublicRadio, the interviewer asked Ray Charles, “When you prac-tice… do you practice the tunes that you’ll be playing at thenext concert?” Mr. Charles answered, “Oh, no, no, no, no….Ipractice things like scales and chords and movement of myhands and things like that, because…what I’m going to playon stage, I know. What I’m practicing for is…to improvewhat I might play... I mean you gotta keep your fingersloose, you gotta keep your mind active, because …the ques-tion is, what your mind think of, can your fingers play it?”

Bruce Lee, the legendary martial arts and film star, created asystem of training based on elementary components of acomplete fighting capability (Lee & Uyehara, 1977). He andhis students practiced these elements, both in isolation andin combination, to achieve correct form with lightningspeed. Athletes and musicians understand the necessity ofpracticing both behavior components and composites orcombinations in order to achieve smooth, quick, and accu-rate execution. They also recognize that improvisation,whether in athletic activities or in music, depends on theability to quickly and effortlessly execute components innovel combinations, virtually without thinking. The samecan be said of creative performance in more cognitivedomains such as negotiating a deal, solving a complex

algebra problem, or deciding how best to solve a technicalengineering challenge.

Again, training and educational professionals seem toignore these obvious facts of behavior, facts that any child oradult who has taken time to truly master a skill or body ofknowledge understands intuitively and without question.We are trapped in a percentage correct box, blinded by ouryears of exposure to grading systems based solely on accu-racy. The fact is, however, that competence or mastery vir-tually always involves a temporal dimension, and until werecognize that, we’ll be unlikely to design optimally effectiveor efficient learning or performance development programs.

A Summary of Research and Development

Over the last 30 years, I have come to understand fluency asthe true definition of mastery (see Figure 1), based on researchand development that I and a small community of my col-leagues have conducted with a very wide array of populationsand performance domains (Binder, 1996). This section sum-marizes a series of discoveries that we made during the 1970swhile I was a graduate student in Experimental Psychology atHarvard and Associate Director of the Behavior ProsthesisLaboratory. Primary input to that work came from B.F. Skinner(1938), Beatrice Barrett (2002), Eric Haughton (1972), andOgden Lindsley (1964). The stages in this evolution yielded aseries of principles that now comprise what is called fluency-based instruction, or fluency-based performance improvement.

Removing Measurement-Defined Ceilings

At the Behavior Prosthesis Lab during the early 1970s wewere developing programmed instruction for a number ofpopulations, including developmentally disabled childrenand adults. Instructional procedures followed sequences ofsteps in which teachers or machines presented requests,questions, or other prompts to students who thenresponded. We scored accuracy based on counts of correct,incorrect, and skipped responses and summarized perfor-mance with percent-correct calculations. While we paidattention to the duration of teaching sequences for scheduling

Performance Improvement • Volume 42 • Number 3 15

Figure 1. Achieving True Mastery Adds Speed to Accuracy.


purposes, we did not take the time dimension into accountwhen describing student performance. This continues to bethe typical form of evaluation in the field of instructionaltechnology.

An interesting technical point is that researchers and edu-cators who use percent-correct evaluation use the term“overlearning” to describe practice beyond the point wherelearners hit the 100% ceiling. They know from measurestaken hours, days, or weeks after instruction that so-called“overlearning trials” improve retention and transfer of train-ing. But without the time dimension, their percent-correctevaluations during and immediately after instruction can-not detect increases in response probability that result inthese important learning outcomes (see Figure 2).

Because our lab studies had evolved from those of Skinner(1938) and Lindsley (1964), who used rate of response (forexample, count per minute) as their basic measure, BeatriceBarrett recommended we introduce the time dimension intoour instructional measurement procedures. We timed teach-ing sequences and summarized performance as count perminute of correct and incorrect responses. We usedLindsley’s (1999) standard celeration chart to graph perfor-mance and learning across instructional sessions.

This change in measurement methodology had a profoundeffect on our understanding and subsequent research. Weimmediately saw that instructional trials or opportunities torespond were generally occurring at no more than 12 perminute. After we began to time performance, we saw that it ispossible to reduce errors to zero while continuing to acceler-ate the pace of correct responding—to produce accurateresponding that is also quick and nonhesitant (see Figure 3).In other words, we saw that our previous way of evaluatingperformance, where 100% correct formed the “ceiling” of themeasurement system, prevented us from seeing the greatpotential for improving performance that is available for mostskills and knowledge beyond the attainment of 100% accuracy.

