Posting Charts to the SCC Blog

 

Just testing how charts and graphics can be uploaded to the blog.

To view a larger version of the chart, click on the thumbnail.  To return to this page after viewing the chart, click the back arrow on your web browser. 

The chart shown here is one that I uploaded to the Standard Celeration Listserve a few days ago.  It's a chart from 1975, and, in fact, is the first Standard Celeration Chart that I did. It's a chart of my reading my class notes, day by day, for the course named Applied Reinforcement Theory, which was taught by Dr. Steve Graf, and which was the course that first introduced me to Precision Teaching and to the Standard Celeration Chart.  The Movement Cycle is "reads page."  The y-axis up the left is Pages Read per Minute.  Those were pages in my notebook. –JE

BRCo Standard Celeration Charting Resources

A centralized site for both of the Standard Celeration Charting books I mentioned in the previous post, and a source of the charts themselves, is the Behavior Research Company (BRCo) family of websites.  BRCo was founded by Dr. Ogden R. Lindsley.

To order either the Graf & Lindsley (2002) or the Pennypacker, Gutierrez, Jr., and Lindsley (2003) book from BRCo you can go to BRCo's site at:

http://www.behaviorresearchcompany.com/

and click on the link to its online store.

To go to its store directly, you can click on:

https://www.behaviorresearchcompany.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=SFNT&Store_Code=B

and browse amongst its catalogs of products.

To go to the page where you can order the two aforementioned charting books, the direct webpage link is:

https://www.behaviorresearchcompany.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=B&Category_Code=BKMN

where you can also view their front covers. — JE

 

Standard Celeration Chart References

Here are a couple of primary references that pertain to the Standard Celeration Chart:

Graf, S.A., & Lindsley, O.R. (2002). Standard Celeration Charting 2002. Poland: OH: Graf Implements.  Available at: http://www.behaviordevelopmentsolutions.com/products_celeration.html

Pennypacker, H.S., Gutierrez, Jr., A., & Lindsley, O.R. (2003). Handbook of the Standard Celeration Chart. Concord, MA: The Cambridge Center. Available at: http://www.behavior.org

I encourage all "chart people," Precision Teaching people, Behavior Analysts, and interested other persons to obtain copies of these valuable books.  They explain the chart in detail and cover how to use it. — JE

 

Og on “Standard Celeration Charting System Standards”

Back in November of 2003 Dr. Ogden Lindsley delivered what would be his last Invited Address to the International Precision Teaching Conference (IPTC).  The IPTC was held in Columbus, Ohio, USA that year.

The title of Og’s talk was “Precision Teaching’s Eyes and Ears: Standard Celeration Charts and Terms.” (Lindsley, 2003) To my knowledge at this point in time, Og’s Invited Address has not been published anywhere. Nor has his presentation’s two-page handout even been published.  Both should be published.  We need to have the handout published, and also we need to have the talk transcribed and also published.

Anyway, Lindsley proposed a whole set of charting standards, divided into three categories:  (1) Standard Chart Standards, (2) Standard Charting Conventions, and (3) Standard Reading Terms.  Without attempting to copy or replicate his entire presentation here, I think that it’s ok to list the 13 items in that first category, Standard Chart Standards. 

In the past we heard things like “the only thing standard on the chart is the x2 celeration angle.”  That was the sort of thing you’d hear at conventions and so on.  I think even Og said that.  But by the time of this presentation, he had clearly identified a whole lot more standards than just the x2 celeration angle!

Herewith, without further ado, are the 13 Standard Chart Standards:

1. Family of four (daily, weekly, monthly and yearly charts).

2. Celeration angle x2 = 34 degrees (what I told you about above).

3. Vertical axis 6 x10 multiply cycles (full range of human behavior frequencies).

4. Horizontal axis of 20 celeration periods.

5. Horizontal axis of 7 day weeks, and 5 week months.

6. Frame size of 8 inches Wide, 5 4/16 inches High.

7. Margin size of 1 11/16 inches Left, 1 5/16 inches Right, 1 7/16 inches Top, and 1 13/16 inches Bottom.

8. Axis values (e.g. .001, .01, .1, 1, 10, 100, 1000, etc.).

9. Axis labels (e.g., Count per Minute; Successive Calendar Days, etc.).

10. Grid lines (day lines up, frequency lines on multiply-divide scale across).

11. Team location (blanks down at the bottom of the chart).

12. Light blue ink (empirically found to facilitate charting speed and charting accuracy).

13. WOGR paper (the original paper that was durable, and water, oil, and grease resistant, and also translucent — you could stack charts one on another and view several of them at the same time).

