Advertisement

Behavior and Social Issues

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 83–99 | Cite as

Fluency in Education

  • Richard M. KubinaJr.Email author
  • Rebecca S. Morrison
Article

Abstract

Critics of the United States educational system point out many contemporary problems and offer solutions based on what they perceive as the fundamental issues. How teachers measure student progress and define mastery rarely receive attention. The use of standard units of measurement and a standard graphical display have allowed Precision Teachers to uncover important features of learning. One such discovery, performance standards, has demonstrated that students can retain skills over significant amounts of time, perform at high rates with little performance decrement, and apply “element” skills to more sophisticated “compound” skills. Performance standards discovered by Precision Teachers allow a behavioral determination of fluency, or mastery. The recognition of Precision Teaching methods and results in regard to measuring behavior and determining mastery contributes to one of the most significant social issues in American society, education. Key words: Precision Teaching, frequency, performance standards, fluency.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alford, R. (1998, August 16). No diplomas for 11,000 who failed test. The Columbus Dispatch, pp. 1D-2D.Google Scholar
  2. Barrett, B. (1979). Communitization and the measured message of normal behavior. In R. York & E. Edgar (Eds.), Teaching the Severely Handicapped (Vol. 4, pp. 301–318). Columbus, OH: Special Press.Google Scholar
  3. Beaton, A., Martin, M., Mulls, I., Gonzalez, E., Smith, T., & Kelley, D. (1996a). Science achievement in the middle school years: IEA’s Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS International Study Center, Boston College.Google Scholar
  4. Beaton, A., Martin, M., Mulls, I., Gonzalez, E., Smith, T., & Kelley, D. (1996b). Mathematics achievement in the middle school years: IEA’s Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS International Study Center, Boston College.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, R., & Clement, R. (1991). The Great Falls Precision Teaching Project: A historical examination. Journal of Precision Teaching, 8(2), 8–12.Google Scholar
  6. Berquam, S. (1981). The relation between frequency of response and retention on a paired-associate task. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida.Google Scholar
  7. Binder, C. (1984). The effects of explicit timing and performance duration on academic performance in elementary school children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia Pacific University.Google Scholar
  8. Binder, C. (1988). Precision teaching: Measuring and attaining exemplary academic achievement. Youth Policy, 10(7), 12–15.Google Scholar
  9. Binder, C. (1993, October). Behavioral fluency: A new paradigm. Educational Technology, 8–14.Google Scholar
  10. Binder, C. (1996). Behavioral fluency: Evolution of a new paradigm. The Behavior Analyst, 19, 163–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Binder, C., Haughton, E., & Van Eyk, D. (1990). Increasing endurance by building fluency: Precision teaching attention span. Teaching Exceptional Children, 22(3), 24–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Binder, C., & Watkins, C. L. (1989). Promoting effective instructional methods: Solutions to America’s educational crisis. Future Choices, 1(3), 33–39.Google Scholar
  13. Block, J. H. (1970). The effects of various levels of performance on selected cognitive, objective, and time variables. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  14. Block, J. H. (1972). Student learning and the setting of mastery performance standards. Educational Horizons, 50, 183–191.Google Scholar
  15. Block, J. H., & Anderson, L. W. (1975). Mastery learning in classroom instruction. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  16. Bloom, B. S. (1971). Affective consequences of school achievement. In J. Block (Ed.), Mastery learning: Theory and practice (pp. 13–28). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  17. Bloom, B. S. (1973). Recent developments in mastery learning. Educational Psychologist, 10, 204–221.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461527309529091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  19. Bloom, B. S. (1986, February). The hands and feet of genius: Automaticity. Educational Leadership, 70–77.Google Scholar
  20. Bourie, C. (1980). Micro-sessions. Data-Sharing Newsletter, 28, 2.Google Scholar
  21. Bullara, D. T., Kimball, J. W., & Cooper, J. O. (1993). An assessment of beginning addition skills following three months without instruction or practice. Journal of r, 11, 11–16.Google Scholar