It was as though blinders had been removed from our eyeswhen we recognized that percentage correct calculations areutterly insensitive to differences between accurate but hesi-tant performance and accurate but smooth, masterful per-formance. It’s hard to describe the career-changing impactthis had on us personally and as performance scientists! Itwas as though we had been driving without headlights, nav-igating without a compass, or attempting to design airplaneswithout being able to measure wind velocity.

We sampled dozens of different skills and types of knowl-edge in many populations to better understand how countper minute measures sensitively distinguish among levels ofcompetence. We saw countless instances in which percent-age-correct scores could not distinguish between levels ofperformance that were obviously quite different. For exam-ple, while teaching basic components of math, reading, andwriting to a class of institutionalized developmentally dis-abled adolescents and adults, we decided to collect brieftimed samples of performance on these skills from a groupof our colleagues (normal adults) and in a classroom ofyoung elementary school children (see Figure 4). These datashow dramatically how percent correct (they all scored100%) cannot distinguish between the skill levels of peoplewith graduate degrees, young children, and students withsevere developmental disabilities due to brain damage andgenetic defects. Yet percent correct is the almost universallyapplied form of educational evaluation!

After removing what we eventually called “measurement-defined ceilings”—later termed “measurement-defined flu-ency blockers” (Binder, 1990; 1996)—we came tounderstand that unless we include the time dimension inour measurement procedures, we cannot detect the differ-ence between beginner’s level and mastery, and thereforewill almost certainly fail to develop procedures that pro-duce genuine competence.

Removing Teacher-Imposed Ceilings

Our time-based measurement procedures revealed the severerestrictions that our teaching methods and materials had

Figure 2. Percent Correct Imposes a Ceiling on Measurement.

Figure 3. Including the Time Dimension Removes theMeasurement Ceiling.


imposed on learners, which prevented them from movingquickly at their own pace. For example, we were teachingsight vocabulary with programmed instruction that allowedstudents to respond no faster than 12 words per minute,despite the fact that competent oral reading occurs at 200words per minute or faster. We were teaching vocational skillsequences and only measuring whether trainees could per-form steps in the sequences accurately, despite the fact thatin the workshop these assemblies need to occur rapidly to beproductive. We were preventing students in lecture coursesfrom asking questions or giving answers at their own pace byusing procedures that allowed those with 10 or 15 questionsthe same number of opportunities to respond as those withonly one or two. We taught math skills to children, for exam-ple, basic written addition or subtraction, using proceduresthat measured accuracy only and provided too few problemsto perform much more rapidly than 20 problems per minute,while you or I can perform such skills at between 80 and 100correct answers per minute.

This was analogous to teaching people to dribble a basket-ball by having them perform one bounce at a time, or teach-ing the violin by having students only perform isolatednotes. Only after beginning to pay attention to the clock, andto real-time performance requirements, did we see that suchprocedures are ridiculous, that they actually handicaplearners (Barrett, 1979). Our measurement and teachingmethods were preventing students from achieving useful,functional levels of performance.

We spent more than two years focused on designing proce-dures and materials that enabled teachers to get out of the

way of students. We came upwith teaching routines thatallowed and encouraged learn-ers to accelerate to levels ofaccuracy plus speed that wouldensure retention and easefulapplication to more complexskills (Binder, 1996). We figuredout ways for students to prac-tice critical skill and knowledgecomponents at high rates beforerequiring them to combine thecomponents into more complexperformances, much as golferspractice with buckets of ballson a driving range to improvecritical features of their swing.It was all about freeing studentsto learn, practice, and perform.In fact, Barrett summarized ourthinking of that period in aframework that she called “para-meters of pupil freedom” (1979).

The results were breathtaking. We enabled severely retardedlearners to master complex academic, vocational, and self-care skills that they had previously never been able to learn.Our regular education colleagues enabled elementaryschool students to leap 20–40 percentile points in nationaltest scores by adding just 20 to 30 minutes per day of timedmeasurement, practice, and instructional decisionmaking(Beck, 1979; Binder & Watkins, 1990). Removing teacher-imposed ceilings or fluency blockers helped us to under-stand from a more technical or scientific perspectivefeatures of learning and teaching that good trainers in ath-letics and the performing arts have known for centuries.

