Out of the Lab and into Employee Training: The Application of Instructional Lessons to the Training Process
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Julie M. Slowiak
Western Michigan University and University of Minnesota Duluth
September 30th, 2011
Minnesota Northland Association for Behavior Analysis, St. Cloud, MN
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 1Out of the Lab and into Employee Training:
The Application of Instructional Lessons to the Training Process

Douglas A. Johnson and Julie M. Slowiak
Western Michigan University & University of Minnesota Duluth

Slide 2

Don’t blamethe rat!

Slide 3Don’t blame the rat: if the employee
is not performing right, thensomething is wrong with theworkplace environment
If the employee didn’t learn, thenthe employee wasn’t trained

Behavior analysts began to moveout of the lab
Often forgot to take basic
measurement system with themOut of the Lab and into Employee Training: The Application of Instructional Lessons to the Training Process
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Julie M. Slowiak
Western Michigan University and University of Minnesota Duluth
September 30th, 2011
Minnesota Northland Association for Behavior Analysis, St. Cloud, MN
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 4

Slide 5


Slide 6Precision Teaching: Charting andselecting the right measures
We’re pretty good with ourdisplaying of graphs
Measuring just accuracy is not goodenoughField was built on rate measuresthat led to entire science ofbehavior
This can be applied to training

Rate is a highly successful anduniversal measure of performance

Out of the Lab and into Employee Training: The Application of Instructional Lessons to the Training Process
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Julie M. Slowiak
Western Michigan University and University of Minnesota Duluth
September 30th, 2011
Minnesota Northland Association for Behavior Analysis, St. Cloud, MN
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 7More critical situation, more rate is asked for


Slide 8The more critical the situation, themore we demand rate
Counting respirations, pulse, etc
Shouldn’t training and performance
be critical to our organizations?

Training someone sufficiently sothat he or she can then think on
their feet when workingMany valuable organizational
benefits to training to fluency
Retention despite distraction
Rapid application to new situations
Facilitates later acquisition

Training:
Thinkingon Your
FeetSlide 9Fluency:
We not only want you
going in the right direction,
but to do so quickly

Out of the Lab and into Employee Training: The Application of Instructional Lessons to the Training Process
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Julie M. Slowiak
Western Michigan University and University of Minnesota Duluth
September 30th, 2011
Minnesota Northland Association for Behavior Analysis, St. Cloud, MN
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 10

Slide 11

Slide 12We tend to automate when
demand increases

Fluency in actual performance?
Fluency in finding job aids and otherforms of resource searching?
Partial fluency?
Or no fluency, just in training cause
it has to beWhy learn on the job and makeexpensive and reputation harming
mistakes?

Automation of parts of the training
process
Lost for awhile, but returned. We
call it computer-based trainingOut of the Lab and into Employee Training: The Application of Instructional Lessons to the Training Process
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Julie M. Slowiak
Western Michigan University and University of Minnesota Duluth
September 30th, 2011
Minnesota Northland Association for Behavior Analysis, St. Cloud, MN
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 13Training manuals, training sessions,workshops: Typical(non)consequence of inattention
Enforcement of interacting withmaterial
Demonstrating understanding

Slide 14

Reinforcement for right immediatelyCorrection of wrong immediately
Valuable feedback for both trainee
and trainer

Slide 15

Not only respond, but respond rightComplex repertoires require solid
fundamentals
Build upon a solid foundation,otherwise may collapseOut of the Lab and into Employee Training: The Application of Instructional Lessons to the Training Process
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Julie M. Slowiak
Western Michigan University and University of Minnesota Duluth
September 30th, 2011
Minnesota Northland Association for Behavior Analysis, St. Cloud, MN
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 16



Example of why analysis, not bells
and whistles, is needed: Danger ofcomputer-based racing

Slide 17

Mistakes on things we would not
expect them to get wrong
Reinforcement of “being done”
Access to competing contingencies

