Precision Teaching Blog

Here I found probably one of the most recent sources where Og, in print, defined Precision Teaching. In his words, “Precision Teaching is a system of tactics and strategies for the self-monitoring of learning” (p. 537).

Lindsley, O. R. (1997). Precise instructional design: Guidelines from Precision Teaching. In C. R. Dills & A. J. Romiszowski, (Eds). Instructional development paradigms (pp. 537-554). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Examining the distillation of PT to a one or two sentences, we see Og demonstrated consistency in how he defined his creation. The mention of self-monitoring shows the commitment to having students maintain their charts and learning projects. Now this does not mean the students engage in “discovery learning” or do not receive input from a manager (e.g., teacher).

Another part of Og’s definition has to do with “tactics and strategies.” These tactics and strategies have produced knowledge that has greatly contributed to our understanding o learning. Additionally, Og used the word “system” in his definition which I think very aptly describes PT. A system refers to a set of interconnected parts that work together. And this notion rings true for Precision Teaching. For instance, if one does not use the Standard Celeration Chart one cannot claim to have implemented PT (even if a few of the other parts of PT appeared in the application or intervention).

Og lists 6 major principles for Precision Teaching:

1. Self-chart performance frequency daily 2. Use Standard Celeration Charts 3. Separately chart desired and undesired pairs 4. Aim for for fluency 5. Monitor learning (celeration) 6. Teach in more than one channel (p. 543).

I will scan a few more published articles to see if Og has written additional definitions of PT. I will also start looking at how some other Precision Teachers have described PT.

I share another of Og’s definitions of Precision Teaching with this entry coming from 1992.

“Precision teaching is basing educational decision on changes in continuous self-monitored performance frequencies displayed on ‘standard celeration charts.’ Twenty-five years of practice...have produced a set of tools, methods, rules, and procedures for making these decisions. High performance aims and custom-tailored prescriptions maximize learning ” (p. 51).

Lindsley, O. R. (1992). Precision teaching: Discoveries and effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 51-57. This definition has elements from Og’s 1971 and 1991 definition:

1. Displaying data on a standard celeration chart (SCC). 2. Making changes based on the charted data. 3. Precision teaching focuses on an individual’s performance.

Different from the two previously discussed definitions Og adds:

4. Students’ should self-monitor their own performance. 5. The use of “high performance aims.”

I would point, however, with regard to #4 Og did write about having students self record - that just feel beyond the definition I shared. Namely, Og said, “In 1965, we started having teachers record students’ performances. Our first problem was that it was too much work for most teachers to record 2, 3, or 4 different daily frequencies on each child, especially if they had 12 or 30 students. Then about 1968 many of our creative teachers began to involve the students in recording” (p. 114, 1971).

So not only does self charting have practical advantages, it also allows the student to self-monitor their performances and changes the chart ownership from the teacher’s to the students’.

The use of performance aims in PT also has a long history in PT. But more on this later :)

In this series of entries I will probably jump around with regards to the dates of the publications. So let’s look at another of Og’s definitions of Precision Teaching from 1991 .

“Precision Teaching is adjusting the curricula for each learner to maximize the learning shown on the learner's personal standard celeration chart. The instruction can be by any method or approach” (p. 259).

“The precision comes from making curricula changes based on changes in the weekly learning of each student. The weekly learning changes are seen on standard celeration charts” (p. 260). Lindsley, O. R. (1991). Precision Teaching's Unique Legacy from B.F. Skinner. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1, 253-266.

In this definition we see again what Og considers essential features of PT.

1. Displaying data on a standard celeration chart (SCC). 2. Making changes based on the charted data. 3. No requirement for a curriculum (can use PT with any curriculum). 4. The precision, in “Precision Teaching” comes from the individual and specific changes based on a learner’s data.

With this definition, like Og’s from 1971 he again includes the SCC in his description of PT. I think that many people have yet to realize the potential of PT because many people do not understand the SCC or have yet to grasp the far reaching effects a superior visual display has on decision making. Og knew.

I have read about 5 or 6 books from the early 1900s describing the benefits of using ratio charts (the SCC falls under the category of a ratio chart). Furthermore, those books also lay out the problems one encounters when using an arithmetic chart (also called equal-interval chart or graph) for making decisions. Clearly, the SCC offers advantages over arithmetic charts, we don’t need data for this statement, rather, we can accept it as a fact! The characteristics of arithmetic charts and ratio charts do not change, but I believe many people have yet to consider these features. Having the Standard Celeration Chart as one of THE defining features of PT sets it apart from every other method/system for measuring behavior/learning.

The ability to use PT with any curriculum makes it very usable, adaptable, and practical. However, I have noticed that when some people speak of using PT with certain curricula they confuse the requirements of the curriculum with some of defining properties of PT. More on that later.

The last part of Og’s 1991 definition speaks to the interplay between a student’s charted performance and a teacher making responsive changes based on the visual display (as presented on the SCC). The ability to have individual decisions and changes (when necessary) made for each student in an entire classroom offers a workable practice for teachers concerned with maximizing learning.

How do we define Precision Teaching (PT)? In this series of blog entries I will share Ogden Lindsley’s, as well as others’, definition of PT. I will try to capture the essence of their definitions in 1 or 2 sentences. Later, I will share a consensus definition of PT.

“Precision teaching involves daily recording of the frequencies of different classroom performances on a standard chart” (p. 115).

Lindsley, O. R. (1971). Precision teaching in perspective: An interview with Ogden R. Lindsley. Teaching Exceptional Children, 3, 114-119.

So we can see, in this brief definition, two essential characteristics of PT.

1. Recording frequency data 2. Displaying frequency data on a standard celeration chart (SCC)

I have heard some people define PT, at conferences, as consisting of 1-minute timed trials. While some Precision Teachers may use 1-minute timed trials (for practice or assessment), contrasting such a narrow definition against Lindsley’s definition above we may have (1.) frequency data, but we have not met (2) the second condition of displaying said data on an SCC. Furthermore, frequency data does not have to occur only in 1-minute trials. More to come!

Hello Bloggo-buddies!


I have started this blog to better communicate with those who visit this site. Please feel free to discuss any of the content on this site or anything else related to PT, education, students with disabilities, science, or anything else :)

I will try to respond to blog entries in a timely fashion. But you can probably see from the frequency of my podcasts that I sometimes get behind!