Removing Deficit-Imposed Ceilings

The final part of this three-stage journey began almost simul-taneously with the removal of teacher-imposed ceilings, andit continues today in our many training and education appli-cations that expand fluency-based instruction. Once we hadremoved our blinders by adding the time dimension toinstructional measurement, enabling us to see how our pro-cedures and materials were limiting performance, we beganto identify performance gaps that nothing we had previouslyunderstood could explain. This step forced us to discard thetraditional model of learning hierarchies in which masteringeach step at an accuracy-only criterion is deemed a sufficientcriterion for advancing up the hierarchy.

Our new understanding came when students were perform-ing accurately, but at count-per-minute levels that were farbelow what we knew they would need to be successful inapplication. For example, in regular classrooms we learned

Figure 4. Count per Minute Ranges of Correct Performance on Basic Component Skills in 30-SecondTimings. Note: There were no errors, so all scores were 100% correct (Reprinted with permission of B.H. Barrett).


that students need to be able to write answers to between 70and 90 simple addition problems per minute in order to beable to successfully and smoothly master arithmetic storyproblems. However, some students seemed to level off ataround 20 or 30 problems per minute, and no amount ofreward or encouragement seemed to help. Some of our col-leagues (Starlin, 1971; Haughton, 1972) decided to checkhow many digits those students could read and write perminute—critical components of writing answers to prob-lems. As you might guess, they were very slow, which helddown their composite performance. With practice of thecomponents on their own to the point of rapid accurate per-formance (for example, reading and writing digits at 100 perminute or more), students were able to progress smoothlytoward competence on solving the written math problems.

We replicated this result with vocational skills, self-careskills, all kinds of academic and intellectual skills, fine andgross motor movements with handicapped people, and laterin such areas as customer service and sales training. The gen-eral finding is that until skill and knowledge componentsachieve criterion levels of both accuracy and speed, it is dif-ficult and sometimes impossible to achieve fluent perfor-mance on combinations of those skills or knowledge. But ifwe provide explicit practice to fluency on the components,acquisition and development of fluent composite skills willoccur with relative ease and often in far shorter time.

As with the other insights, this one brought forth an “Aha!”experience when we looked beyond the confines of our class-rooms. In music, dance, martial arts, sports, and so manyother areas of endeavor, good trainers already know this prin-ciple. Yet in traditional academic classrooms, without themeasurement and procedural methods to detect and supportfluency, and without the identification and isolated practiceof critical components, learners often falter, achieving little orno progress beyond a certain point. In fact, most of us haveexperienced this faltering in mathematics at some point alongthe path from basic counting to advanced calculus. By pur-suing systematic investigation we had in some sense redis-covered, while adding quantitative precision to, teachingwisdom that had existed outside of education for centuries.

Corroboration From Other Fields

After nearly a decade of day-to-day immersion in thisresearch and development with an expanding network ofclassrooms and training centers, we began to scan the learn-ing research literature in other fields to see what corrobo-rating evidence we could find. Our own findings suggestedthat by increasing the speed or pace of performance wellbeyond mere 100% accuracy it was possible to increaseretention and maintenance of skills, improve endurance andattention span, and enable application or combination ofskills into more complex behavior (Binder, 1996). Thesefindings were consistent with observations in everyday life,

but we wanted to see if other researchers and scientists haduncovered similar effects.

Sure enough, a number of unrelated studies in other fieldsyielded consistent findings about the importance of quick-ness and its effects on critical learning outcomes (Binder,1996). More recently, studies of fluency in reading haveshown compatible outcomes (Wolf, 2001), and research inprecision teaching master’s and doctoral studies havecontinued to refine our scientific understanding of theseeffects (Kubina & Morrison, 2000; Bucklin, Dickinson, &Brethower, 2000).

Implications and Applications

While a complete description of what we’ve learned andapplied is beyond the scope of this article, we can summarizeimportant implications of fluency research and develop-ment with a number of key points:• One cannot distinguish between expert and nonexpert

performance without measuring the time dimension. • It is essential to design materials, procedures, user inter-

faces, and other elements of performers’ ergonomic environments to encourage rather than obstruct thedevelopment of fluent performance. If we do not mea-sure the time dimension, we will likely fail to build envi-ronments that support fluency.

• Achieving fluent performance often, if not always,involves the development of fluent component behaviorprior to or at the same time as development of compos-ite behavior. Often the most challenging obstruction tofluency development is simply a lack of opportunity toachieve fluency on critical components before beingexpected to perform well on composite applications.