Slide 18Multiple behavioral strategies existto combat this problems, such as
outcomes contingent on quality ofresponding or partial reduction ofuser control
There is a strong need forunderstanding the user of computer
training; too often the emphasis ison the software gimmicks in theabsence of behavior-based
principles
Computer-based training is not
magic, we need to utilize good
instructional design and behavioral
contingencies

Out of the Lab and into Employee Training: The Application of Instructional Lessons to the Training Process
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Julie M. Slowiak
Western Michigan University and University of Minnesota Duluth
September 30th, 2011Minnesota Northland Association for Behavior Analysis, St. Cloud, MN
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 19Slide 20

The machine really doesn’t teach,the program underneath teaches
The better the instructional design,
the better the training outcomes

Arrogantly assuming we knew it all,or test ourselves?

When the rubber meets the road,you’re guaranteed to find manyerrors
Bad employees (but program good)or take responsibility

First we layout a series ofactivities

Slide 21
Of course, thatseries is just a setof assumptions,so we test inorder to collectdata to get closer
to the truthOut of the Lab and into Employee Training: The Application of Instructional Lessons to the Training Process
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Julie M. Slowiak
Western Michigan University and University of Minnesota Duluth
September 30th, 2011
Minnesota Northland Association for Behavior Analysis, St. Cloud, MN
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 22Errors as valuable information
Again, feedback is critical for thetrainer and designer



Test on new trainees so program
doesn’t become optimized for anidiosyncratic crowdMore revisions

So we revise our program using
the data and errors as our guide

Slide 23

We test again and hopefully it isbetter (but probably not flawless)

Slide 24

We revise again
using our new data

Out of the Lab and into Employee Training: The Application of Instructional Lessons to the Training Process
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Julie M. Slowiak
Western Michigan University and University of Minnesota Duluth
September 30th, 2011
Minnesota Northland Association for Behavior Analysis, St. Cloud, MN
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 25More testingCan never tell if training works
simply by looking at it
Feedback is as critical for thetrainers as it is for the trainees
Lots of work, but guarantees a
training programs that a) adaptsand b) will reliably work

Keep on testing and finding
more sources of errors

Slide 26



Slide 27

Typicaldevelopment
sequenceLacking in front-end analysis (this istrue for both behaviorists and nonbehaviorists alike)
Most stop right after step 1
Different types of learning may
require different training
approaches.
For example, being able to statesome important policy or concept
versus understanding the conceptOut of the Lab and into Employee Training: The Application of Instructional Lessons to the Training Process
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Julie M. Slowiak
Western Michigan University and University of Minnesota Duluth
September 30th, 2011
Minnesota Northland Association for Behavior Analysis, St. Cloud, MN
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 28

Slide 29

One stimulus is notconceptual training






Slide 30
At minimum, to say we trained a conceptConceptual understanding
Generalizing within anddiscriminating across stimulus
classesNot just academic (recognize goodand bad customer service)

Mentioning name of concept: will
not lead to conceptual stimulus
control
Giving definition: will not lead toconceptual stimulus control
Giving an example: will not lead toconceptual stimulus control
Who knows what they’re reactingto?

More than one example to illustrateconcept
Multiple nonexamples that arealmost examples
Practice until fluency with novel
examples and nonexamples
However, multiple exemplar training
is not the same as concept training(doesn’t tell them was the concept
is not; may not necessarily cover allrelevant aspects of the concept)

Out of the Lab and into Employee Training: The Application of Instructional Lessons to the Training Process
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Julie M. Slowiak
Western Michigan University and University of Minnesota Duluth
September 30th, 2011
Minnesota Northland Association for Behavior Analysis, St. Cloud, MN
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 31

Not all training examples andnonexamples are created equalClassic example of a chair forillustrating concepts
Critical attribute: If removed oraltered, then becomes a nonexample (is removed from stimulusclass)Figure out what stimuli are evoking
the responses (necessary featuresof SD)

Which pair is best test?
• “Which of these is a rectangle?”