From what I recall of Og’s talk, to be a Standard Celeration Chart a chart would need to have all of the above 13 standard features. If it did not have them all, then it would not be a standard chart.  It might be a useful-for-some-purposes chart. It might be an aesthetic chart. It might be a politically correct and hence job or career-enhancing chart. It might be a chart that JABA or JEAB might publish. But if it lacks any or all of those 13 features, it isn’t a standard chart.  That’s the whole point:  As Dr. Dennis Edinger reminds people on the SC listserve every now and then, Dr. Lindsley was very keen on developing and setting standards. In his final talk, he itemized these Standard Celeration Chart standards for us.

REFERENCE:

Lindsley, O.R. (2003). Precision Teaching’s Eyes and Ears: Standard Celeration Charts and Terms. Invited Address presented at the International Precision Teaching Conference, Columbus, Ohio (November 6).

– JE

Comments?

 

Calculating Frequency with ‘Dead Air Time’

This may be one of the advantages of timings over recordings, well, some types of recordings, and some types of timings. On the other hand, sometimes recordings may have the advantage over timings. Anyway, I want to deal with a problem in how we measure frequency.

Let’s start with an example. Suppose the learner starts a timing and makes a response every second for the first 10 seconds.  OK, it we stopped the timing after 10 seconds the frequency would be one per second, or, on the chart, 60 per minute, a fairly high frequency.

Now, suppose we hadn’t ended the timing right then and there, but left the timer running. And that after the 10th second, the learner made no more responses.  Dead air, so to speak. As the seconds tic by, the frequency will go down. Right?

Right.  After 20 seconds the learner’s frequency would be 10 responses in 20 seconds. Multiply by three, and we get a frequency of 30 per minute, half of what we had.

If we continued timing, or recording, after 30 seconds the frequency would be down to 20 per minute. (Remember, in this example the learner made 10 responses in the first 10 seconds and then stopped responding, even though the clock is now continuing to run.)

If this scenario played out for a full minute, the learner’s frequency would drop to 10 per minute. And if the same scenario continued for the next minute, the learner would be down to 5 per minute.

So, question:

What’s the kid’s real frequency?  60 per minute, 30 per minute, 20 per minute, 10 per minute, 5 per minute, 1 per minute, what?

By manipulating the clock, or following some rules about using the clock, the representation of the kid’s frequency can be changed without the kid ever doing anything about it, one way or another.  In other words, you can get any frequency you want simply by ensuring that some “dead air time” (time when the person is not responding) is included in, or removed from, the determination of the frequency.

Where timings gain a bit of an advantage is when they span very brief durations of time.  If someone conducts a 10-second timing, there isn’t a whole lot of time left over for any “dead air time” to creep in and thus start changing the apparent frequency.  On the other hand, if you activated a response recorder and several minutes passed by before the learner started responding, you have to decide whether to include that “dead air time” in the calculation of the frequency.

So, what’s the real frequency?

This problem has been brought up from time to time in Behavior Analysis, and it is sometimes offered as a crippling blow to frequency as a measure of behavior.

The wishy-washy answer is, “it depends.”

Dead air time happens during timings and during recordings of behavior. It can occur as a pause for a few seconds within a timing, after which the behavior resumes.

My guess is that if we were to apply Lindsley’s “the child knows best” principle, that we then let the learner’s behavior dictate the frequency, and not some arbitrary rules, unless there is some compelling reason to have the rules trump the principle.

So, abiding by the principle, in my view, in the example above the kid’s frequency was 1 per second for 10 seconds, and that’s it. It’s not 60 per minute because for 50 seconds out of that minute the kid remained mute. Nor was it 10 per minute, because that’s applying an arbitrary rule.  The figure of 5 per minute (in the example, recording or timing for two minutes instead of one) is just as applicable and just as valid and just as totally arbitrary.  And thus just as worthless.

