Over the years there have been discrepancies on how to define learning disability (LD). The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD) defined learning disability in 1990 and it was later updated. The National Joint Commission on Learning Disabilities provided the current definition as,

Learning disability is a general term that refers to a heterogeneous group of disorders manifested by significant difficulties in the acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, or mathematical abilities. These disorders are intrinsic to the individual, presumed to be due to central nervous system dysfunction, and may occur across the life span. Problems in self-regulatory behaviors, social perception, and social interaction may exist with learning disabilities but do not by themselves constitute a learning disability. Although learning disabilities may occur concomitantly with other handicapping conditions (for example, sensory impairment, mental retardation, serious emotional disturbance), or with extrinsic influences (such as cultural differences, insufficient or inappropriate instruction), they are not the result of those conditions or influences.  (National Joint Commission on Learning Disabilities, n.d.)

This is a lengthy and complex definition and one that is not agreed upon. This disconnect lends itself toward misconceptions. To assist in understanding learning disabilities, the National Association of Special Education Teachers (NASET) in its online article, Introduction to Learning Disabilities, (2018/2019) lists eight myths that surround this disorder.

The eight myths are paraphrased here and relate to student intelligence, student motivation, as being dyslexic only, as being a childhood affliction only, it effects more boys than girls, it is diagnosed in early grades, it only effects academic progress and it denies student success in college.

In fact, for those students having learning disabilities, these myths are all unfounded. To begin, having a learning disability does not diminish a student’s intelligence and the reality is that many students are above average intellectually and may also be gifted.

It is important to diagnose children early to put them on a path to success. Students not professionally identified in their early years may be told they are lazy and unmotivated to learn. This stigma can stay with them into adulthood and effect their confidence throughout a lifetime, academically and emotionally, effecting every part of their life.

Over the years, adults may have learned to cope with their learning disabilities, but science shows they do not out-grow them. There is no LD fix but there are strategies that enhance their learning processes. However, through early intervention, coping skills can be developed that may help students to succeed in life, including earning a college degree, improving interactions in the workplace and in their personal life. There are many types of learning disabilities but dyslexia may be the one most recognized.

Lastly, while some studies state that there appears to be more boys than girls affected by learning disabilities, other studies refute that information and state both boys and girls are about equally effected.

As stated above, to achieve the best possible outcome for success, it is important that learning disabilities be identified early and have a timely presentation of interventions. It is known learning disabilities are neurobiological in origin and don’t affect the ability to learn but they do affect the way the brain processes information. Think of it as a road map. For individuals with neurotypical learning functions, they find the direct path to their destination – individuals with learning disabilities see the map but take the route with a few more twists and turns. While people with learning disabilities are capable of ending at the same destination, they take a different path.

The Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University in their article, Building the Brain’s “Air Traffic Control” System: How Early Experiences Shape the Development of Executive Function…, has compared the brain with the similar actions of a highly effective air traffic control center system. It means “being able to focus, hold, and work with information in mind, filter distractions, and switch gears… like having an air traffic control system at a busy airport to manage arrivals and departures of dozens of planes on multiple runways” (2011, p.1). The good news is that individuals are able to learn these functions as they are not born with them.

In an accompanying flyer to the 2011 Harvard report titled Executive Function: Skills for Life and Learning (n.d.), it is suggested that once the child is in the educational system more often than not, it is their teacher who is the first to recognize difficulties. Some of the issues that teachers are inclined to notice is the inability for students to have impulse control, not being able to focus attention and follow directions plus exhibiting the lack of organizational skills. There are consequences when these problems are mislabeled. Too often they are deemed to be “bad behavior.” When misplaced labels are given it can lead to “a highly disrupted classroom, preventable expulsions, or the inappropriate use of psychotropic medications” (Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University, n.d.).

Generally, people are not familiar with the principles of behavior analysis unless they are professionally involved with it. They are unaware how it is used and what achievements may result from its use. Some may also believe that it is only used among the Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) population, which is partly true. Behavior analysis has become a great intervention for working with individuals on the ASD spectrum and is becoming more widely known among those who have direct relationships with that population. However, behavior analysis can also be used for many different types of venues, including criminal justice, sports, organization management and animal training.

The focus of this paper is the use of behavioral analysis as it pertains to Precision Teaching to help individuals with learning disabilities. Precision Teaching is a behavioral analysis strategy system that measures student learning progress but does not disrupt instructor teaching methods or curriculum. This research will provide the history of Precision Teaching, highlight how it is used, and showcase the entire package that leans on self-monitoring to achieve goals leading to student success. Using data collection and charting, it will highlight learning in a new and different way, one that is individualized for the child’s unique learning style.

In the late 1960’s the father of Precision Teaching, Ogden Lindsley, discovered that using the “clearest terms were the most basic plain English words” (1991a, p.450).  The plain English descriptions were more to the point and less confusing than when using technical jargon. As humans, we are fluent listeners and speakers of the basic words that Lindsley discussed. These are words that have been used most often and in doing so they make us feel comfortable.  It makes sense then, when working with individuals with learning disabilities, parents and professionals choose to use common, simple terms of plain English that benefit everyone.

While this paper is meant to discover and explain behavior analysis in terms of its use with Precision Teaching, it could easily be written using technical jargon. However, this paper follows the example that Lindsley developed which includes using plain understandable language to be accessible to anyone who wants to learn from it. Learning should never be a chore, but yet it is for many people with learning disabilities. In this research, the writing will include a balance of using technical terminology and plain English. In agreement with Lindsley, in using common wording “we instantly know their meanings without having to think about them” (1991a, p.450).

Historical Overview

Learning Disabilities

The term learning disabilities is familiar to many people; however, they may not understand how learning disabilities truly affect those who carry this label. In the 2014 National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD) comprehensive report, The State of Learning Disabilities, it was estimated that “in the U.S., 1.7 percent of the population reports having a learning disability, totaling 4.6 Americans” (Cortiella, C. & Horowitz, S. H., p. 25). While the number of Americans afflicted with this disorder is large, it is also estimated that many other individuals never become aware that learning disabilities are at the root of their lifelong difficulties.

Learning disabilities are with the individual throughout their lifetime, but recent research has discovered that the brain can change or become rewired through the process identified as neuroplasticity. Sheldon H. Horowitz, stated, “learning disabilities are not a prescription for failure. With the right kinds of instruction, guidance and support, there are no limits to what individuals with LD can achieve” (Cortiella, C. & Horowitz, S. H., 2014, p. 3). The hope is that this research expands the literature regarding learning disabilities and adds value to those who are also researching it.

There is no universal definition of learning disabilities. In a report dated 2018/2019, according to the National Association of Special Education Teachers (NASET), the term itself “learning disabilities” was first used on April 6, 1963 by Samuel A. Kirk who was speaking at the Chicago conference on Exploration into Problems of the Perpetually Handicapped Child. To highlight its complexities, several organizations provide information to confirm that no professional definition currently exists. The National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD) stated that “reading, math, written expression” are most affected by this disorder (2014, p. 3). However, the Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA) wrote that learning disabilities interfere with skills such as “organization, time planning, abstract reasoning, long or short-term memory and attention” (n.d., p. 1). These statements are somewhat different from how the National Joint Commission of Learning Disabilities (n.d.) described learning disabilities saying that learning disabilities effect skills related to “listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning or mathematical abilities” (n.d.). While some of these descriptive terms overlap, NASET further stated that “there is no clear and widely accepted definition of learning disabilities. Because of the multidisciplinary nature of the field, there is an ongoing debate on the issue of definition, and currently at least twelve definitions appear in the professional literature” (National Association of Special Education Teachers, 2018/2019, p.1).

While the term now seems to be widely known, it was only starting to be discovered a little over a century ago. In 1877, neurologist Adolf Kussmual from Germany used the term “word blindness” to describe individuals who had the ability of full sight, intellectual speech but were unable to comprehend the information they were reading. In the 1963 Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, Hinshelwood (as cited in Ingram, 1963) stated that word blindness was “a congenital defect occurring in children with otherwise normal and undamaged brains, characterized by a disability in learning to read so great that it is manifestly due to a pathological condition and where the attempts to teach the child by ordinary methods have completely failed” (p. 199).

It was not until 1905 that the United States (U.S.) first published a report addressing childhood reading problems. This publication shed light on learning disabilities and led the way for further understanding of the disorder. The term learning disabilities has now been introduced to the public so professionals, parents and students have a name for the academic difficulties learning disabilities cause. It wasn’t until 1969, however, that services became available for individuals conflicted with a learning disability through the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. The 1969 new Specific Learning Disabilities ACT mandated that the federal law must provide students with learning disabilities support services. Today learning disabilities are still supported by the federal government and have evolved into the practice that school educators have the authority to identify students that have learning disabilities and make recommendations that concern these students and their parents.

Strides have been made to secure support for individuals with learning disabilities and over the year’s researches have been studying possible causes of this disorder. LD Online timeline reported that in 1996 Dr. Guinevere Eden and her colleagues from the National Institute of Mental Health conducted a study in which a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan was used to map out regions of the brain. Based on the MRI results, researchers learned that the brain acts in a different manner with individuals having dyslexia (LD Online, 2006, p.1). This historical research has been vital to better understanding the workings of the brain. Additionally, the LD Online timeline reported that in 2005 Dr. Jeffery Gruen and his team of researchers identified a gene that portrayed patterns and variations that were strongly associated with dyslexia (LD Online, 2006, p. 2). With a better understanding of how the brain is directly correlated to learning disabilities, researchers can find the best approaches to helping those with a learning disability.

This study intends to introduce Precision Teaching as a teaching strategy to improve student success for those who have learning disabilities.

Precision Teaching

In 2018, Evans provided a definition of Precision Teaching as “a system for precisely defining and continuously measuring dimensional features of behavior, and graphing and analyzing behavioral data on the Standard Celeration Chart (SCC) to make timely and effective data-based decisions to improve behavior.” She emphasized that Precision Teaching can be misunderstood and may be confused for being a program, a method of teaching or even a curriculum. But it is not any of these. It is a system that has been used to change behaviors including “teaching a learner diagnosed with autism to communicate, to training athletes and surgeons” (Evans, 2018).

Precision Teaching (PT) originated in 1964 when Ogden Lindsley first applied the principles of functional behaviorism analysis with the use of count per minute measurement (Binder, 1990). Lindsley’s background included that he was a decorated veteran of World War II serving the Air Force from 1942-1945 and he later earned an A. B. (Latin for B. A.) degree in Psychology and a Master’s Degree in Experimental Psychology from Brown University. Lindsley later enrolled at Harvard University to pursue a Ph.D. in Psychology. During that time, he was approached by B. F. Skinner about accepting a graduate teaching assistantship in Skinner’s course, Natural Science. The exposure to Natural Science taught Lindsley about the influence of behavior shaping and impacted him to use behavior analysis principles in his study of psychology. During that time, Skinner was Lindsley’s major advisor (Potts, L, Eshleman, J. W., Cooper, J. O., 1993). Lindsley eventually became the director of the Behavioral Research Laboratory at Harvard Medical School and held that position from 1953-1956. While working in the lab at Harvard, Lindsley analyzed the behavior of those who were diagnosed with schizophrenia. This has widely been identified as the first human operant laboratory. By 1965 Lindsley began to shift his interest from laboratory work to that of training teachers in special education. It was about that time when Lindsley coined the term we know today as behavior therapy.

Ogden Lindsley, however, is known best for his contributions in Precision Teaching. Precision Teaching is rooted in free-operant conditioning meaning “students are free to respond at their own pace without having restraints placed on them by the limits of the materials or the instructional procedures to the teachers” (Lindsley, 1990, p. 10). At that time, Lindsley was successful in using specific methods to change the behaviors of children and adults who were psychotic. Lindsley wanted to expand his findings to be used in the school setting to help students who displayed difficulty in learning (Potts et al., 1993). His research showed “frequency to be 10 to 100 times more sensitive than percentage correct in recording the effects of drugs and different reinforcers” (Lindsley, 1990, p.10). During that time researchers were typically using percentages to interpret their outcomes regarding the academic behaviors of school children. To reinforce his discovery, Lindsley invited educators to observe his lab hoping to convince them that for increased accuracy, they should use frequency of response as part of their evaluation. Lindsley’s work was now totally focused on special education teaching and training.

Skinner came to believe there was a new way of understanding a person’s psychological state and that both behavior and the environment contributed to it. Skinner also began to focus on three new ideas to improve measuring and evaluating student progress. These ideas will be mentioned briefly here and explained in more detail in the discussion of the theoretical underpinnings of this research. The first idea was the development and use of the Standard Celeration Chart that would measure student progress correctly. Next, for accuracy, was to show others how to properly chart observed behaviors on the Standard Celeration Chart. Then finally, was the task of how to teach educators to adopt the use of plain English when using Precision Teaching methodologies (Potts et al., 1993).

Precision Teaching as a science has contributed to influential discoveries about human behavior. Precision Teaching has also brought forth practical means to use it in the classroom for assessing performance and learning changes (Potts et al., 1993). While Lindsley claims to not have developed Precision Teaching, he writes, “it would be accurate to say that I founded and coached it” (Lindsley, 1990, p. 10). Today it is the practice that professionals who use Precision Teaching strategies have a background in learning disabilities and specialized training in how to use Precision Teaching strategies accurately.

Theoretical Underpinning

Behaviorism

The theoretical underpinning of this research is behaviorism and Precision Teaching. The founding fathers of behaviorism were Ivan Pavlov, John B. Watson, and B. F Skinner. They took a new approach within psychology that human behavior could be researched in a scientific manner. The New World Encyclopedia (n.d.) explained that this revised approach expanded the theories of learning to include results based entirely on reactions to stimuli in the environment using the process of conditioning. This was a significant turning point in psychology as a scientific discipline. The new discovery led to extensive research in comparative psychology and experimental psychology providing valuable data on how both animals and humans learn appropriate responses to their external environment.

While defining behaviorism, Skinner wrote, “behaviorism is not the science of behavior; it is the philosophy of that science” (1974, p. 208). Behaviorism is objective rather than subjective. Merriam-Webster defines objective as “expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudice, or interpretations” (n.d.). Behaviorism analyzes behavior at a detailed and necessary sequential level emphasizing observability (Moore, J., 2011).

Subgroups of Behaviorism

In reflecting on the historical information in this research, it is evident that new ideas or concepts grew from previous work. With that understanding, theories that grew through the past works on behaviorism include radical behaviorism, methodological behaviorism and operant conditioning. They will briefly be discussed here because being informed about the various perspectives regarding private events, public events and observation requirements is important to understanding Precision Teaching and how the total person is being evaluated.

B. F. Skinner created the subgroup of behaviorism known as radical behaviorism. The philosophy built around radical behaviorism is to acknowledge the processes on which events are based upon (Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L, 2007, p. 13.) According to Skinner, behavior is an event that can be observed and that private (inner) events and public events are to be considered. Skinner believed that behaviorism in its own right names the portion of functioning within an organism that includes interactions with its environment (Moore, 2011). Skinner made three assumptions regarding radical behaviorism. First, Skinner believed that one’s inner behavior, such as thoughts and feeling are in fact, a behavior. Second, Skinner made the assumption that “behavior that takes place within the skin is distinguished from other ‘public’ behavior only by its inaccessibility” (Cooper et al., 2007). Lastly, Skinner stated that private behaviors were influenced by the identical variables as publicly accessible behavior (Cooper et al., 2007). Each behavior is to be observable by an independent observer.

Radical behaviorism relies on the perspective that knowledge is a behavior, not just a logical phenomenon, and is to be understood in terms of contingencies (Moore, 1995b). Skinner’s radical behaviorism demonstrated a relationship between behavior and the environment. As noted earlier, Skinner uncovered that the environment was influential to behavior. His theory included that private events could become public events. This concept is important in regards to Precision Teaching as both types of behavior are to be considered.

In opposition to radical behaviorism, methodological behaviorism was introduced by John B. Watson. Watson’s theory did not include introspective methods (inner events). He believed that only public events could be observed and were, therefore valid. Calkin (2003) shared that methodological behaviorism required there to be two independent observers to substantiate an event.

Finally, another subgroup of behaviorism is operant conditioning, also developed by Skinner. Much of this research was not done using humans, but animals. Vargas (2003) reminds the reader that operant conditioning uses reinforcement or punishment to change behavior. It does not address private and public behavior. In many cases, the reward for improved behavior may be candy. Opposition to operant conditioning included that animals and humans are so different that the results of the animal experiments may not transfer into human behavior.

Precision Teaching then, attempts to translate tasks into a behavior that can be observed. Understanding the basic differences in these subgroups will assist the researcher in being more informed. It’s important to recognize that these differences play an important role to understanding behavior associated with Precision Teaching.

Precision Teaching

Precision Teaching (PT) is a system used to assist children and young adults to be successful learners. Much like radical behaviorism, Chiesa (1994) stated Precision Teaching used an inductive approach instead of approaching research from a deductive stance of proving a hypothesis. The research is founded on the collection of thousands of instances of a specific behavior. Often as data is collected it justifies a successful intervention. This means the “probability diminishes that one instance will be different from the rest and that the inductive, radical behavior approach is erroneous” (Calkin, 2003, p. 87). Like radical behaviorism, Precision Teaching leans toward directly observable behaviors by an independent observer. Lindsley (1992, p. 51) explained that Precision Teaching funnels down to “basing educational decisions on changes in continuous self-monitored performance frequencies displayed on standard celeration charts.” Precision Teaching is not a true method of instruction but is seen more as a precise and systematic approach in which it evaluates instructional tactics and curricula. White (1986) wrote that it is not the goal of Precision Teaching to dictate what should be taught or even how instruction should proceed. It is meant to be representative of an approach to the “systematic evaluation of whatever instructional tactics and curricula a teacher might employ” (p. 522 / 1). Modifications to one’s instruction won’t be changed unless there is a need for change and in doing so, little to no change will be placed on the teacher’s basic approach to instruction. Precision Teaching demands constant attention to detail and a willingness to accept the fact that change might lead to improved student success (White, 1986).

Precision Teaching is depicted as a discipline that can be summarized by several principles. These guiding principles were laid out by the works of Lindsley (1990), West and Hamerlynck (1992) and White (1986). The guiding principles of Precision Teaching focus on direct observation, frequency as a measure of performance, the Standard Celeration Chart, environmental conditions and the belief that the learner knows best, all discussed here.

Direct Observation

“To form a clear, unambiguous picture of pupil progress it is important to focus on concrete, directly observable behavior” (White, 1986, p.522 / 1). The question becomes how can one take a private event and make it into a directly observable behavior? To avoid ambiguity, Precision Teaching attempts to translate tasks into solid observable behavior to be counted and recorded. With this design there are three prominent issues to consider. It starts with the concept that some tasks are private by their very nature. An example of a private task is reading silently to oneself. In this situation when a child has deficient silent reading skills the intervention would include making the task public. In the case of silent reading, the child would be asked to read aloud. By creating a private event into a public event, the behavior can be counted and recorded, eventually leading to reading improvement. This improvement can then be generalized to silent reading (White, 1986).

The second issue deals with the problems of inappropriate definitions of a task. An example of this could be about not talking. Collecting and charting data on the behavior of not talking might assume a definition that would lead to difficulties. The solution, however, lies in a concept called The Dead Man’s Test. The online site, behaviorintervention101, explained The Dead Man’s Test as:

Behavior is essentially anything a person does. The simplest way to determine what qualifies as a behavior is to give the dead man’s test. Can a dead man do it? If he can, then it is not a behavior. Can a dead man lay still? Yes. Can a dead man not talk? Yes. Can a dead man not pay attention? Yes. (n.d.)

By invoking this rule, practitioners can determine if a dead man can “not talk” thus leaving the definition of this task useless.

The last issue is to remember to make the distinction between a label and a movement. Labels often tend to be a convenient summary of a performance. Labels, though, lack the information about the movement involved. A label cannot be countable. An example of this is if Jake is labeled as “fidgety.” This cannot be counted. For the fidgety movement to be countable, additional information is needed. It would be more proficient to define the action as “Jake will keep his feet on the ground while seated at his desk” (Grant & Evans, 1994). Worded in this manner using more detail, the task can be counted and recorded.

Frequency as a Measure of Performance

When talking in terms of Precision Teaching, a behavior frequency according to White, is “the average number of behaviors observed during each minute of the assessment period” (1986, p. 523 / 2). This is further defined as counts per minute. Lindsley (1991b), Binder (1996) and West & Hamerlynck (1992) wrote about the advantages that frequency data held over more traditional measurements.

Count is a tally of the number of occurrences of a behavior (Cooper et al., 2007). The count of a behavior can be the primary concern, but it is not often enough to provide the adequate amount of information needed to implement an intervention. When one combines an observation time with count it becomes largely used as a dimension of measurement in applied behavior. The result of this combination is called frequency (Cooper et al., 2007). Frequency is defined as the number of times that a behavior occurs in a standardized observation period. The session time is generally kept consistent allowing for the data to be collected accurately (Bailey & Burch, 2018).

Binder (1996) points to two advantages about the usage of frequency for Precision Teaching. The first advantage was that frequency data was more useful. It was fluent, invoking accurate performance that is not only retained longer, but is also less affected by conditions that may be distracting. Binder also stated that frequency was more likely to be applied, adapted or combined in new learning situations and this held true in the event of the absence of the instructor. The second advantage was that frequency data provided an overall complete account of how effective the intervention is working (Binder, 1996).

The Standard Celeration Chart

The standard celeration chart was devised by Lindsley in the 1960’s and by his account it was done as a desperate measure (Lindsley, 1990). The goal Lindsley had in mind for revising the chart was to find a way for teachers to save time while making, reading, and interpreting charts. He saw that it was problematic when teachers allowed themselves the lengthy time of making a new chart for each behavior and each learner. This was problematic because as different pictures of progress were formed, the comparison of one program with another was difficult and the evaluation of how well a program was working could be in error (Lindsley, 1990). To offset this problem, the format of the Standard Celeration Chart was standardized so all professionals measured and interpreted data in the same manner. Lindsley trademarked the term Standard Celeration Chart for the purpose of describing the general applications of the chart series (Calkin, 2005).

The Standard Celeration Chart makes two important elements clear. First, the growth of behavior should be calculated best through the process of multiplication rather than addition. This meant the student progress was reported accurately in that it doubles rather than growing one by one. Second, this revised understanding allowed researches to capture the frequency of a student’s performance, in addition to capturing their growth of learning across time, known as celeration (Calkin, 2005).

Frequency equates to performance and while it can tell what happened during a particular time period, it does not give much information about the learning. In order to determine if the performance had accelerated or decelerated it must be measured across time (Calkin, 2005). Since 1971, this change in learning has been referred to as learning celeration.

In grasping the students’ progress, it is important that researchers understand the concept of acceleration and deceleration. Acceleration represents an increase in frequency (learning behavior) and deceleration represents a decrease in frequency (learning behavior). When using the Standard Celeration Chart, frequency equates to performance and is measured in counts per minute. “It tells what happened during one time period, but by itself it tells little about learning” (Calkin, 2005, p. 2). To capture a student’s growth, it must be measured across time, referred to as learning celeration (Calkin, 2005). Celeration is then measured as “the count per minute per week” (Calkin, 2005, p. 2). This provides a picture of changes in performance (frequency) showing learning across time.

Calkin wrote, “most graphs give only the frequency at best, and often the graph represents a removal of the original data, replacing it with a percentage or rate. The Standard Celeration Chart displays the original data. Because of its design, the chart[er] plots only frequency so the chart always displays performance within a time period” (2005, p. 3). Also, percentages can be obtained from the Standard Celeration Chart.

There are four ways to take measurements using the Standard Celeration Chart. Measurements can be taken daily, weekly, monthly and yearly. Each is important and serves a specific purpose.

The daily chart measures an individual’s behavior that happened on a daily basis. “It ranges from .00069, or one time per 24-hour day, up to 1000 per minute” (Calkin, 2005, p. 3).

Viewed at the bottom of the Standard Celeration Chart, the daily chart depicts one behavior per day. The middle of the Standard Celeration Chart depicts one behavior per minute. Then the top of the chart shows up to 1000 behaviors per minute (Calkin, 2005).

The weekly chart is often used to measure the behaviors of an organization when the data can be better summarized on a weekly basis. Performance ranges “from one per week all the way to 1,000,000 per week” (Calkin, 2005, p. 3).

The Standard Celeration Chart can also monitor progress by the month, which is often the case to capture organizational growth or change, such as in school, business or family.  The monthly chart shows performance ranging “from one month to 1,000,000 per month” (Calkin, 2005, p. 3). Celeration at this point, is then charted by the half-year (Calkin, 2005).

The last way to capture information on a Standard Celeration Chart is using a yearly chart. Like the monthly chart, the yearly chart often measures changes in business, family and schools, but is also used for political and ecological events. The range is “from one per year up to 1,000,000 per year” (Calkin, 2005, p. 3). Celeration is measured every five years using the yearly chart (Calkin, 2005).

As readers can see, the Standard Celeration Chart is made up of many components. While all of them deserve to be explored, they are not the main content of this paper and are not discussed here.

In comparing the conventional charting system using addition and subtraction, with the Standard Celeration Chart just discussed, two main advantages come to mind in favor of using the revised Standard Celeration Chart. First, the Standard Celeration Chart was created in order to standardize the measurements and provide an easy display to interpret the information. This means that when looking at each type of chart, it can easily be determined if the behavior has accelerated, decelerated or stayed the same (Calkin, 2005). The second advantage is because the chart is standard, researchers have the ability to read all information on the chart easily. There is no learning curve for each of the different types of Standard Celeration Charts, day, week, month, and year. All are all read in the same manner (Calkin, 2005).

Environmental Conditions

For an individual to conduct and manipulate a truly effective instructional environment, it is vital to be aware of the elements that are within that particular environment. These elements are all capable of having an influence on the behavior of concern (White, 1986). When classifying elements of the environment, Skinner used labels to define terms dependent on the impact each element had upon the behavior. Positive reinforcement used a label for an event that closely followed a behavior and was known to increase the frequency of that behavior occurring again. Many times, a reinforcer such as candy was used as a tangible item to affect a behavior in a certain manner.

White shared, “functional definitions continually force individuals to consider an environmental element’s impact on behavior, rather than being sidetracked by behaviorally irrelevant characteristics of the element” (1986, p.525 / 4). White continued that Lindsey tackled the question of what would one call a possible reinforcer before its influence is known (1986). The solution to this problem was solved by Lindsley by creating two parallel systems that described the environment. Lindsley labeled the two systems IS Plan and DOES Plan. The IS Plan was used to describe what “is” in the environment before knowing the effects on behavior, while the DOES Plan was described by Lindsley as the environmental elements that past analysis had shown influenced the learner’s behavior (White, 1986).

The Learner Knows Best

The fundamental guiding principle of Precision Teaching is simply that the learner knows best (White, 1986). If the learner is showing progress, then the program is “correct” for that individual. If and when the program begins to fail, according to Precision Teaching, it is not due to the learner’s faults, but depicts an inappropriate program that must be changed (White, 1986). In Precision Teaching it is the learners actual progress that can be trusted to guide one in the development and continuously refining appropriate programs.

Students are active participants when using Precision Teaching. In this approach it is typical for learners to engage in self-monitoring by keeping count of their movements and recording them daily on a Standard Celeration Chart. Incorporating self-monitoring as part of Precision Teaching enables learners to “see” their learning. Visual aids are often a powerful tool for many individuals with learning disabilities. This tactic can assist students to connect the concepts that are otherwise difficult to manage or understand.

Implementation of Precision Teaching

According to White (1986), literature contends that the implementation of Precision Teaching is a three-step process of pinpoint behavior, count and chart. However, White (1986) adds that evaluation should be the fourth step. For Precision Teaching to meet its full potential it is not sufficient to only monitor a learner’s performance on the standard chart but is critical that the information be evaluated to make systematic decisions directly concerning how instruction should proceed (White, 1986). The four steps are discussed below.

PinPoint Behavior (Step One)

Movement and repeatability are two qualities that are of great importance when pinpointing a target behavior. White wrote that “any directly observable behavior will involve physical movement of some sort” (1986, p.525 /4). It is not uncommon for the targeted behavior to be one that does not involve movement, but this does lend itself to being unobservable. In these cases, the practitioner should seek a more effective way to define the behavior. For example, if the target behavior has been pinpointed as “being quiet,” the behavior represents the absence of behavior. For an effective intervention and successful results, it would be more beneficial to focus on a better representation of the problem. This could be accomplished by pinpointing the target behavior as “inappropriate vocalizations the learner makes.”

Every time a behavior occurs, the student is given the opportunity to learn. Repeatability allows for unlimited learner experiences. Therein lies the importance of when determining a target behavior, it should be one that can be repeated multiple times during every instructional or training session. This allows for the establishment of conditions that in turn, encourage the behavior to be repeated (White, 1986). “Ideally, target movements will be selected, and conditions established that allow the behavior to occur at least 10 times during any given instructional or training session” (White, 1986, p.526 /5).

Count (Step Two)

The progress of a learner is monitored by counting the number of times a movement cycle occurs and also on the time spent keeping track of the time spent counting. It is of course more beneficial if the learner has the chance to practice and demonstrate the skills daily (White, 1986). While the learner will be given natural opportunities to demonstrate these skills one can enhance the opportunities through manipulation. Toilet training is a good example. In this task the learner will have natural opportunities for practice simply by nature itself, but the experience can be enhanced by offering the learner more than their normal amount of liquids throughout the day. For count to be the most successful it is stressed that the length of each assessment should be the same from day to day. This is important because “factors like fatigue and warm-up time will then be reasonably consistent for all the assessments” (White, 1986, p.527 / 6).

Chart (Step Three)

When completing an assessment, the results should be recorded as soon as possible. By waiting too long, even a day can result in the loss of information that is important to the learner’s progress. In reality, and contrary to what some may think, charting is a reasonably quick and simple process. However, it may take practice for educators to become proficient at the task. When new to using a Standard Celeration Chart it can look very daunting and confusing but the chart proceeds much like any other chart does. “The frequency (count divided by assessment time in minutes) is simply-plotted by placing a dot or X on the appropriate day-line of the chart” (White, 1986, p 528 / 7).

Evaluate Learner Progress (Step Four)

Placing dots on a chart and deciphering a pattern is not enough to make Precision Teaching successful. For the full benefit of Precision Teaching to be achieved, the learner’s progress must be carefully evaluated. The daily progress of an individual is what ultimately determines if a program is satisfactory. If not, then changes need to be made within the program to facilitate learning.

In the early years of Precision Teaching there was a very simple guideline that was followed and it involved only two rules. The first rule was if the learner was progressing don’t change anything. The second rule in opposition, was if the learner hits a plateau then changes need to be made to their program. Over the years teachers who use Precision Teaching have developed some additional formal guidelines. These guidelines were put in place to assist in the process of deciding exactly when and how a change to the program should be handled.

Precision Teaching can be used in many different outlets that pertain to learning. Those details will be discussed in in the next section of this paper, Applications. The upcoming section will demonstrate through scientific studies how Precision Teaching was implemented to enhance student learning.

Applications

Precision Teaching has been proven effective to enhance the academic performance of children with learning disabilities. The application section of this research will identify studies that used Precision Teaching strategies related to mathematics and reading as they have been recognized as areas of difficulty for children with learning disabilities. This section also includes how the studies were conducted and the outcome of each study. While Precision Teaching has been used to enhance learning, it is not widely known. The hope of this research is that it becomes more familiar to those who work with children who have learning disabilities. With more exposure, Precision Teaching could become a standard practice within the school systems and assist so many more children to become confident regarding their learning and knowledge.

There is no age, gender, or education level discrimination when it comes to the applications of Precision Teaching. As noted earlier, Precision Teaching is not a teaching method, instead it is a way of designing a teaching arrangement, measuring the consequences of those decisions, and then, based on the measurement, make changes for improvement (Precision, ABA, 2019). The studies discussed in this research confirm that the Precision Teaching does work to enhance learning, making the opportunities boundless to help students be successful.

As discussed earlier, Precision Teaching begins with pinpointing the behavior that needs to be changed. According to Daniels and Bailey (2014), the behavior must be observable, measurable and reliable. The targeted behavior to be changed should be clearly defined with a strong beginning and a strong end. Also, it should be a process that can be repeated. For example, the pinpointed behavior written as “finishes sentences” becomes stronger when stated as “writes letters.” To make a strong statement, pair an active verb with an object or context in which the verb operates. In the case of “writing letters,” the action verb is “writing” and is paired with “letters” (context) creating a strong pinpointed behavior (Precision ABA, 2019).

Sensitive measures are used with Precision Teaching. These include rate of response, frequency, and count. Skinner proclaimed that rate was one of his most important contributions to science as it records a behavior as it happens in real time (Precision ABA, 2019). Real time measures are critical in Precision Teaching as delays in capturing the data may result in inaccuracy rendering the measure useless.

Recording must occur on a daily basis and is done so with the use of probes. Probing is the measurement of a skill level of a particular skill set (Chicago ABA Therapy, n.d.). Probing is to be conducted prior to instruction, during instruction, and after instruction for comparison. According to Cooper et al. (2007), a probe that is conducted prior to instruction can produce important knowledge to developing an effective intervention.

In the Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention (2005), Nam and Spruill identified the most common learning channels used in math curriculum as see/say, see/write, hear/say and hear/write. The authors stated, however that “unfortunately, in most classrooms, students are instructed in a see/say or hear/say channel, but they are required to demonstrate learning through another channel” (p. 104). Little is understood regarding the how information is generalized using these methods or if any one of the methods is better than another.

The most comforting aspects of Precision Teaching is that what is taught or how it is taught is not measured by the number of correct answers. This opens many doors for individuals with learning disabilities where traditional teaching styles have failed them. Precision Teaching is invested in the mindset of practice where getting it “right” the first time is not what matters. Precision Teaching is most interested in that the student be willing to try, try again (Precision ABA, 2019). The key to success in using Precision Teaching includes observing the student behavior, encouraging him or her to continue trying, keeping current with charting, and adding or changing interventions when needed.

Mathematic Applications

About 7 % of children and adolescents have a Mathematical Learning Disability (MLD). Individuals with MLD have deficiencies in the understanding and representation of using numbers. There tends to be a discord between reading and mathematical deficiencies resulting in a stronger emphasis on reading deficiencies, when in fact, more people have difficulties with math than reading (Geary, 2011).

A study was conducted by Stromgren, B., Berg-Mortensen, C., and Tangen, L. (2015) with 5th-7th grade students who were developing normally, but falling behind their peers when it came to multiplication and division. Stromgren and colleagues set up two groups of students within the study. One group received the Precision Teaching intervention while the other group was taught using the traditional teachings of the classroom. During the study the students were learning basic mathematical facts.

The individuals in the Precision Teaching group were responsible for keeping their own folder that contained timing charts, Standard Celeration Charts for multiplication and division and a log form. Every practice was timed.

The learning channel set up for the other group of Stromgren’s study was see the problem/write the answers (see/write). This meant that each participant would see a math problem and then be required to write the answer on a corresponding answer sheet. Following Precision Teaching protocol, every practice was timed.

The findings were then interpreted by the authors of the study. The group that had received the Precision Teaching intervention overall, had a greater improvement on math testing then did their peers in the other group. Beyond group improvements, further findings indicate that the Precision participants showed a reliable improvement when it also came to individual results. While this study did not use the term learning disabilities to identify the students, it can be implied that students developing normally but falling behind their peers, if tested, would have likely been identified as having learning disabilities.

In 1993, Koscinski and Gast used Precision Teaching and time-delay to teach elementary students with learning disabilities their multiplication facts. This study also used a learning channel of see/say with the entire group of students. As each student was presented with a multiplication fact, the student would read the problem and say the answer aloud. When an answer was unknown, the student was not permitted to guess the answer. At this point, the instructor would say the answer aloud and in reply, that student would re-read the question and say the answer aloud. The students of this study were able to achieve 100% accuracy and reached mastery level in less than one hour per multiplication set, confirming another success in using Precision Teaching.

Farrell and McDougall (2008) conducted a study and believed it was common for children with learning disabilities to have a difficult time with math fluency, meaning that they could not respond rapidly and accurately when presented with a math problem. Farrell and McDougall also stated that some students have a difficult time “initiating, maintaining, and completing tasks; pacing their responses (e.g., they are quick but error-prone, or accurate but slow); monitoring and correcting errors while responding” (2008, p. 26).

With the combination of Precision Teaching goal setting, and efficient practice along with feedback, children with learning disabilities can greatly improve upon their fluency of basic math skills. Farrell’s study used a behavioral self-management intervention, which included a combination of tactile and visually cued self-monitoring techniques. The intention of this design was to improve math fluency with high school students, all of whom had a learning disability. During each evaluation, the student’s self-monitoring often prompted increasing the pace, as needed, to gain the answer to the math problems.

The results of Farrell’s study indicated that the use of the multiple component self-monitoring intervention had improved fluency and accuracy. “These findings are important because achieving accurate and fast responses via brief practice sessions promotes automaticity and other educational outcomes” (2008, p. 33). It’s important to note that students who cannot achieve fluency at the basic skill level often continue to have difficulty when presented with more complex problems.

The practice of using Precision Teaching is not only used in the United States but also in Great Britain, where they emphasized that it could be used in both mainstream and special education classrooms (Chiese & Robertson, 2000). However, in Great Britain there tends to be more skepticism surrounding Precision Teaching and British researchers continue to conduct studies to expand both theoretical and applied aspects of Precision Teaching to better understand how to use it.

Chiese and Robertson of the University of Paisley, United Kingdom conducted a study of the use of Precision Teaching to a group of five 5th grade students. In a class of 25 students, the five students had been selected by the teacher to receive an intervention. The other students served as the control group. The five students “although achieving standards comparable with their peers in other aspects of the curriculum… were simply unable to keep pace with their peers in the domain of math” (Chiese & Robertson, 2000, p. 302).

Similar to the Stromgren, Berg-Mortensen, and Tangen study (2015), students in the Precision Teaching group were provided a personal folder that contained practice sheets, time probes, and charts, plus answer sheets correlating to the time probes and a checklist. In addition, the students were given a digital timer. These materials allowed the students to complete the tasks independent of the teacher.

The results from Chiese and Robertson’s study concluded that after the 12-week program, the Precision Teaching group had a dramatic increase in fluency on the composite skill evaluation with rates ranging from 11 to 15 correct-per-minute while in contrast, the control group after the same amount of time, had a range of 0 to 14 correct-per-minute. Chiese and Robertson pointed out that it could be objected to that the Precision Teaching groups superior performance was due to a greater familiarity with the material. However, the Precision Teaching group did not receive more time to engage in the math problems than did the control group. “The crucial difference is in what they did during math periods: worked components; practiced for fluency (speed plus accuracy); and progressed at individual rates through the curriculum” (Chiese & Robertson, 2000, p. 308). It was pointed out that students in the control group who had subpar performance might also have benefited from Precision Teaching to build their math fluency.

The high levels in performance depicted among the control group, along with the general subpar performance when compared to those in the Precision Teaching group, suggest that not only did the PT students need assistance in the area of fluency building, but there were other students in the classroom who possibly could have benefited from it as well. This lends itself to suggest that many of the students in the control group may experience difficulty with math later when concepts begin to build upon one another and the math itself becomes more difficult (Chiesa & Robertson, 2000).

This brings to light the importance of conducting further Precision Teaching studies.  Additional research on the benefits of Precision Teaching will enhance the awareness of its success when working with students of all ages with learning disabilities. In addition, even students who have not officially been diagnosed with LD but are falling behind in certain academic areas can benefit from the strategies used in Precision Teaching.

One of the very important strategies used in Precision Teaching is self-monitoring that can enhance learning to anyone who uses it. Brown and Frank (1990) wrote an article titled ‘Let me do it!’- self-monitoring in solving arithmetic problems.” The article discussed two experimental teaching models that were used to conduct the study with three students who had been diagnosed with a learning disability. The purpose of the study was to take a closer look not only at the effectiveness of self-monitoring, but to also examine the effectiveness of generic versus individualized checklists. The students were taught two types of problems, subtraction and addition. Each type of mathematical problem was taught independent of the other and each type of problem had its own self-monitoring checklist (Brown & Frank, 1990). They concluded that the application of self-monitoring using the customized checklist resulted in an improvement of the students’ performance. It was also shown that the results from the study had been maintained once the procedures had been terminated.

Often in Precision Teaching, the student is provided a customized checklist to help guide him or her through the self-monitoring process. Self-monitoring is composed of two components, measurement and evaluation. When being implemented by a student a classroom setting, the student will record and measure their own behavior (measurement) and then compare that to a predetermined standard (evaluation). There are a multitude of advantages to the use of self-monitoring in the classroom but one that stands out is the fact that students become an active participant in the intervention (Wright, 2013). Students with learning disabilities often feel left behind and that no matter what they do, they still can’t learn what their peers are learning. However, given the chance to be in control of their own learning can help to heighten their self-worth through the use of the self-monitoring process.

Another study regarding self-monitoring was conducted in 1989 by Dunlap and Dunlap. Their goal was to add to the literature that pointed to self-monitoring being a successful intervention to increase academic skills among students with learning disabilities. They evaluated how effective a self-monitoring package would be when presented to learning disabled students.

The students in this study had been identified as having difficulties responding to subtraction problems. Each student had been highly inconsistent and unsuccessful up to this point. Dunlap and Dunlap used a two-phase baseline with didactic instruction and special incentives. An error analysis was utilized in the development of the individualized self-monitoring checklists. “In the context of a multiple baseline design, the self-monitoring procedures produced immediate gains in correct responding” (1989, p. 309). The checklists were removed during the maintenance phase and an incentive condition was put in place. This resulted in a continued increase in successful responding to the subtraction problems.

When compared to the studies that have been discussed previously, Dunlap and Dunlap’s findings are in line with the results of the previous studies discussed in using Precision Teaching. Each of them adds to the knowledge that the use of self-monitoring and checklist systems are beneficial when set in place for students with learning disabilities. Performance in mathematical skills had been increased in all of them and some studies showed that the learning was maintained after the study was completed. In addition, these teaching strategies can be viewed as cost effective and non-time-consuming procedures.

The achievement of fluency plays a key role in Precision Teaching as the goal is to have a true mastery of content. One way to accomplish mastery is to introduce students to self-study. There are many different types of self-study procedures available for learners but not all are built equally nor will they have a positive effect on individuals with learning disabilities (Kubina, 2018). One of the most widely known and used methods of self-study is the use of flashcards. While flashcards have been proven to benefit learners in a multitude of academic areas and continue to be used, there are limitations. When using flashcards, students generally do not time themselves and may not have specific goals in mind. The use of flashcards also lacks any type of instructional design element and due to these limitations, Kubina stated that studies have shown that flashcards are less effective (2018). The ability to retain information is also compromised and this can lead to complications when moving forward with more complex content.

These limitations were taken note by Ogden Lindsley and Steven Graf (Kubina, 2018), and to improve this process they created a practice and assessment procedure called SAFMEDS. This acronym stands for Say All Fast, a Minute Every Day, Shuffled. When broken down, the procedure of using SAFMEDS is quite simple, but effective. The learner is to SEE the front of the card and SAY the answer aloud practicing the entire set/deck. During this process, students place correct answers in one pile and incorrect or unknown answers in another pile. When using SAFMEDS, students must go through the set at a fast pace to insure to produce a steep celeration, meaning students learn at a faster rate (Kubina, 2018).

Lindsley and Graf designed SAFMEDS to be practiced using timed units, most often as one minute, but other consistent intervals were acceptable. The learner was responsible for assessing their progress and was expected to practice every day. Also, the set/deck was to be shuffled after every run through and not be learned in a particular order (Kubina, 2018).

The use of SAFMEDS is utilized not only for those with learning disabilities as it is an effective way of learning for any student. A multitude of studies have been conducted regarding SAFMEDS, and regardless of the limitations of flashcards noted earlier, there are several common findings among the limitations. SAFMEDS have been proven to offer a reliable way to help learners quickly meet competency of their targeted goals and that the learning was retained over time (Kubina, 2018). The facilitation of learning transfer has been recognized within the literature. To sum up the benefits of using SAFMEDS, Kubina wrote, “a performance criterion or frequency aim can signal how fast and accurate participants must respond in order to achieve their goal” (2018, p.7). In addition, the process of having the student analyze their performance results on a Standard Celeration Chart provides the learner with a powerful visual and statistical information about their progress (Kubina, 2018).

In 2012, Cunningham, D., McLaughlin, F. T., & Weber, P. K. conducted a study using Precision Teaching to teach one student who had learning disabilities. It incorporated SAFMEDS regarding the use and evaluation of verbal prompting with see-to-say math problems. The researchers decided on the use of Precision Teaching because “it had been shown to be a data-based and effective teaching procedure” (Cunningham et al., 2012, p. 37).

Unlike the studies that have previously been discussed, this one involved only one subject and was implemented in an ABAC single case design. The baseline was drawn and then the intervention of verbal prompts was introduced. There was a return to baseline before the intervention of verbal prompts and SAFMEDS began. The design of this study showcased and supported the idea that Precision Teaching was an effective intervention. The results of the study showed that during the verbal modeling, the student had a clear increase in correct answers while at the same time errors decreased. Going back to the baseline, conditions produced a decrease in the correct answers and there was an increase of errors (Cunningham et al., 2012). The last component of the ABAC design was “C.” In the case of this study, “C” was the return of verbal prompting plus the added addition of SAFEMEDS. Once this intervention was implemented “there was a jump for the number of corrects. Both interventions were effective not only in terms of improving the frequency of correct digits written, but also… in accuracy of performance” (Cunningham et al., 2012, p. 38).

The outcomes of this study help to strengthen previous research by providing results that show the positive effects that can be achieved when employing Precision Teaching procedures. Cunningham et al. pointed out that not only was the use of SAFMEDS productive, but they were also very practical, meaning that once the connection was made, it was easy for the student and the teacher to manage and implement them during daily sessions (2012).

Research shows that students who have a learning disability often revert to using counting strategies when calculating simple addition and subtraction problems. One of the most common counting strategies is counting fingers but this often results in a lack of speed when it comes to solving math problems (Casey, J., Mclaughlin, F. T., & Weber, P. K., 2003). However, when students begin to learn multiplication, they often begin to fall behind because their counting strategy no longer works. The ability to recall math facts immediately is, of course, more productive than the use of a counting strategy. Also, being able to recall facts uses less effort, is faster, and students gain more fluency across settings.

In a study conducted by Casey et al. in 2003, three Precision Teaching techniques were evaluated for their effectiveness on mathematical skills. The techniques to be evaluated were daily timing, modeling at the top of the timed tests, and SAFMEDS on the fluency of see-to-write math facts. The dependent variable of this study was digits-per-minute and the first procedure conducted was a timed drill accompanied by practice math sheets. Data was collected on both correct and incorrect answers-per-minute.

During baseline, the students were allowed to practice five times for five minutes prior to running the session. The practice was conducted using SAFMEDS. Note cards with various math facts were provided to the students to use for practice. Once the student could answer the fact correctly on two consecutive tries, that card could then be placed into a pile for “known” facts. Once the practice times were completed, the students were presented with a math fact sheet to complete within one minute (Casey et al., 2003).

The next phase of the study consisted of the students having an unlimited amount of time to study and practice using SAFMEDS before taking the timed probe math sheet. This was conducted for three weeks within the school setting before returning to baseline. Once returned to baseline, the students had a goal of achieving 80 to 100 correct math responses within one minute with criterion set for three consecutive days with only one to no errors. When the criterion was mastered, the student received a new set of math skills to learn using the same technique (Casey et al., 2003).

This study concluded that the correct rate had increased for both students but there was a greater increase during the no-time-limit and SAFMED phase. As with most research studies, there are always limitations and it was noted by the authors that their study had some limitations. One limitation was that because of illness and school holidays, in which there was no class, the schedule did not allow for consistent data collection. Also, the “unlimited time to practice with SAFMEDS was always preceded by the SAFMEDS only condition” (Casey et al., 2003, p. 70). It was suggested that by counterbalancing these procedures it could possibly rule out any order of effects. In the end however, the findings by Casey et al. in 2003 replicated a large number of previous articles in which Precision Teaching has shown to be an effective intervention when working with learning disabled students. It has been suggested in previous works that having additional opportunities to respond, coupled with the use of SAFMEDS, has a positive effect on the improvement of student performance.

Mathematics is a four-stage model that was first developed in 1957 (Casey et al., 2003). Using this model, the problem solver must understand the problem at hand, be able to devise a plan of action, have the capability to carry out said plan and be able to go back and verify that their solution made sense. These skills all require the learner to use cognitive and metacognitive processes (1992).

In 1992, Casey and his colleagues conducted a study with elementary school students diagnosed with a learning disability. The focus of the study was specific to solving simple mathematical word problems. While Precision Teaching was the not discussed in this study, it did follow similar strategies to achieving student success. These students had a history of making mistakes when working on word problems due to the fact that they executed the wrong operation. The method of teaching involved strategies on how to better understand the problem and then to devise a plan of action before solving it. The process involved first reading the math problem, then finding the important words and circling them, and lastly, students were taught to draw a picture and write an equation of the word problem (Casey et al., 1992). The procedures were taught by the self-regulated strategy development procedures as described by Case, L. P., Harris K. R., and Graham, S. (1992). The authors emphasized the necessity for developing prerequisite skills needed, along with the importance of helping the students to learn how to self-regulate. The students had been taught not only how to find key terms, but also the meaning of those terms and phrases along with organization skills to use in applying the strategy, but also to the evaluation of their progress. These tools along with self-instruction, self-assessment, and graphing, set the students up for success in which all of them achieved.

The teaching method resulted in improved performance along with a reduction in the amount of incorrect errors that were due to performing incorrect order of operations. While the performance of the additional word problems was shown to have a large increase in learning and remained high even after instruction, it was the results of the subtraction word problems that was most impressive. When applied to subtraction word problems, the students’ scores increased dramatically. Once the study had concluded, the teacher noted that she had observed the students who participated in the study using the strategy on their own in the classroom and they had even begun to generalize it in other learning situations (Casey et al., 1992).

In concluding the discussion regarding Precision Teaching and mathematics, many studies have been discussed here. Each of them showcased strategies to assist students in improved learning. Whether it was understanding word problems or the more familiar problems of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, students in the Precision Teaching groups continually showed improvement over the control groups. This is a confirmation that Precision Teaching should become a standard teaching strategy of all students, but especially for students with learning disabilities.

Reading Applications

Research has proven that 80% of individuals with learning disabilities also have difficulty reading and comprehending materials (Antoniou, F. & Souvignier, E. 2007).  This fact leads to illiteracy. Reading is a complex process and is broken down into two skill areas of decoding and comprehension. “Under the decoding and comprehension umbrella a multitude of behaviors exist” (Kubina & Starlin, 2003 p.14). In order for a reader to decode words, he or she must be able to use phonics, structural and contextual analysis skills.

Decoding is often referred to as “phonological recording.” It is the process in which the written alphabetic letters are translated into sounds. Those sounds are then matched with the pronunciation of a word that the reader has learned. Within this process, the reader changes printed words into a spoken format (Kubina & Starlin, 2003). It is beyond the scope of this paper to explore all of the components that are involved in decoding and comprehension, instead the focus is on how Precision Teaching could provide improvement of these skills.

Fuchs, Fuchs, and Hosp (as cited in Kubina & Starling, 2003) wrote a literature review based on their own research. They found that Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) was the best predictor of reading comprehension when compared to questioning, retelling and cloze (a test of reading comprehension). Oral reading fluency measures the recording of the number of words read aloud correctly and incorrectly per minute (Kubina & Starlin, 2003). Oral reading fluency has received much attention in literature, and Precision Teaching is a means to further enhance its usefulness when it encompasses performance standards. “Precision teaching defines performance standards as performance frequencies empirically associated with retention, endurance, and application” (Kubina & Starlin, 2003 p. 14).

While research points to word decoding and fluency as being major components of reading, when it comes to individuals with learning disabilities, reading comprehension often hinders their success. For one to be successful at understanding written words, they have to first meet certain prerequisite skills (Antoniou & Souvignier, 2007). Reading comprehension is composed of both knowledge and text orientated constructs, meaning “it is the result of a systematic reading process that integrates basic as well as higher-order reading skills” (Antoniou & Souvignier, 2007, p. 42).

When searching for methods to help individuals with learning disabilities to have better reading and comprehension skills, it is important to remember that these difficulties are due to multiple deficits. When someone has a learning disability “they fail to recall strategies needed for comprehension, they do not control their progress, nor do they adjust or regulate specific behaviors associated with successful comprehension” (Antoniou & Souvignier, 2007, p. 42).

For someone with a learning disability, the deficit of not comprehending reading materials is discouraging. Whether self-reading or being read to, it may still be a problem depending on their deficit. These students are fully aware that learning is hard, and to them sometimes it seems easier to simply give up. In these situations, students know they have completed the required passage but hope the teacher does not call on them. It’s devastating for them to know that they cannot reiterate the written words they had just read.

When searching for interventions to help those with reading difficulties, studies have demonstrated that Precision Teaching is a highly effective tool for reading improvement. One such study conducted by Mercer, C. D., Campbell, K. U., Miller, M. D., Mercer K. D., and Lane, H. B. in 2000 developed a fluency-reading intervention that was used to supplement reading instructions of students who had been diagnosed with mild learning disabilities. The focus of the study was to create and evaluate a reading fluency tutorial that could be easily delivered by nonteachers to students with learning disabilities. The study took into consideration phonics, sight phrases and oral reading. The students participated in the intervention five to six minutes each day which included repeated readings that were practiced until the student had achieved mastery (Mercer et al., 2000). Students were asked to read as many phrases as they could within a one-minute timeframe. During that time the instructor would offer correct pronunciation of any incorrect readings. If the reader was not able to meet the criteria by either finishing the reading in time or had errors, he or she would continue with the same phrase until the criteria was met (Mercer et al., 2000). The findings of this study showed students had a significant growth in their reading levels and their reading rate. Research has shown that students who have a learning disability within the realm of reading will benefit from “explicit fluency-based reading instructions on phonics, sight words, and oral reading stories” (Mercer et al., 2000, p. 187).

Oral reading fluency, the ability to quickly read connected text accurately and with expression, is a critical element for student success regarding reading comprehension (Rasplica & Cummings, 2013). When an individual can read with the ability of automaticity along with speed, accuracy and expression, they are more likely to comprehend what they are reading. The reason that comprehension is increased with this criterion is due to the fact that when all of those components are met, the reader can focus on the meaning of the text. “The goal of fluency practice is intended to focus on the strategic, integration of decoding, fluency, and comprehension tasks” (Rasplica & Cummings, 2013, p. 2).

Daly & Guldswog, 1992 stated that fluent oral reading is important for three reasons. First, students who have better reading skills are more capable of comprehension. Second, reading orally along with rereading can uncover instructional and remedial information to the teacher about a student’s “word attack skills, strategies, and word acquisition frequencies” (Daly & Guldswong, 1992, p. 34). The third reason is that oral fluency, when reading is considered a tool for learning, has a wide applicability to other complex skills. As stated previously, there is a high percentage of students with learning disabilities who have trouble with reading. Lovitt (1989) stated, “the inability to read and learning disabilities are synonymous to many educators” (as cited in Daly & Guldswong, 1992, p. 34).

Lolich, E., McLaughlin, T. F., and Weber, K. P. in 2012 conducted a study to increase the reading of K-2 core sight words of a 12-year-old student who had exhibited a low reading rate and a high error rate. The student otherwise displayed average recall and comprehension skills. The intervention strategy included “model, lead, test, and retest” and used Direct Instruction procedures of “timed reading, fluency building, probe sheets, and student self-charting” (Lolich et al., 2012, p. 245). These are all components of Precision Teaching, plus the study used token reinforcement. These strategies were then used in a procedure called Reading Racetracks (Lolich et al., 2012).

Timing, error correction, feedback, and performance plotting are all employed by the Reading Racetrack. The racetrack is an oval which contains anywhere from 24-28 cells in the shape of a square. Imagine a game of Candyland, but instead of the cells going from one end of the board to the other, the cells are never ending and go around and around (Lolich et. al., 2012). Within the cells of the track are sight words, letters or even math facts that may be familiar words or new sight words (Travis, J., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, M. K., & Carosella, M., 2012).

When teaching the student, the process typically begins with the teacher using flashcards and then proceeds to the student independently practicing with the racetrack. Once independent practice is concluded, the student is timed for one to two minutes while they orally read the sight words as fast as they can, with the number of correct and incorrect words charted by the student (Lolich et al., 2012). Four rounds of racetrack are to be completed before a review track is used. The racetrack review provides the student an opportunity for additional practice and maintenance.

The results for the 12-year-old student indicated that his correct reading rate had increased and the number of errors had decreased. The student was also very motivated by a token reinforcement when using the racetrack and often stated how much he liked the racetrack. Also, he thought plotting his data was important, plus he enjoyed the process (Lolich et al., 2012). When students enjoy a learning experience, they are generally more motivated to learn.

A similar study was conducted by Travis et al. in 2012 in which the use of a Reading Racetrack was employed with the goal of increasing the fluency and accuracy of saying a letter and then its sound. Two first-grade students participated in this study. Student A was a six-year-old girl who had been diagnosed with a learning disability, and student B was a seven-year-old boy who had developmental delays and learning disabilities. “Both students had deficits in the areas of spelling, reading, writing and math” (Travis et al., 2012, p. 343). The results indicated that student A exhibited a functional relationship between the increase of both speed and accuracy of letters while decreasing errors in letter recognition (Travis et al., 2012). It was noted that student A was full of energy and ready to work during session time. Student B’s results showed a gradual increase in letter recognition; however, he was frequently disappointed and stated he didn’t need the help because he already knew the letters. Student B also was out sick and on vacation during a portion of the study which could have impacted the final results. Travis et al., (2012) added that student B might have shown more improvement if the addition of the cover, copy, and compare procedure had been implemented resulting with more powerful consequences.

Limitations are always a part of research and research on previous limitations may lead to more effective findings on future studies. The 2012 Travis et al. study demonstrates that not all methods are meant for every learner. This is important to know and gives reasons to use the individualized intervention of Precision Teaching. This study strengthens the case for Precision Teaching to be recognized as an effective means to increase students learning capacity.

Spelling can be a nightmare for students with learning disabilities. The majority of the time students do not recognize that words are misspelled. That means having a student check for spelling errors is useless. Technology has attempted to reduce spelling errors with the assistance of spellcheck when using a computer or autocorrect when texting on a phone. While technology might appear to be the perfect solution, in reality it is not. These technologies may reduce some errors, but for students having learning disabilities, they may be unable to “choose” the correct answer when given the opportunity. Arkoosh, M., Weber, K. P., and McLaughlin, T. F. (2009) addressed the important role that spelling plays, not only for the student but also in communicating with others. The authors said that “not only does spelling impact a child’s clarity of expression in writing, but it can influence another person’s perception concerning the child’s competence in writing (2009, p. 17). Spellcheck and autocorrect are great band-aids, but students still need the skills to spell properly.

Arkoosh et al. (2009) conducted a study where the use of motivational/reward reinforcement and a spelling racetrack were implemented. The intervention also incorporated the use of drill and practice and it was hypothesized that the student would reach mastery in spelling. The method of Arkoosh’s study was typical of a racetrack intervention and was implemented much like the previous studies. The results corresponded with the hypothesis of gaining a mastery in spelling. The student had an increase in his spelling performance including an increase in correct spellings while also attaining a decrease in errors. A cause and effect relationship between the motivational system and the spelling racetrack procedures also became evident resulting in the fact that the student was eager to earn a mini-car and worked diligently in the entire process (Arkoosh et al., 2009).

A large number of the adult population also struggles with a lack of necessary reading skills. Adult illiteracy effects 18 million to 31 million people while the exact number of the reading disabled is unknown. This problem however, presents an obvious opportunity for interventions (Sweeney, W. J., Omness, C, K., Janusz, K. L., & Cooper, J. O., 1992). While the focus of this paper has been on the use of Precision Teaching for school aged students, it is equally effective with adults. Many college students use SAFMEDS as a tool to study for exams. Precision Teaching, as noted earlier, has no age limits for participants. The individualized strategies can also benefit adults who struggle with reading.

The improvement of reading alone is not sufficient when it comes to adult literacy. Instruction needs to also include communication and language skills such as spelling and written expression. In the Sweeny et al. study, the authors wanted to demonstrate how Precision Teaching could be an effective means to improve both reading and spelling fluency with an adult who had a severe reading disability (1992). The use of repeated readings and see-cover-write spelling practice were part of the intervention as well.

The study occurred over a one-year timeframe and during that year the learner would self-count and self-chart his performance. The results of the study indicated that the learner improved on his oral reading fluency and written spelling during his time with the tutor. He met and exceeded the oral reading fluency with an aim set at 180 to 200 words-per-minute. During the see/cover/write spell performance, he too met or exceeded his aims (Sweeny et al., 1992). The authors believed that the data they collected had “convincingly demonstrated the effectiveness and efficiency of using Precision Teaching” (Sweeny et al., 1992, p. 10). The authors agreed that Precision Teaching was both a powerful and efficient intervention and it would benefit many instructional settings.

In concluding the application section of this research, the studies presented here showcase that Precision Teaching has many applications for people with learning disabilities. The studies are evidence that Precision Teaching is a strong tool to use when teaching math and reading for various age groups, including female and male participants. The application of Precision Teaching has been defined here, in addition to demonstrating how it works, and where it can be used. Admittedly, there are limitations to this research. The most obvious one is that not every study created has been included in this paper. However, there is enough substantial evidence here to support the use of Precision Teaching among the learning-disabled population.

The following section in this report focuses on ethical conduct in research.

Ethical Considerations of Behavior Analysists

In 1953, The American Psychological Association published its first code of ethics. With the ever-changing nature of the field, there have been eight revisions of the codes between 1953 and 2000. In 1988 the Association for Behavior Analysis first adopted the codes set by the American Psychological Association (Cooper, et al., 2007).

Currently, the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB) Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for Behavior Analysts, governs this profession. The Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for Behavior Analysts is more commonly referred to as PECC. As of January 1, 2016, all BACB behavior analysts are required to follow the most current code. However, for the purpose of this paper, this section covers six ethical standards set by BACB in 2014 regarding Code One, titled Responsible Conduct of Behavior Analysts.

The ethical standards discussed here are: Reliance on Scientific Knowledge, Boundaries of Competence, Maintaining Competence through Professional Development, Integrity, Professional and Scientific Relationships and Multiple Relationships and Conflicts of Interest. This report concludes with the limitations of this study and future directions for upcoming research.

Code 1.01: Reliance on Scientific Knowledge means that behavior analysts must be knowledgeable of the scientific research that provides the foundation for making responsible and accurate decisions when working in the profession (BACB, 2014). This pertains to Precision Teaching because without this code, behavior analysts could become limited in how they practice Precision Teaching. By being informed of new research and findings the uses of Precision Teaching can be expounded upon.

Code 1.02: Boundaries of Competence ensures that behavior analysts have the proper education and training to work in this profession. The training may also include their supervisory experience (BACB, 2014). Regarding the practice of Precision Teaching, it is important to be trained extensively in order to serve the client in the best way possible. In addition, it is just as important for the behavior analyst to understand the boundaries of their profession. Just because an individual can drive a car does not mean they can also drive an 18-wheel semi-truck. Having a firm foundation of the boundaries will eliminate inadequate service to clients.

Code: 1.03: Maintaining Competence through Professional Development discussed the importance of staying current in the profession. In part, suggestions to remain current included attending workshops and conferences; reading current journal articles; taking new coursework or; earning additional credentials (BACB, 2014).  As in all professions that follow standards, behavior analysts must be on the cutting edge of their profession to best serve others. Due to Precision Teaching being individualized for each student, it is imperative to take part in continuing education to stay current. This code is similar to Code 1.01 but takes it a step further. Code 1.03 encourages behavior analysts to stay engaged in the learning of their area of expertise.

Code 1.04: Integrity as a behavior analyst includes behaving in an honest and truthful manner at all times. They must follow through with commitments and other obligations and never behave in a fraudulent or dishonest manner (BACB, 2014). The integrity of collecting data is important to the practice of Precision Teaching and student success. This is because serving the client in the best way possible relies heavily on the process of using accurate individualized interventions.

Code 1:05: Professional and Scientific Relationships refers to many issues including not to discriminate against individuals or groups, not to harass or demean others, only use understandable language in explaining anything, and do not let personal problems or conflicts effect interactions with others. This conduct is critical to follow as a behavior analyst because it impacts everything they do (BACB, 2014). For those who have a deep understanding of Precision Teaching, it may be tempting to use technical terms when speaking with a client. However, using such terminology may intimidate the client and could possibly cause conflicts or misunderstandings. It is best to speak plain English so that the clients and behavior analysts are understanding from the same perspective.

Code 1:06: Multiple Relationships and Conflicts of Interest means, in part, that behavior analysts must not develop multiple relationships as they can be harmful. They must not accept or give gifts as this creates a multiple relationship. In addition, should multiple relationships develop, they must resolve it. It is sometimes difficult to know exactly when a multiple relationship exists, such as someone offering a behavior analyst tickets to a popular sports game as a gift of gratitude. However, it is critical to know what is or is not allowed (BACB, 2014). Regarding the use of Precision Teaching, clients may want to show their gratitude to those providing their services. While this kindness can seem harmless, it really can lead to a slippery slope of unprofessional and illegal actions. While it might be difficult to explain this to the client so they are not offended, it is important to be vigilant to this code.

This thesis focused on students with learning disabilities and how Precision Teaching might assist them to be successful learners. However, the ethical codes for the profession of behavior analysts do not simply apply to this audience alone. Every aspect of life encountered by this profession should be guided by the codes of Responsible Conduct of Behavior Analysts. That includes not only actions within the profession but these codes can also serve as guidelines within the behavior analysts’ personal lives.

When using Precision Teaching strategies, implementing an intervention must always be based on empirical evidence. Furthermore, functional relationships between behavior and environmental events must be monitored and evaluated using a systematic approach and on a continuing basis (Cooper et al., 2007). Following the codes will ensure that this happens.

The individuals served by behavior analysts have the right to expect professional excellence, and it is the analyst’s duty to be aware of the latest research in the field. Behavior analysts must practice due diligence to be familiar with the most up-to-date methods and procedures in order to provide students or clients an effective education (Bailey & Burch, 2016).

It is important to remember that keeping up with and being familiar with the newest methods does not mean a behavior analyst is efficient enough to use the new procedure. It may take time and practice to become competent when learning new approaches. In this case, it may be advisable to discuss the new approach with another colleague who is more knowledgeable with the new procedure. This might also lead to a positive mentoring experience.

Precision Teaching supports the guidelines set by the Behavior Analyst Certification Board. It has been discussed throughout this paper that one key to success with Precision Peaching is the involvement of the students with their learning. Precision Teaching requires that clients (or parents of students) consent to the plan being developed for learning success. In addition, through self-monitoring and the use of celeration charts, students are able to monitor their progress. In agreement with the Behavior Analyst Certification Board, these practices allow the student to be involved with their own learning.

On a final note regarding the ethical codes, these codes have been put in place not to confine what a behavior analyst is allowed to practice, but to allow all behavior analysts to succeed in their field of expertise while making sure their clients are always in the best of care. By following the codes, it makes clear to all behavior analysts’ what is expected of them when entering into and practicing in this profession.

Limitations

Limitations of a study are not necessarily a negative aspect of the study. They are a notation of how someone else might continue with the research topic and add to the literature. For instance, Kubina (2018) noted that when using flashcards, students generally do not time themselves and may not have specific goals in mind. The use of flashcards also lacked any type of instructional design element. This later prompted Lindsley and Graf (Kubina, 2018) to improve on this short-coming and they created a practice and assessment procedure called SAFMEDS. SAFMEDS have been proven to offer a reliable way to help learners quickly meet competency of their targeted goals and the learning was retained over time (Kubina, 2018).

Admittedly, there are limitations to this research. The most obvious one is that not every study created has been included in this paper. However, there is enough substantial evidence to support the use of Precision Teaching among the learning-disabled population. However, as this study focused on students who had been diagnosed with learning disabilities and had experienced Precision Teaching, it did not research Precision Teaching with students without learning disabilities.

Another limitation of this study is that it did not consider ways to increase the knowledge and positive outcomes about Precision Teaching to teachers or staff who work with students having learning disabilities.

Both of these limitations leave room for other researchers to conduct studies to determine if Precision Teaching leads to other benefits for behavior analysts or others, such as teachers, to know.

Future Direction

Precision Teaching is greatly under-utilized and more behavior analysts and teachers should become aware of its effectiveness. This might be accomplished by researchers submitting short articles to professional publications or offering to present a breakout session at a professional conference. In addition, professionals might ask permission to attend teacher institutes at local or state schools to share the information of this study.

It is important to continue to grow the research on the topic of Precision Teaching so it can be recognized as a positive means to help individuals with learning difficulties. For those already working with Precision Teaching, it is imperative that they share their outcomes and knowledge. As noted already, teaching others of the benefits can be accomplished through publishing articles or hosting conference sessions. In the end, the future direction of any behavioral approach, intervention, or treatment is to focus on those we can help and provide them the very best services to ensure they become more self-sufficient, self-confident and happy individuals that know that they matter.

In conclusion, the research presented in this paper offers the reader a thorough understanding of the practice of Precision Teaching including the positive results that can occur when using it with students who have learning disabilities. This research can advance the visibility of Precision Teaching so that it becomes more widely known and adopted by those who work with students having learning disabilities.

References

Antoniou, F., & Souvignier, E. (2007). Strategy instruction in reading comprehension: An intervention study for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 5(1), 41-57.

Arkoosh, M., Weber, K. P., & McLaughlin, T. F. (2009). The effects of motivational/reward system and a spelling racetrack on spelling performance in general education: A case report. The Open Education Journal, 2, 17-20.

Bailey, J. S. & Burch, M. R. (2016). Ethics for Behavior Analysts (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bailey, J. S. & Burch, M. R. (2018). Research Methods in Applied Behavior Analysis. Create your own data collection system (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Behavior Analyst Certification Board, Inc. (2014). Professional and Ethical Compliance Code

for Behavior Analysts. Retrieved on March 19, 2020, from, http://www.bacb.com/wp-content/uploads/BACB-Compliance-Code-english_190318.pdf.

behaviorintervention101. (n.d.). The dead man’s test.  Retrieved on February 16, 2020, from, https://behaviorintervention101.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/what-is-behavior-the-dead-mans-test/.

Binder, C. (1990). Precision teaching and curriculum based measurement. Journal of Precision Teaching, 7(2), 33-35.

,

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

Brown, D., & Frank, A. R. (1990). “Let me do it!” self-monitoring in solving arithmetic problems. Education and Treatment of Children, 13(3), 239-248.

Calkin, A. B. (2003). The course of precision teaching. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 4(1-2), 87-96.

Calkin, A. B. (2005). Precision teaching: The standard celeration charts. The Behavior Analyst Today, 6(4), 207-215. Retrieved on March 20, 2020, from, https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2014-44019-001.html.

Case, L. P., Harris K. R., & Graham, S. (1992). Improving the mathematical problem-solving skills of students with learning disabilities: Self-regulated strategy development. The Journal of Special Education, 26(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699202600101

Casey, J., Mclaughlin, T. F., & Weber, K. P. (2003). The effects of five minute practice, unlimited practice, with safmed cards on correct and error rate in math facts for two elementary school children with learning disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 18(1),

66-72.

Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. (n.d.). Executive Function: Skills for Life and Learning. Retrieved on February 15, 2020, from, www.developingchild.harvard.edu.

Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. (2011). Building the brain’s “air traffic control” system: How early experiences shape the development of executive function: Working paper no. 11. Retrieved on February 15, 2020, from, www.developingchild.harvard.edu.

Chicago ABA Therapy. (n.d.). Probing: How is it used pediatric ABA therapy. Retrieved February 23, 2020, from, https://chicagoabatherapy.com/articles/probing-how-is-it-used-pediatric-aba-therapy/.

Chiesa, M. (1994). Radical behaviorism: The philosophy and the science. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative Inc.

Chiesa, M., & Robertson, A. (2000). Precision teaching and fluency training: Making maths easier for pupils and teachers. Educational Psychology in Practice, 16(3), 297-310. https://doi.org/10.1080/713666088.

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied Behavior Analysis (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Publishing.

Cortiella, C. & Horowitz, S. H. (2014). The state of learning disabilities: Facts, trends and emerging issues. National Center for Learning Disabilities. New York, NY

Cunningham, D., McLaughlin, T. F., & Weber, K. P. (2012). The use and evaluation of verbal prompting with see to say problems and answers and safmeds to teach math facts to a student with learning disabilities. International Journal of Advances in Psychology, 1, 37-39.

Daly, P. M., & Guldswog, J. (1992). Repeated readings with precision teaching to distinguish ld from nld. Journal of Precision Teaching, X, 34-41.

Daniels, A. C., & Bailey, J. S. (2014). Performance Management: Changing Behavior That Drives Organizational Effectiveness (5th ed.). Performance Management Publications.

Dunlap, L. K., & Dunlap, G. (1989). A self-monitoring package for teaching subtraction with regrouping to students with learning disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22(3),

309-314.

Eden, G. F., VanMeter, J. W., Rumsey, J. M., Maisog, J. M., Woods, R. P., & Zeffiro, T. A. (1996). Abnormal processing of visual motion in dyslexia revealed by functional brain imaging. Nature, 382, 66-69. Retrieved on February 23, 2020, from, https://doi.org/10.1038/382066a0.

Evans, A. (2018). A precise description of precision teaching. Paper presented in Gist, C. & Evans, A. Symposium at the 31st Annual Conference of the Standard Celeration Society, Seattle, WA. Retrieved on March 1, 2020, from, https://centralreach.com/what-is-precision-teaching/.

Farrell, A., & McDougall, D. (2008). Self-monitoring of pace to improve math fluency of high school students with disabilities. Behavior Analysis Practice, 1(2), 26-35.

Geary, D. C. (2011). Consequences, characteristics, and causes of mathematical learning disabilities and persistent low achievement in mathematics. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 32(3), 250-263.

Grant, L.& Evans, A. (1994). Principles of behavior analysis. HarperCollins College Publishers.

Gruen, J., Powers, N. R., Eicher, J. D., Butter, F., Kong, Y., Miller, L. L., & Mann, M. (2005). Retrieved on March 1, 2020, from, https://news.yale.edu/2013/06/12/yale-researchers-unravel-genetics-dyslexia-and-language-impairment.

Insgram, T. T. S. (1963). Delayed development of speech with special reference to dyslexia, Proceeding of the Royal Society of Medicine, 56(3), 206-209.

Koscinski, S. T., & Gast, D. L. (1993). Use of constant time delay in teaching multiplication facts to students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(8), 533-544.

Kubina, R. (n.d.). More than flashcards: Using safmeds to help ABA staff. Retrieved on

March 7, 2020, from, http://centralreach.com/more-than-flashcards-using-safmeds-to-help-aba-staff/.

Kubina Jr., R. M. & Starlin, C. M. (2003). Reading with precision. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 4(1-2), 13-21.

Learning Disabilities Association of America. (n.d.). Types of learning disabilities. Retrieved on February 12, 2020, from, https://ldaamerica.org/types-of-learning-disabilities/.

LD Online. (2006). Timeline of learning disabilities. Retrieved on February 10, 2020, from, http://www.idonline.org/11244/.

Lindsley, O. R. (1990). Precision teaching: by teachers for children. Teaching Exceptional Children, 22(3), 10-15.

Lindsley, O. R. (1991a). From technical jargon to plain English for application. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24(3), 449-458.

Lindsley, O. R. (1991b). Precision teaching’s unique legacy from B. F. Skinner. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1(2), 253-266.

Lindsley, O. R. (1992). Precision teaching: Discoveries and effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 51-57.

Lolich, E., McLaughlin, T. F., & Weber, K. P. (2012). The effects of using reading racetracks combined with direct instruction precision teaching and a token economy to improve the reading performance for a 12-year-old student with learning disabilities. Educational Sciences Part-II, 3(2), 245-252. Retrieved on March 1, 2020, from, www.journals.savap.org.pk.

Mercer, C. D., Campbell, K. U., Miller, M. D., Mercer K. D., & Lane, H. B. (2000). Effects of a reading fluency intervention for middle schoolers with specific learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(4), 179-189.

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Objectivism. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved February 16, 2020, from, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective.

Moore, J. (1995). Radical behaviorism and the subjective-objective distinction. The Behavior Analyst, 18, 33-49.

Moore, J. (2011). Behaviorism, The Psychological Record, 61(3), 449-463.

Nam, S. S., & Spruill, M. (2005). Learning channel intervention to develop and generalize fluency in multiplication facts. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 2(2),

103-111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0100305.

National Association of Special Education Teachers. (2018/2019). Introduction to learning disabilities. Retrieved February 12, 2020, from,  https://www.naset.org/index.php?id=2522.

National Joint Commission on Learning Disabilities. (n.d.). National joint committee on learning disabilities definition of learning disabilities (1990). Retrieved on February 16, 2020, from http://www.ldonline.org/about/partners/njcld/archives.

New World Encyclopedia. (n.d.). Behaviorism. In New World Encyclopedia.org. Retrieved February 16, 2020, from https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Behaviorism.

Potts, L., Eshleman, J. W., & Cooper, J. O. (1993). Ogden R. Lindsley and the historical development of precision teaching, The Behavior Analyst, 16, 177-189. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392622.

Precision ABA. (2019). Precision teaching: The basics. Retrieved February 23, 2020, from, http://presicionaba.com/blog/.

Rasplica, C., & Cummings, K. D. (2013). Oral reading fluency. Council for Learning Disabilities. Retrieved March 12, 2020, from, http://council-for-learning-disabilities.org/what-is-oral-reading-fluency-verbal-reading-proficiency.

Stromgren, B., Berg-Mortensen, C., & Tangen, L. (2015). The use of precision teaching to teach basic math facts. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 15(2), 225-240.

DOI: 10.1080/15021149.2014.11434723.

Skinner, B. F. (1974). About Behaviorism. New York, NY: Random House, Inc.

Sweeney, W. J., Omness, C, K., Janusz, K. L., & Cooper, J. O. (1992). Adult literacy and precision teaching: Repeated readings and see/cover/write practice to improve reading and spelling. Journal of Precision Teaching, IX(1), 6-19.

Travis, J., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, K, M., & Carosella, M. (2012). The differential effects of racetrack procedures for saying letter sounds by two first-grade students with learning disabilities. Academic Research International, 2(1), 372-382.

Vargas, J. S. (2003). Precision teaching and Skinner’s legacy. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 4(1-2), 80-86. DOI: 10.1080/15021149.2003.11434221.

West, R. P. & Hamerlynck, L. A. (Eds). (1992). Designs for excellence in education: The legacy of B. F. Skinner. Longmont, CO: Sopris West, Inc.

White, O. R. (1986). Precision teaching – precision learning, Exceptional Children Special Issue, 52(6), 522-534 (updated version pp. 1-11).

Wright, J. (2013). How to: Teach students to change behaviors through self-monitoring. ‘How the Common Core Works’ Series. Retrieved on March 12, 2020, from, http://www.interventioncentral.org.