Slide 32

Critical Attribute:
If removed, thenbecomes non-example



Slide 33

Determine what the concept is byfiguring out what does and does notevoke the response in the verbal
community

Out of the Lab and into Employee Training: The Application of Instructional Lessons to the Training Process
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Julie M. Slowiak
Western Michigan University and University of Minnesota Duluth
September 30th, 2011
Minnesota Northland Association for Behavior Analysis, St. Cloud, MN
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 34
A particularly useful type of nonexample:

The close-in nonexample

A very useful nonexample fortraining purposes: The close-innonexample
Lacks one and only one criticalattribute• Lacks one and only
one of the criticalattributes.

Slide 35

Minimum Rational Set ofClose-In Nonexamples

Lacks “back”

Lacks “for one person”

Show the boundaries of thestimulus class (i.e., concept)
Facilitates appropriate S∆
responding
This is one important aspect oftraining conceptual stimulus controlLacks “feet on ground withbent knee shape”

These nonexamples have everything but one critical attribute

Slide 36

Variable attributes:
If changed, become a new exampleSuch as number of legs

Some attributes can be removed oraltered without the stimulus being
removed from the stimulus class
In other words, some changes
result in new examples

Out of the Lab and into Employee Training: The Application of Instructional Lessons to the Training Process
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Julie M. Slowiak
Western Michigan University and University of Minnesota Duluth
September 30th, 2011Minnesota Northland Association for Behavior Analysis, St. Cloud, MN
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 37

Type of material

Slide 38

Shape of surface

Slide 39Size of backOut of the Lab and into Employee Training: The Application of Instructional Lessons to the Training Process
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Julie M. Slowiak
Western Michigan University and University of Minnesota Duluth
September 30th, 2011
Minnesota Northland Association for Behavior Analysis, St. Cloud, MN
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 40

Minimum Rational Set of Examples• Variable attributes:• Number of legs may be– Four– Three– One– None• Material may be:– Wood– Metal– Plastic• General shape may be:– Flat-planed– Curvaceous• Size of back may be:– High– Medium

Slide 41

Minimum Rational Set of Examples

One legThree leg

Zero legFour leg

Slide 42

Minimum Rational Set of Examples

One leg
Metal material

Three leg
Wood material

Zero leg
Plastic material

Four leg

Variable attributes help us to train
the breadth of the SD conditions
These are highly relevant to training
someone to fully grasp a concept
If any attribute can vary, then it
must varyOut of the Lab and into Employee Training: The Application of Instructional Lessons to the Training Process
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Julie M. Slowiak
Western Michigan University and University of Minnesota Duluth
September 30th, 2011
Minnesota Northland Association for Behavior Analysis, St. Cloud, MN
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 43

Minimum Rational Set of Examples

One leg
Metal material
Curved surface

Three leg
Wood material

Zero leg
Plastic material

Four leg

Flat surface

Slide 44

Minimum Rational Set of Examples

One leg
Metal material
Curved surface

Three legWood material
Medium backSlide 45

Zero leg
Plastic material

Four leg

Flat surface
High backThe minimum to train a concept:This set is the minimum for training
anything conceptual.
It may or may not be adequate(adequacy will be discovered
through testing and revising)Will fully cover all the relevant SDand S∆ aspects
Will not necessarily bring
responding to a useful level ofaccuracy or fluency
Some data to illustrate why
behavior analysis needs
instructional design.

Out of the Lab and into Employee Training: The Application of Instructional Lessons to the Training Process
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Julie M. Slowiak
Western Michigan University and University of Minnesota Duluth
September 30th, 2011
Minnesota Northland Association for Behavior Analysis, St. Cloud, MN
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 46

Project Follow Through:Percentile Scores

Slide 47

Slide 48

Project Follow Through:Comparison of Achievement Outcomes

Reinforcement of desired
behaviors, but learning with lousy
training materials.
Good, clear antecedents cannot be
neglected in favor on focus on only
consequences.

Cognitive stuff: that higher level
creative thinking that is critical inmany industries

Can we train this thing?
Or do behavioral training
approaches only apply to repetitive
job tasks, things easily understoodand quantified
What is creativity?
Definitions generally are pretty
useless
Theme: Something is coming fromnothing
In behaviorism, we reinforce
behaviors after they occur
What is a behaviorist to do?