• It is helpful to view learning as occurring in three stages:initial learning for accuracy or quality; practice for flu-ency and endurance; and application or combination ofcomponents into composite behavior. Many learningprograms fail to produce true mastery because they skipor minimize the second stage and prematurely plungelearners into the third stage before learners are able toperform one or more critical components fluently. Thecommon dissatisfaction with and relative ineffectivenessof role plays in corporate training is a good example ofthis failure.

• Perhaps the single greatest potential for improving thereturn on investment of any learning or performancedevelopment program is to allocate more time to practiceon fundamentals or critical components prior to requiringapplication or transfer to new or more complex perfor-mance requirements. This can usually be offset by trim-ming the scope of programs based on careful front-endanalysis, allocating less time to initial learning, and mini-mizing the time required for application by ensuring flu-ency in critical components as a prerequisite. The revisedprogram is almost always significantly more cost effective.

Most of my professional career has been devoted to workingwith colleagues to expand the range of examples in whichfluency-based methods have been shown to produce dra-matic results. In the 1970s we demonstrated with handi-capped and regular students, both children and adults, thatachieving fluent performance through systematic, timed,and charted daily practice on behavior components couldproduce huge gains in achievement test scores as well as inpractical, everyday applications (Haughton, 1972; Beck,1979; Binder & Watkins, 1990).

During the 1980s and 1990s, we added adult literacy educa-tion (Johnson & Layng, 1992) and professional sales knowl-edge training (Binder & Bloom, 1989), producingunprecedented gains in personal and professional perfor-mance. In recent years we’ve shown that new hire develop-ment in call centers and software application training usingfluency-based learning and coaching methods can acceler-ate performance ramp-up and produce levels of productiv-ity far beyond those yielded by conventional trainingapproaches, sometimes in less time (Binder, 1987; Binder &Sweeney, 2002).

After years of using the term fluency to refer to that combi-nation of accuracy plus speed that characterizes competentperformance, I’ve found that most people readily under-stand and adopt the term based on a prior familiarity withfluency in foreign language speaking. They recognize thatbeing good at something nearly always includes both qual-ity (accuracy) and pace (speed). This intuitive acceptance isa primary reason that we have continued to use our partic-ular “f word” for so many years.

While there are many more populations and per-formance objectives to be addressed with flu-ency-based methods, our general conclusionsseem clear from research, from practical applica-tion, and perhaps most importantly from every-day experience outside education and trainingenvironments. It seems clear that everybodyneeds fluency, no matter what their personal orprofessional endeavor, because fluency is thetrue definition of mastery or competence. We’veseen that programs that do not measure andexplicitly aim to produce fluent performance fallfar short of optimal learning success and oftenfail to produce lasting, useful outcomes.

As we continue to demonstrate effectivenessand to communicate about fluency in plainlanguage to an ever-wider audience, it is ourintention to make available the unprece-dented gains that are possible with fluency-based methods to an increasing number ofchildren, families, and groups of productiveadults throughout the world.

NOTE: This article is a preview of the book EverybodyNeeds Fluency.

References

Barrett, B.H. (1979). Communitization and the measuredmessage of normal behavior. In R. York & E. Edgar (Eds.),Teaching the severely handicapped (Vol. 4, pp. 301-318).Columbus, OH: Special Press.

Barrett, B.H. (2002). The technology of teaching revisited:A reader’s companion to B.F. Skinner’s book. Cambridge,MA: Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies.

Beck, R. (1979). Report for the Office of Education jointdissemination review panel. Great Falls, MT: PrecisionTeaching Project.

Binder, C. (1987, September). Computing fluency and productivity. Managing End-User Computing, 4-5.

Binder, C. (1990a, September). Closing the confidence gap.Training, 49-56.

Binder, C. (1996). Behavioral fluency: Evolution of a newparadigm. The Behavior Analyst, 19(2), 163-197.

Binder, C., & Bloom, C. (1989, February). Fluent productknowledge: Application in the financial services industry.Performance and Instruction, 17-21.

Binder, C., & Sweeney, L. (2002). Building fluent perfor-mance in a customer call center. PerformanceImprovement, 41(2), 29-37.

Binder, C., & Watkins, C.L. (1990). Precision teaching and directinstruction: Measurably superior instructional technologyin schools. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 3(4), 74-96.