So, how do we chart 1 per second for 10 seconds?  Put a dot at the 60 per minute line?  That seems to be what’s done now if, say, a 10-second timing was conducted and the result of 1 per second obtained.  But, that might be stretching matters a bit, or more than a little bit. In the case of the example above, extrapolating 1 per second for 10 seconds to 60 per minute would be clearly incorrect and unreasonable, given that the learner didn’t maintain that pace for a full minute.

So, how do we chart it? 

This is what’s not clear to me.  Perhaps this is where there’s a weakness in the charting conventions. Currently, we have the Record Floor, aka these days as a Counting Time Floor, and the Behavior Floor (another PT relic from the past, rarely used anymore).  Neither floor applies to the situation above where we are confronted with maybe having to include “dead air time” in the calculation of a frequency. Perhaps we need a third floor, an “Actual Floor,” or something. The notion of an “Actual Floor” would be predicated on the learner’s behavior, not on tactical considerations from the perspective of the teacher, researcher, or other person conducting observation and measurement. Accordingly, an “Actual Floor” would require its own symbol on the chart, what I am not sure.

Or, as an alternative, when a timing, or a recording, falls to less than a minute, perhaps we should avoid charting the frequency in terms of count per minute. (I can almost feel the tidal wave of disagreement there!). In that case, perhaps a different chart, one with Count per Second up the left, would work better?

Otherwise, we’ll end up with a situation where the figure given for a learner’s natural frequency can be arbitrarily changed at will, on paper or on a computer, without the learner’s actual behavior ever changing.

I am open to suggestions on this, and I think this would be a fruitful and compelling topic for discussion for Precision Teaching. — JE

 

 

 

In Appreciation of the Frequency Finder

Sometimes it’s the little things that make a difference. Lately, as in the past day or so, I have been thinking about the Frequency Finder.  That’s a charting tool described in Chapter 6 of the Handbook of the Standard Celeration Chart (Pennypacker, Gutierrez, & Lindsley, 2003; pp. 33-36).  The Frequency Finder seems to me to be one of those little things that makes a difference.

I have yet to illustrate or define a Standard Celeration Chart on this blog, and while there are many charting topics and issues to cover, right now discussion of the Frequency Finder seemed most germane.  So, first I’ll cover what the Frequency Finder is, and how to use it, and then get into the reason why I have brought it up.

As mentioned, the Handbook describes how to make a Frequency Finder.  Let’s cover this first.

To make one, you cut up a paper Standard Celeration Chart.  Depending on how wide you make a Frequency Finder, you can get 6 to 10 of them from a single chart.  To make one, get a daily Standard Celeration Chart.  Next, grab a pair of scissors and position them so that you will be cutting vertically up the chart at or around the first Monday line.  Cut all the way up the page, and as the Handbook suggests, trim away the corner areas if you want (that’s the area above the 1000 per minute line and below the .000695 per minute line). Next, somewhere on the Finder, write “Frequency Finder.”  Last, draw a small right-aimed, horizontal arrow at the 1 per minute line.  At this point, you’re done making the Finder, as we’ll call it for short.

As I said, you can make additional Frequency Finders from that same sheet of chart paper, though for any additional ones you make you will also have to write in the frequency numbers (e.g., 1, 5, 10, 50, etc.)

You may also order and purchase clear mylar Frequency Finders, for example, from Behavior Research Company. (I’ll get a link to BRCo’s site at some point.) In fact, even better, you can order Celeration Finders from BRCo; these also have Frequency Finders on them.

So, how to use the Frequency Finder?

Example:  Suppose a learner made 120 responses in 3 minutes.  Now, it’s easy for us to figure out this example frequency without having to use a Finder.  A little simple math tells us that the frequency was 40 per minute.  Anyway, to use the Finder with this example, position the Finder on top of the daily chart onto which you are charting daily frequencies of behavior.  Line up the arrow on the Finder with the 1 per minute line on the chart.  Next, move the Finder down the chart until the 3 per minute line on the Finder lines up with the 1 per minute line on the chart.  The arrow on the Finder now points to the Record Floor.  This is where you draw the time bar, –, on the chart.

Next, without moving the Finder, go up the Finder until you reach 120.  Alas, you will see that there is no 120 line on either the Finder or on the chart.  There is a 100 per minute line and the next line up is 200 per minute — such is life with a multiply-divide scale!  You will have to estimate where the 120 line would go if there were one. Fortunately, with our example here, we already know that 120 divided by 3 equals 40, and thus the frequency dot on the chart goes at 40 per minute. (By the way, this is one way of back-finding where a line would go.)