  22. Calkin, A. B. (2000, February). Chart Count. [Message to SClistserv]. Available archive: https://doi.org/lists.psu.edu/archives/sclistserv.html
  23. Carnine, D. (1995). The professional context for collaboration and collaborative research. Remedial and Special Education, 16(6), 368–371.  https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259501600607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Crowson, R., Boyd, W. L., & Mawhinney, H. B. (1996). The politics of education and the new institutionalism. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  25. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). School reform at the crossroads: Confronting the central issues of teaching. Educational Policy, 11(2), 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Desjardins, A. (1981). On endurance and ten-second timings. Data-Sharing Newsletter, 34, 3.Google Scholar
  27. Dougherty, K. M., & Johnston, J. M. (1996). Overlearning, fluency, and automaticity. The Behavior Analyst, 19(2), 289–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ebbinghaus, H. (1913). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology (H. A. Ruger & C. E. Bussenius, Trans.). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. (Original work published 1885)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Freeman, G., & Haughton, E. (1993a). Building reading fluency across the curriculum. Journal of Precision Teaching, 10, 29–30.  https://doi.org/10.1300/J060v03n03_05Google Scholar
  31. Freeman, G., & Haughton, E. (1993b). Handwriting fluency. Journal of Precision Teaching, 10, 31–32.Google Scholar
  32. Guskey, T. R. (1985). Implementing mastery learning. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  33. Guskey, T. R., & Gates, S. L. (1986). Synthesis of research on the effects of mastery learning in elementary and secondary classrooms. Educational Leadership, 43(6), 73–80.Google Scholar
  34. Guskey, T. R., & Pigott, T. D. (1988). Research on group-based mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Educational Research, 81, 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harris, A. J. (1970). How to increase reading ability (5th ed.). New York: McKay.Google Scholar
  36. Haughton, E. C. (1972). Aims: Growing and sharing. In J. B. Jordan & L. S. Robbins (Eds.), Let’s try doing something else kind of thing (pp. 20–39). Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.Google Scholar
  37. Haughton, E. C. (1980). Practicing practices: Learning by activity. Journal of Precision Teaching, 1, 3–20.Google Scholar
  38. Haughton, E. C. (1982). Considering standards. Journal of Precision Teaching, 3, 75–77.Google Scholar
  39. Hodgkinson, H. (1991). Reform versus reality. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 9–16.Google Scholar
  40. Hudson, M. B., & Penta, M. Q. (1998). Developing alternative assessment success. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 34(4), 138–143.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.1998.10518752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Johnson, K. R. (1996). Morningside mathematics fluency: Math facts (3rd ed.). Seattle, WA: Morningside Press.Google Scholar
  42. Johnson, K. R., & Layng, T. V. J. (1992). Breaking the structuralist barrier: Literacy and numeracy with fluency. American Psychologist, 47, 1475–1490.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.11.1475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Johnson, K. R., & Layng, T. V. J. (1994). The Morningside model of generative instruction. In R. Gardner, D. Sainato, J. Cooper, T. Heron, W. Heward, J. Eshleman, & T. Grossi (Eds.), Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction (pp. 173–197). Belmont, CA: Brooks-Cole.Google Scholar
  44. Johnson, K. R., & Layng, T. V. J. (1996). On terms and procedures: Fluency. The Behavior Analyst, 19(2), 281–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Johnston, J. M., & Pennypacker, H. S. (1993). Strategies and tactics of behavioral research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Kelley, R. L. (1995). A functional analysis of the effects of mastery and fluency on maintenance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, New York.Google Scholar
  47. Knight, D. F. (1985). The curriculum referenced tests of mastery. Journal of Reading, 29(2), 144–147.Google Scholar
  48. Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1990). Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 60(2), 265–299.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060002265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lindsley, O. R. (1972). From Skinner to precision teaching: Teaching the child knows best. In J. B. Jordan & L. S. Robbins (Eds.), Let’s try doing something else kind of thing (pp. 1–11). Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.Google Scholar