We improve performancein an international context

We help you createinternational business alliances

We train people to develop their intercultural competence

Lead Tomorrow NowUsing Interactivity and Emotional Intelligence

to Lead Performance Improvement in Multicultural Contexts

Half-Day Workshop in Boston, April 12, 1:30 pm - 5:30 pmMore information and registration at www.adph-international.com

[email protected] Bordeaux Cheltenham Osnabrück Washington D. C.

Dr. Carl Binder is a Partner in Binder RihaAssociates, a performance consulting firm in SantaRosa, California. He is best known for research inbehavioral fluency and development of theFluencyBuilding™ performance improvementmethodology, and for contributions in knowledge

management for sales and marketing organizations, performance measure-ment, and promotion of effective instructional methods for children. Since1972 he has consulted with scores of Global 2000 and fast growth companiesas well as educational and human service agencies. A long-time contributor tothe International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI), he has authoredseveral dozen articles and chapters in scientific, educational, professional, andbusiness publications, served on numerous ISPI committees, and deliveredseven ISPI Encore Presentations and one previous ISPI Master’s Series session.

Carl is passionate about the practical and cultural implications of shift-ing our understanding of mastery from accuracy-only to fluency, and hebelieves that this paradigm shift offers enormous potential for reversing ourgrowing educational crisis. Carl has devoted most of his professional careerto developing and communicating about fluency-based instruction and is cur-rently working on a plain-English book called Everybody Needs Fluency, to bepublished by Sopris West Educational Services in mid-2003. He may bereached at [email protected], and you can download many of the sourcesreferenced in this article at www.Binder-Riha.com/publications.htm.


MASTER SERIESMasters StatementMasters StatementWhat defines your mastery?

Two things define my mastery. First, I was fortunate tohave world-class teachers and mentors, including B.F.Skinner, Beatrice Barrett, Eric Haughton, OgdenLindsley, and Tom Gilbert. Second, I’ve followed thedata, often in surprising directions. Because my men-tors gave me powerful and sensitive tools for measur-ing behavior and its outputs, I’ve been able to collectand make data-based decisions that guide my researchand application. If you seek out great teachers and payattention to the data, you will inevitably be able tomake important and satisfying contributions.

Bucklin, B.R., Dickinson, A.M., & Brethower, D.M. (2000).A comparison of the effects of fluency training and accu-racy training on application and retention. PerformanceImprovement Quarterly, 13(3), 140-163.

Charles, R. (1997, September 23). Interview on the 50th

anniversary of his recording career. National Public Radio.

Haughton, E.C. (1972). Aims: Growing and sharing. In J. B.Jordan & L.S. Robbins (Eds.), Let’s try doing something elsekind of thing (pp. 20-39). Arlington, VA: Council onExceptional Children.

Johnson, K.R., & Layng, T.V.J. (1992). Breaking the struc-turalist barrier: Literacy and numeracy with fluency.American Psychologist, 47, 1475-1490.

Kubina, R.M., and Morrison, R.S. (2000). Fluency in education. Behavior and Social Issues, 10, 83-99

Lee, B., & Uyehara, M. (1977). Bruce Lee’s fighting method:Basic training. Santa Clarita, CA: Ohara Publications, Inc.

Lindsley, O.R. (1964). Direct measurement and prosthesisof retarded behavior. Journal of Education, 147, 62-81.

Lindsley, O.R. (1999). From training evaluation to perfor-mance tracking. In H.D. Stolovitch & E.J. Keeps (Eds.),Handbook of human performance technology (2nd ed., pp. 210-236). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Skinner, B.F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experi-mental analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Starlin, C. (1971). Evaluating progress toward reading proficiency. In B. Bateman (Ed.), Learning disorders(Vol. 4: Reading). Seattle, WA: Special Child Publications.

Wolf, M. (Ed.). (2001). Dyslexia, fluency and the brain.Timonium, MD: York Press, Inc.

Wooden, J. (1988). They call me coach. Chicago:Contemporary Books.

Are you in the business of improving human performance? Do you want to receive cutting-edge research and information?

Should you sign up for a subscription to Performance Improvement Quarterly?

Discounted rates available to ISPI members.Call today 301.587.8570 to start your subscription to PIQ.

The answer is,YES!

Carl Binder, Ph.D. - Veriobinde1.verio.com/.../Binder2003RemovingCeilings.pdf · Binder Riha...

Documents

Transcript of Carl Binder, Ph.D. - Veriobinde1.verio.com/.../Binder2003RemovingCeilings.pdf · Binder Riha...