I should hasten to add that the example presumes that you, the charter, are putting the frequency and the Record Floor on the proper day line on the chart. So, in addition to moving the Finder up and down the chart, you would also first move it across the chart to the appropriate day line!

OK, this was an easy example.  It doesn’t show much of the power of the Frequency Finder, except that there is no 3 minute line indicated on the right-hand side of the chart.  The example really only shows us how to find and draw a time bar when we don’t have some time period guideline on the right side of the chart. And, in this simple example, we could easily do the math.

Next example, then.  Suppose the learner does 312 responses in 7 minutes. While we could still do the math to calculate the frequency, if one is not highly fluent in performing such arithmetic, it may be faster to use the Frequency Finder. In this example, we first line up the Finder so that the correct day line on the chart is just to the right of the Finder. Then, we also line up the Finder so that the arrow on the Finder is on the 1 per minute line of the chart. Then, as before, we’d move the Finder down the chart until the 7 line on the Finder lined up with the 1 line on the chart.  The arrow then points to where a 7 minute line would go. That’s where you draw the Record Floor.

Next, count up to 312 on the Finder. Again, there’s no 312 line, just a 300 line and next up, a 400 line. So, again, you’ll have to interpolate.  312 is much closer to 300 than to 400, so put the frequency just above 300 per minute on the Finder. You will see that, on the chart, the resulting dot is between 50 and 60 per minute. That’s as precise as you need to be, since at that location on the chart’s 10’s cycle, the dot itself will cover several frequencies.

As the Handbook stresses, you can perform rapid plotting with a Frequency Finder. The Handbook also provides visual examples of how to work the Finder.

So, why bring all this up, especially now?

Well, it’s unclear to me just how much people in Precision Teaching are using Frequency Finders these days.  Ever since the “paradigm shifted,” and PT became focused first on fluency, and second on a particular method of conducting timings, the result seems to be less of a need to use a Frequency Finder.

First of all, if you conduct a 1-minute timing, there is no need to use one at all. Secondly, if you conduct timings shorter than one minute using convenient fractions of a minute, then there is likewise hardly any need to use a Frequency Finder.  The common practice now is to conduct timings of students that are 30 seconds, 20 seconds, 15 seconds, 10 seconds, and even 6 seconds long in time duration.  To find a frequency from running a timing of one of these durations is simply a matter of extrapolation.  Extrapolation is achieved by multiplying the count by whatever factor you would need to multiply the time by in order to bring the time up to one minute. 

For example, if you conducted a 30-second timing, then you would multiply the count by two, because you would also multiply 30-seconds by two to get a full minute.  Likewise, then, if a Precision Teacher ran a 10-second timing, he or she would multiply the count by six, because 10 seconds times 6 would equal 60 seconds, or one minute.

So, in conduting timings from within a fluency paradigm, where a teacher is perpetually doing one-minute timings or set, specific fractions of a minute and extrapolating by multiplying, there is no need whatsoever to use a Frequency Finder. The kid did four responses in a six-second timing?  Multiply 4 by 10 and presto!  You can assert, and chart, that the kid’s frequency was “40 per minute.”

Even when people conduct “endurance” tests of two minutes, there’s still not a whole lot of need to use a Frequency Finder.  Just divide the obtained count by two.  If the kid did 50 responses in 2 minutes, that interpolates to 25 per minute. Easy to figure out and compute, and no need to drag in the Finder.

You will note that no one conducts an endurance test of 2 minutes 23 seconds, or 2 minutes 45 seconds, etc.  Or one minute 39 seconds.  Again, etc.  It’s always some convenient (to the teacher or researcher) multiple or fraction. Because, in modern Precision Teaching, the teacher, after all, knows best.

So, is the Frequency Finder becoming something of a lost tool in Precision Teaching?  Maybe. I wonder. Because for the most part it just is not needed.

So, why might it ever have been needed?  Because, in the olden days of Precision Teaching, people did not conduct timings only.  At least the timings paradigm was not paramount, even though it had its origins early on.  Moreover, there was little overt concern with “fluency.”  Go look at the old PT literature from the 60s up through most of the 80s.

Back then, people Recorded behavior, rather than simply run timings. The old PT slogan was “Pinpoint, Record, Chart, and Try, Try Again.”  Not “Pinpoint, Time, Chart, and Try, Try, Again.”

When you record behavior you may not know ahead of time how long you will be recording it.  Moreover, you may end up with really inconvenient (from an arithmetic perspective) recording time.  What if you recorded behavior for 43 minutes, 17 seconds?  Not only is there no 43 minute 17 second line on the chart, there’s also no plain old 43 minute line. If the kid did 177 behaviors in those 43 minutes and 17 seconds, calculating the frequency might be beyond the quick proficiency of many people. With the Finder, you can rapid plot the frequency — move it down to where about a little over 43 on the Finder lines up with the 1 line on the chart, and the arrow is pointing to where a Record Floor of around 43 minutes 17 seconds would go.  Counting up 177 on the Finder lets you put the dot near the 4 per minute line on the chart.

People have asserted (and I’ll need to dig up the references) that in the early days of PT that the one-minute timing emerged because teachers could not do long division, and did not want to try to calculate frequencies in their heads or something.  And that this was in the pre-calculator era, not that people would also want to spend a lot of time messing with calculators anyway. That story may or may not be true.

But, with the Frequency Finder, they’d never have had to do any calculating anyway.  None.  No calculating, period.

So, why not teach the teachers of yesteryear to use Frequency Finders? Problem solved! Maybe that was tried and maybe people found that that, too, was just too inconvenient or difficult?  If anyone from that era who is still around can clarify this point, that’d be much appreciated.

So, why not use a finder?

Just move a piece of paper on top of another piece of paper, using what is, in effect, a little slide rule.  Easy to learn, easy to do, fast to do.

Under the fluency and timings paradigm, it’s not clear to me that newcomers to the field are learning a lot of the potential that Precision Teaching has, nor that they are necessarily learning the full range and scope of the Standard Celeration Chart and its vast and enormous analytic power. 

So, one of the things I want to find out is whether the Frequency Finder is still being taught anymore.  Are Chart Parents teaching it to newbie charters?  Are “intro to charting” workshops at ABA and IPTC teaching attendees about the Frequency Finder?  Are the few university courses that teach PT and charting teaching students about the Frequency Finder? Or is the Finder one of a growing set of relics from an earlier era?  That’s something I’d like to find out, either way. — JE

 

Communicating about Standard Celeration Charts and PT

Over the years one of the many criticisms leveled at Precision Teaching has concerned its relative dearth of informational resources.  For many years people noted that the publication frequency of precision teaching seemed rather low. Then people also lamented out-of-date and out of print books and other resources.  The field’s journal also has had a record of haphazard and intermittent publication.

Well, the situation has changed somewhat in recent years.  About a decade ago a listserve was started.  Then, a few years ago some salient publications appeared on the scene, including a new Handbook of the Standard Celeration Chart by Pennypacker, Gutierrez, and Lindsley. The journal was revived, and given a more professional appearance (though the journal seems to have fallen on hard times again, given that it’s been a couple of years since an issue was last published).  But, the center of communication within the Precision Teaching verbal community has been its old listserv. 

Recently, in discussion with Scott Born, Dennis Edinger, and Stu Harder, I pointed out that we could begin to take better advantage of newer, more recdent communication tools that now exist on the internet, including webforums and web logs, or “blogs.”  This blog represents one such effort to branch out.

OK, so what’s the point of this site?

The way I see it, it’s to encourage discussion of all matters pertaining to the Standard Celeration Chart and Precision Teaching; to establish this site as one more focal point for communication, and to set up something of an archive of web resources pertaining to Precision Teaching.

As a matter of general rule, contributions to this site will be about Precision Teaching, the Standard Celeration Chart, and to some extent about Behavior Analysis.  I include the latter category because PT owes its origins to the experimental analysis of behavior, and hence to Behavior Analysis, and also because PT is viewed by some people, including me, as part of the larger field of Behavior Analysis.

As this blog site grows, some of the contributions will be in the area of how to use the chart or other “how-to” topics concerning Precision Teaching.  Other topics will pertain to advanced charting issues and questions.  Some topics may include issues about the field in general, its direction, or how things should be going.  — JE

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!