The implementation of Precision Teaching for the improvement of academic skills: A systematic review of the literature over thirty years

Tiernan et al. (2022) read every paper they could find on Precision Teaching for school skills. They covered thirty years of work. They wanted to see what had been tried and what was missing.

The team found a mountain of small studies. Most used charts and daily timings. No big picture showed which parts work best. Gaps were everywhere: few kids with autism, little spelling work, almost no group designs.

Schaaf et al. (2015) got 100% mastery with a simple computer drill. Reynolds et al. (2022) got big gains in just one hour of Direct Instruction. These bright results sit inside the wider scatter that Tiernan mapped.

Ramos (2025) offers a new tool, MIEBL, that sets smart mastery rules. That idea answers one of the gaps Tiernan flagged: most studies still use the flat 80-100% rule.

Joyce et al. (1988) show the roots. Dvorak was timing typing and charting rates in the 1930s. Tiernan’s review shows the same charting still drives the field today.

You can stop guessing about fluency aims. Pull the Ramos (2025) MIEBL sheet, plug in your learner’s baseline, and let the free tool set a data-driven goal. While you wait for larger trials, keep the old chart on the wall and time daily. The review says that combo—clear aim, daily count, quick changes—has held up for three decades.