... before we, you know, kinda delve into the topic more deeply?

Yeah.

So I guess one point I guess I wanna start out with, so we can talk about the components of these, but I think one of the things that has come out through our conversations is that we kind of dislike the calling it mastery.

Like when you talk about mastery outside of what we're doing, people think of like, you know, professional sports players as like masters of their craft.

You know, there's books out there about, you know, how you need ten thousand hours of practice with something to become a master.

And then when-- where we as a field use it most is while we're teaching, which means we're providing high rates of reinforcement [clears throat], you usually our criteria are below a hundred percent, meaning that there may be some error correction or prompting that actually occurred on a couple of trials.

And then when a kid reaches these performance criteria, we go, "Wow, they mastered it." And we say, "Well, that's a terrible time to say that the behavior's been mastered because it's, you know, it's in a fake environment still, a fake kind of teaching, kind of coddled environment." And so then to say, "Well, that kid's mastered it," you know, I don't know if the kid's really mastered it at that point by any kind of common understanding of the term mastery.

Oh, okay

Dan, since you created that figure.

Yeah.

So you have to think about it as two five-second periods.

So what we're trying to do is get the kid to engage with the book and then deliver reinforcers that are paired with the kid's book engagement.

And then once we've seen that behavior for five seconds, now we want to see Does that behavior continue if we withhold that reinforcement? And that's our test.

And that's actually what we're going to plot on a graph.

If after we've paired reinforcement for five seconds, they continue to engage in the book for another five seconds, then we say, look at that.

So I'm going to give you the opportunity to share that.