Out of the Lab and into Employee Training: The Application of Instructional Lessons to the Training Process
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Julie M. Slowiak
Western Michigan University and University of Minnesota Duluth
September 30th, 2011
Minnesota Northland Association for Behavior Analysis, St. Cloud, MN
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 49



Slide 50



Slide 51Is this the best we can do, just hopefor it?
Does it really come out of nowhere?

Some would say behaviorism
cannot explain creative andcognitive skills
Example of insight: Wolfgang
Köhler
The "aha" moment.

Köhler did not know the learning
history of his subjects
Cannot say the insight came fromnowhereOut of the Lab and into Employee Training: The Application of Instructional Lessons to the Training Process
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Julie M. Slowiak
Western Michigan University and University of Minnesota Duluth
September 30th, 2011
Minnesota Northland Association for Behavior Analysis, St. Cloud, MN
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 52Epstein replication with pigeons
To climb a box
To peck a banana
To push a box in a direction
A combinational repertoire emerged
when put in novel situation

"Insight" is impossible without theprerequisite repertoire
It may be a more complex“cognitive” type performance, but it
still ultimately based on thebehavioral learning history
Without the training, the repertoire
doesn’t emerge

Taught multiple
skills in isolation

Slide 53Slide 54




Contingency Adduction:
Recruitment of skills (establishedunder differing previous
circumstances) to a new set ofcircumstances
We can use engineered discovery
learning in our training processes
Since not directly training each andevery step, save time and money
We have long been dealing with theemergence of untrained skills
Stimulus and response
generalization involve untrained
relations
A = B, B = C leads to A=C (withoutdirect training)
Or recombination of previous skills
when solution is not obvious

Out of the Lab and into Employee Training: The Application of Instructional Lessons to the Training Process
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Julie M. Slowiak
Western Michigan University and University of Minnesota Duluth
September 30th, 2011
Minnesota Northland Association for Behavior Analysis, St. Cloud, MN
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 55Slide 56

Training employees to thinkoutside the box and more• If conceptual understanding is important, fullytrain across the critical and variable aspects• General rule trained to fluency• Valuable component skills at fluency – let
adduction do the rest
• Engineering discovery, rather than blindly
fumbling around• Collect feedback on own training results• Much of this training can be automated,but don’t blindly trust the machine to
be a magic solution











We deal with new problems byrecombining the behaviors that
have, in the past, brought us
success in similar situation.
Finding and directly training
generalizable rules will be very
helpful!
Solution: Train basic behaviors thatare likely to be applied in a varietyof circumstances. These may berecruited and recombined asnecessary. This is more likely tooccur when the component
behaviors have been trained tofluency. The more pieces you haveand the better you are at using
them, the more likely you’ll come up
with the right novel solution.
Note: The new solution only seems
to come out of nowhere (beinsightful or creative)
Truth: Actually depends on learning
history
We can and should train for thisPanic: Do I have to train
everything? NoIf conceptual understanding isimportant, fully train across thecritical and variable aspects
General rule trained to fluency
Valuable component skills atfluency – let adduction do the rest
Engineering discovery, rather thanblindly fumbling around
Collect feedback on own training
results
Much of this training can beautomated, but don’t blindly trust
the machine to be a magic solution
You can and should train a lot morethan you normally do. But don’t
expect training to solve everything.

Out of the Lab and into Employee Training: The Application of Instructional Lessons to the Training Process
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Julie M. Slowiak
Western Michigan University and University of Minnesota Duluth
September 30th, 2011
Minnesota Northland Association for Behavior Analysis, St. Cloud, MN
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 57

One piece of the much larger
organizational puzzle
A very important piece that should
not be neglected
Contact:
djohnson@operant-tech.com

Training department

Applicants

Employees

Self-collected
feedback

Slide 58

Contact:
djohnson@operant-tech.com