The World's First Job Aid And
How It Came About
(The first, and perhaps last, in a series of NSPI historical vignettes.)
By Donald Tosti (as told to Stephanie Jackson)
Okay, so it's probably not the first job aid in history. No
doubt there is one that's yet to be discovered by an
archaeologist digging somewhere in Mes opotamia;
however, this is the first one I know of that was done by
an NSPI member.
At the time, I was working for TMI (Teaching
Machines Incorporated), the first and largest of the
more than 400 or so programmed learning companies
formed in the early 60s. In the spring of 1962 we
negotiated a contract with Charles Goren to write a
course called " Goren's Easy Steps to Winning
Bridge." The assignment was given to me as chief
program writer and editor. The only problem with that
choice was that I had never played a game of bridge in
my life. My co -programmer, Ed Reichert, had never
played bridge either—but as we were good behavioral
analysts we didn't let that get in our way. The first step
was to find a Subject Matter Expert. Fortunately, Jim
Evans—no mean analyst himself—had spent a
considerable portion of his college career playing bridge.
Unfortunately, he said it took a long time to learn, and
there were lots of complex decision-making behaviors.
Our two major analytic tools at the time were the
stimulus-response behavior matrix and the flow chart.
The complex series of discriminations involved in
bidding seemed to be best suited to analysis through
flow-charting. So we sat down with Jim Evans and
worked out specific discriminations around each of the
bidding decisions. This allowed us to break the very
complex decision structure into a series of sub structures
and to develop something that looked like a complete
description of the opening bid. A similar process was
used to chart responses to partner's bids, and then later,
opening plays.
1 PERFORMANCE & INSTRUCTION AUGUST 1991
As we sat down to write self-instructional frames
using our analytical flow charts, one of us said, "Why
don't we just give the students the flow charts? They
could act as mediators." This sounded li ke a great
idea, as we contemplated the enormous amount of
instructional writing ahead of us. We took our crude
drawings to the art department and had them develop a
series of full-scale flow charts. The only way they could
do this was to create full-sized diagrams, which were
reproduced on 24" x 24" photographic paper.
Unfortunately, photographic paper has a tendency to
curl a lot, so the charts came out in a series of rolls.
Once we had our rolls of flow charts, we needed a
test subject. We found one in my wife, who had just
joined a bridge club and knew nothing about playing
bridge. So, armed with the rolls of paper, she went off to
her first evening of bridge.
At first, it looked like a disaster. During each hand, she
would pull out her papers, unroll them, examine the
charts, examine her cards, and then make a bid. The
initial reactions from her fellow bridge members were
laughter, ridicule, and impatience. However, as the
game progressed, people began to look over her shoulder
at the charts. They liked the responses she was giving.
How could anybody be this good so fast? By the end of
the evening, they were all using the charts, holding the
edges down with ashtrays so they wouldn't curl.
On receiving this information, Jim Evans and I
decided to build the course around the flow charts.
The final version of one of these appears at the end of
this tale.
In those days there was no such term as job aids—we
called them "paper mediators." At the time we were
working on developing mediation techniques (a mediator
is anything that intervenes between
Chart 1
OPENING BIDS
Deduct
1 pt for singleton K, Q, J
1 pt for doubleton Qx,Jx
28 or more
pts?
Assign
.3 pts for void
.2 pts for singleton
PARTN ER
1
Yes
1
1
Yes
Yes
Are 4 s uits protected
.and equally distributed,
.containing 22-24
.high-card pts?
1
1
Yes
No
Are s uits e qua lly
and
. distributed, containing
.25-27 high-card pts?
1
Yes
No
.protected
ha ve 2
. quick
.t r i c k s ?
(optional
opening)
14-21 pts?
22-24 pts?
25-27 pts?
Yes
Bid 2 of
.l o n g e s t
. suit and go
.to game.
Assign
.4 pts for Ace
.3 pts for King
"Bid 3 NT.1
Is there NT distributio n w ith 16-1 8
. high-card pts?
,
Bid 1 of
longest
biddable
suit. 0
Bid 1 NT
'Bid 2 NT.1
D o e s h a n d have
. s t r o n g 5 card suit
.and 26 pts, Check if
. o n l y 1 trick to
.ga me ?
Does hand have
.strong 6 -card
.s u it . 2 3 p t s ,
. and lack onl y 1
.trick of game . ?
Yes
B id 2 o f t h a t
S u it a nd go
to game.
No
Does hand total 21
.pts with strong
7 -card suit and lack
only 1 trick of game?
1
Yes
No
Bid 2 of that suit.
And go to game
Bid 2 of that
suit a nd go
to game.
Bid 1 of a suit,
.jump next bid
.and go to game.
Bid 1 of a suit,
.jump next bid
.and go to game.
5-12 pts with
least a 6-card
suit. containing
5 winning tricks?
No
Yes
Are you
. vulnerable?
1
Yes
No
Yes
No-
Bid 1of
. longest suit.
Can you
take 7
or 8
tricks?
1
1
No Yes
Yes
No
Pass!
'Pass
Pre-e mp t at
.4-level w i t h
8 . Pre -e mpt
.at 3-level
.with 7.
Pre-e mp t at
4-level w i t h
. 7 . Pre-e mpt
.at 3-level
.with 6.
RESPONSES TO OPENING SUIT BIDS
Chart 2
'Support only if game is in sight…
Is Partner
first opener?
Count high-card pts and special distribution
(dummy) pts.
promote honors.