  51. Lindsley, O. R. (1990). Precision teaching: By teachers for children. Teaching Exceptional Children, 22(3), 10–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lindsley, O. R. (1992). Precision teaching: Discoveries and effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 51–57.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1992.25-51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lindsley, O. R. (1993). Our discoveries over 28 years. Journal of Precision Teaching, 10, 11–13.Google Scholar
  54. Lindsley, O. R. (1995). Ten products of fluency. Journal of Precision Teaching and Celeration, 13, 2–11.Google Scholar
  55. Lindsley, O. R. (1996). Is fluency free-operant response-response chaining? The Behavior Analyst, 19(2), 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Linn, R. L., Burton, E. (1994). Performance-based assessment: Implications of task specificity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13, 5–15.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1994.tb00778.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Maloney, M. (1998). Teach your children well: A solution to some of North America’s educational problems. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies.Google Scholar
  58. McEwan, E. K. (1998). Angry parents, failing schools: What’s wrong with public schools and what you can do about it. Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw.Google Scholar
  59. McGreevy, P. (1983). Teaching and learning in plain English (2nd ed.). Kansas City, MO: Plain English Publications.Google Scholar
  60. Mercer, C. D., Mercer, A. R., & Evans, S. (1982). The use of frequency in establishing instructional aims. Journal of Precision Teaching, 3(3), 57–63.Google Scholar
  61. National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  62. Olander, C. P., Collins, D. L., McArthur, B. L., Watts, R. O., & McDade, C. E. (1986). Retention among college students: A comparison of traditional versus precision teaching. Journal of Precision Teaching, 6(4), 80–82.Google Scholar
  63. Pennypacker, H. S., Koenig, C. H., & Lindsley, O. R. (1972). Handbook of the standard celeration chart. Kansas City, MO: Precision Media.Google Scholar
  64. Pogrow, S. (1996). Reforming the wannabe reformers. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 656–663.Google Scholar
  65. Potts, L., Eshleman, J. W., & Cooper, J. O. (1993). Ogden R. Lindsley and the historical development of precision teaching. The Behavior Analyst, 16(2), 177–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ritseman, S. K., Malanga, P. R., Seevers, R. L., & Cooper, J. O. (1996). Immediate retelling of current events from Channel One by students with developmental disabilities and its effect on their delayed retelling. Journal of Precision Teaching, 14, 18–34.Google Scholar
  67. Schreiber, P. A. (1991). Understanding prosody’s role in reading acquisition. Theory Into Practice, 30(3), 158–164.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849109543496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shirley, M. J., & Pennypacker, H. S. (1994). The effects of performance criteria on learning and retention of spelling words. Journal of Precision Teaching, 12, 73–86.Google Scholar
  69. Snyder, G. (1992). Morningside Academy: A learning guarantee. Performance Management Magazine, 10, 29–35.Google Scholar
  70. West, R. P., & Young, K. R. (1992). Precision teaching. In R. P. West & L. A. Hamerlynck (Eds.), Designs for excellence in education: The legacy of B. F. Skinner (pp. 113–146). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.Google Scholar
  71. West, R. P., Young, K. R., & Spooner, F. (1995). Precision teaching: An introduction. Journal of Precision Teaching, 12(2), 2–8.Google Scholar
  72. White, O. R. (1986). Precision teaching-Precision learning. Exceptional Children, 52(6), 522–534.Google Scholar
  73. White, O. R., & Haring, N. G. (1980). Exceptional teaching (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
  74. Wood, S., Burke, L., Kunzelmann, H., & Koenig, C. (1978). Functional criteria in basic math skill proficiency. Journal of Special Education Technology, 2(2), 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zutell, J., & Rasinski, T. V. (1991). Training teachers to attend to their student’s oral reading fluency. Theory Into Practice, 30(3), 211–217.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849109543502CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational and School Psychology and Special EducationThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.The Ohio State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations