tandard Chart Commentary

Return to Home Page | Return to Commentary Menu

"Retention" Data Checks and Studies

by John W. Eshleman, Ed.D.

August 1, 2001

In Precision Teaching the term "retention" refers to some quantity of learning that a learner continues to exhibit over time after the instruction has concluded. Learning refers to a relatively permanent change in frequency over time, and in Precision Teaching typically includes the designated movement cycle reaching a frequency aim.  "Retention," then, refers to the drop off in frequency, over time, after the frequency aim has been reached.  How much the frequency decreases, and the celeration of the decrease, serves as a general measure of "retention."

"Retention" has been identified as one of the outcomes of "fluency." "Fluency," as currently defined in Precision Teaching, refers to a particular combination of the frequencies comprising an accuracy pair, usually the frequency correct and the frequency error.  The separation of these two frequencies describes an accuracy ratio. On a Standard Celeration Chart the accuracy ratio refers to the linear distance between frequency error and frequency correct. "Fluency," therefore, refers to the specific accuracy ratio attained, with frequency aims reached for the correct responses and for the error responses. The aims for errors are generally below the Record Floor (1 per amount of time spent recording).  The aims for corrects are determined empirically, or with respect to previously determined standards. In passing, one should note that the frequencies of corrects and errors are independent of each other:  Corrects and errors can either co-accelerate, co-decelerate, or corrects can accelerate while errors decelerate, or corrects can decelerate while errors accelerate.

Accordingly, in a "fluency" model, "retention" refers to both the decrease in frequency of corrects over time, after instruction has concluded, and to the increase in frequency of errors over that same time span. It thus refers to the general decrease in the accuracy ratio, or to a decrease in the improvement index.  Alternatively, another way of viewing this would have "retention" refer to the stability of those two frequencies over time with respect to the frequency aims originally attained.

"Retention" is one of several outcomes of "fluency," the others being "endurance," "application," and "stability."  The ranges or levels of frequencies that produce "retention," "endurance," "application," and "stability" are considered those that signify "fluency."  When this relationship becomes reliable, the frequencies or ranges of them become "performance standards."

Of course, a critical issue regarding "fluency" concerns the specific identifications of the movement cycles, as well as consideration of the terms making up the "MUSIC" acronym.  Accordingly, "fluency" may differ depending upon the movement cycle selected.  Also, because behavior is both "unique" and "specific" (the 'U' and the 'S' of the 'MUSIC' acronym) "fluency" should vary across learners and across settings and other program events. Dr. Dennis Edinger (SC List message, April 20, 2001) underscored and called attention to these points:

When I first met Og in 1967 the FIRST thing I learned was to Pinpoint the Movement Cycle. Any student who wanted to discuss a problem presented the chart FIRST, and asked the question second. From my experience, unless the Movement Cycle is pinpointed NOTHING can be said about ANY behavior. Certainly, it can't be charted to any standard of science. We need to avoid Madame Cleo's Tarot readings here.

I found over the years that I could reliably count and chart virtually anything in any area of education of psychology as long as I could get the pinpoint into an ACTION VERB IN THE PRESENT TENSE in a simple sentence. As things get fuzzy, there are other criteria, but the ACTION VERB IN THE PRESENT TENSE will keep most PT folk (new and experienced) from trying to events that have no movement.

Without the Pinpointed Movement Cycle, one can never get to frequency, accuracy, fluency or even %. First Things First, One at a Time! Little Steps for Little Feet!

The Question of "Retention" and Its Supporting Database

The question sometimes arises about the evidence that Precision Teaching produces "retention."  While this is a valid question, the answer primarily does not reside in research studies with constructed experimental designs. Mainly, the evidence is whether or not a learner exhibits any or all of the "fluency" outcomes, something that is self-evident to both learner and teacher.  The database on this in Precision Teaching has been primarily inductive, based on charted learning, and not on formal studies.  A crucial issue in the philosophy of science, and scientific methodologies that ensue from application of these philosophies, thus comes to the forefront here.  Formalized experiments that seek answers to particular questions often -- though not always -- follow a deductive scientific paradigm.  In sharp contrast, an inductive scientific paradigm, which Precision Teaching exemplifies, operates more as exploration.  An inductive science builds its knowledge base inductively.  This inductive database of Precision Teaching, comprised of thousands, and perhaps millions, of Standard Celeration Charts, is what produced the discoveries about the relationships between frequency and its effects, as well as between celeration and its effects.

So, the question, then, should be reformulated to ask what kinds of changes to retention occur, given a set of instructional conditions and techniques that produce either a given accuracy ratio or a given improvement index.  The answers to such an improved question will help determine the relationship between achievement of fluency and its various outcomes. However, the answers will not obviate or diminish what has already been accumulated inductively.

If a criticism can be leveled at the field of Precision Teaching regarding "retention" and many other questions, it would be a criticism of the quantity, frequency and modality of the presentations of data that are shared with the scientific and practicioner communities. Of the thousands, and perhaps millions, of Standard Celeration Charts generated, very few have been published. A greater number have been presented in papers and at "Chart Shares" at conventions, but these charts are more difficult to readily access than published charts.  Most charts have never been published or presented at public meetings. This issue is a matter of communication, however, and again does not gainsay the database.

Part of the problem regarding communication concerns the contingencies of reinforcement operating with respect to the various individuals who make up the field of Precision Teaching. Academicians often work under a "publish or perish" contingency, which selects for and produces a relatively high rate of published articles, books, and other printed matter, as well as papers presented at conventions. While the Precision Teaching community includes some academicians, it has many people who live and work outside of the academic venue.  These people include teachers, parents, trainers, students, businesspersons, and interested citizens, who are under few, if any, contingencies to publish or present their work.  The issue regarding "retention" data, then, would appear to be one of figuring out how we can increase the frequency of sharing data, especially from the individuals who are under no pressure to publish or to present their data.

Below are the references that I have been able to assemble, thus far, that examine in whole or in part the question of "retention" of learning. The studies listed either included retention checks as part of the study (e.g., Eshleman, 1988; McCuin & Cooper, 1994), or carried out an empirical and/or experimental analysis of retention (the other listed references).

If there are more PT published studies, or other studies that examined the relationship between frequency (i.e., fluency levels attained) and subsequent retention, please post them to the SC List or send me email identifying them.  Obviously, the more data and more studies we generate on this topic the further our understanding will be between "fluency" and its several outcomes, including "retention."  Interested parties, teachers, and scientists are directed to the studies listed below, and encouraged to obtain and read these studies before pronouncing judgment on what Precision Teaching has asserted about "retention."

These studies listed below help document and verify what we have asserted about retention in our commentary about Precision Teaching and "fluency."

RETENTION STUDIES

Berquam, E.M. (1981). The relation between frequency of response and retention, on a paired associates task. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Brown, S. A., Dunne, J. D, & Cooper, J. O. (1996). Immediate retelling's effect on student retention. Education and Treatment of Children, 19 (4), 387-407.

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

Eshleman, J.W. (1988). Development of celeration-based instructional software that teaches sequelic intraverbal behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV. (retention check data only).

Grindle, A.C. (1996). The effects of fluency level on retention. Unpublished master's thesis. Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI.

McCuin, D.L., & Cooper, J.O. (1994). Teaching keyboarding and computer skills to persons with developmental disabilities. Behaviorology, 2 (1), 63-78. (retention check data only)

McDade, C.E. (1998). Retention and application of computerized fluency building. Journal of Precision Teaching, 15 (no 2), 74-80.

Olander, C.P., Collins, D.L., McArther, B.L., Watts, R.O., & McDade, C.E. (1986). Retention among college students: A comparison of traditional versus precision teaching. Journal of Precision Teaching, 6 (no 4), 80-82.

Shirley, M.J., & Pennypacker, H.S. (1994). The effects of performance criteria on learning and retention of spelling words. Journal of Precision Teaching, 12, 73-86.

Weber, K.P., & Cowardin, J. (1994). Computerized learning of WordPerfect using precision teaching. Journal of Precision Teaching, 11 (no 2), 19-27.

An earlier version of this file was originally posted by John W. Eshleman to the SC List and B2K List:

Subj: REAPS -- The Retention Studies File

Date: 04/14/2001

To: SClistserv@lists.psu.edu

To: BEHAVIOR2000@LISTSERV.TEMPLE.EDU

Links to original archived article:

http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=sclistserv&F=&S=&P=5267

http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104B&L=behavior2000&P=R1235