D i d
.
Partner open
1 of a suit
Did partner open ?
N
Yes
.I
7 or more pts?
No
Yes
3 unbid suits protected, and at least 2 cards in partner's suit?
No
Yes
No
19 or more pts? Yes
No
Yes
16 -18 high- card pts and 4-3-3-3 distribution..... yes.....0.1,Ju mp to 3 NT.'
13 -15 high- card pts
Did partner open?
bid in new suit)
13pt. 2 NT ( B u s t
Response). With
6- card suit
No
Bid at least once in a new suit before
D
giving partner a strong raise.
17- 18 pts? Y e s . . o
..No
y
o best suit at • cheapest
Bid
[Ju mp ra ise part ner's suit to 3.1
No
u
level.
N omore
Bid new suit
then bid at least one
.
before raising
h o y o u h a v e a t
time.
13- 16 pts? Y e s . . D
game?
part ner's s uit.
la e a s t 1 p Least
t …11…pt... .
No
Yes..
Trump
.v 1 p osupport?
…..No
i n t . x y e s ____________ of trumps?
`
D
e
No
l Bid new suit before raising partner's s u i t
10- 12 pts? Y e s o
ty best suit at cheapest
D o y o u h a v e 5 t r u m p s YR a i s e a m a j o r suit
Bid
Y
r
a n d a singleton or void'? eto 4:
level,
then bid at least one
o
emore time.
s
a minor suit to 2.
6 9 pts?
u
.
..
sm yo u have trump s uppo rt Yes-pass
Yes 10-1Do
No--Raise partne r's suit to 2.
h
p you have a biddable suit at the level of 16? Yes--bid suit at level of + 1.
Do
a
v
s you have 6-9… high-card pts?
Do
Yes Bid 1 NT
e
u
No-pass
p
t
rp
o
u
m
r
p
t
'
s
?
.b id yo ur bes t
…suit once then
..2 NT
Adequate trump
support?
Yes
No…
Count number of
quic k tricks in
your hand. Add
1 if partner bid
4 and 2 it partner
bid 5.0)
Add 1 in me yo u
are vulnerable.
Bid 4 NT, then
6 of pa r t n e r ' s
suit w he n one
Ace is
miss ing, or 7
with all Aces.
IBM 6 of
that suit.
1 7 o r more?
Yes
No
—Yes
No
Ra ise
p a r t n e r 's
suit.
5-ca rd s uit a nd 3
high-card pts?
Yes
No
Bid strong
suit
Bid3 NT
Ra ise
.
m i n o r - Yes 45?
suit to 5.
Raise a — Ye s
Major
suit to 4.
No
No
Pass
PERFORMANCE & INSTRUCTION AUGUST 1991 2
and response to help you recall the correct response).
We were using mnemonic devices, pictures as
mediators, and word/symbol/figure matrices. Flow
charts are just one class of mediator.
Most things can be presented in words, symbols,
and/or figures. Lloyd Homme's "sources of strength"
theory said that the more ways you presented something (multiple sources of strength) the better it would
be recalled. So we used example mediators, chart
mediators, cartoon mediators, pictorial mediators, equation mediators, and so on. They were quite effective.
In fact, mnemonic devices, which are examples of
verbal mediators, work better than job aids, which are
basically visual mediators, for some situations. Just
as there are rules for making good job aids, there are
rules for developing good verbal mediators. Unfortunately, this is a bit of early NSPI technology that
seems to have been lost somewhere along the line.
(But not completely lost; an archaeologist specializing
in the instructional technology of the 1960s has dug up a
partial set of guidelines for using mediators which
appears at the end of this article.)
But on with the story. The bridge flow charts were
eventually reduced in size and put into small booklets
which didn't need to be unrolled. The course was completed, printed, and launched. As part of the launching
activities, we had Charles Goren down for a large to-do
at which we served many boiled shrimp (a consequence of Jim Evans' theory that you can never have
too many boiled shrimp). A highlight of that evening
was that Charles Goren consented to autograph a copy
of the job aids, which he thought were very clever,
though he never knew exactly who produced them.
So, through a serendipitous act, our analytical tool
became a teaching tool and an on-the-job aid. It allowed us, again, to demonstrate the power of mediators.
It certainly appeared to be a lot faster to teach somebody how to use the charts than how to remember all
those bid responses. But we never became famous
3 PERFORMANCE & INSTRUCTION AUGUST 1991
we put the course into a teaching machine format at
about the time that the teaching machine movement
had saturated itself. Eventually, TMI went under, and
we all went on to other things. The moral of all this is that
ideas live longer than programmed learning companies—and too much emphasis on hardware obscures
the value of software.
A Few Guidelines For Using Mediators
(Found on a scrap of paper crumpled inside a dusty,
dented teaching machine)
1. The stronger the mediator's "natural" link to the
stimulus situation, the more easily it is recalled.
2. Double mediators (e.g., a picture with words) are
usually more effective than single mediators.
3. The mediator should have a unique connection with
the desired response.
4. If the desired response is a sequence, the mediator
should also have a natural sequence.
5. Pictures are often very effective at making a "bridge"
between the mediator and the response. 
About The Author
Don Tosti has been active in
basic and applied research in instructional methodology since
the early 1960s. He is credited
with originating the term
"contingency management," and
he participated in much of the
early research in that
reinforcement frame of
reference. He was voted
Outstanding Member in
1984. Address: Vanguard Consulting Group, 100
Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 104, Larkspur, CA
94939.