Theory & Research: Language Starter Packages

by Laureate (R), Mary Sweig Wilson, PhD (F-CCC-SLP), Bernard J. Fox, M.S. (F-CCC-SLP), & Jeffrey P. Pascoe, PhD

	“…I think it is fair to say that more has been learned about language in the last twenty years than in the preceding 2,000 years.” Noam Chomsky, 2002, p. 95 Over the past 20 years, as our knowledge of language grew so did our understanding of how very small children manage to master the intricacies of language. Our increased understanding of how typically developing children acquire language has helped us in the design of improved language intervention programs for those children struggling with language development. The 6 all new Sterling Editions programs included in Laureate’s Language Starter Package are based on developments in theory and research over the past twenty years. Developmentally, the first program in the package is Creature Chorus, which is designed to introduce concepts of cause and effect, turn taking, and use of a variety of interface devices including a touch sensitive screen, mouse, or single switch. The next programs are First Words, First Verbs, and First Words II. These programs can be introduced when a student’s language functioning level is around nine months of age. They provide direct instruction intervention from the emergence of first words through the establishment of an early core vocabulary or lexicon. Towards the end of the one-word stage, Simple Sentence Structure can be introduced to help a child establish English Subject-Verb-Object word order. At this point First Categories which trains six early developing superordinate categories (Animals, Food, Clothing, Body Parts, Furniture, and Vehicles) can also be introduced. The programs in this package compliment each other and provide the training needed to develop critical foundational language concepts and skills. Linguistic Theory and Research In the mid-twentieth century, Noam Chomsky’s linguistic proposals triggered a revolution in linguistic theory (Chomsky, 1955; 1957). Suddenly the focus of linguistic inquiry shifted from description to explanation. Chomsky proposed that a grammar of a language account for how sentences are generated, hence the term generative grammar. From its inception, generative grammar has been concerned with not only adult knowledge of language but also how language is acquired. There is no longer any doubt that typically developing children acquire language primarily through exposure rather than direct tutelage. Linguists now accept that all human languages share a common underlying structure. While the lexicon or vocabulary of a language must be learned, structure is based on universal principles. It has been over two decades since Chomsky introduced the Principles and Parameters Theory (PPT Chomsky, 1979; 1981) which has become the dominant linguistic theory. In the PPT, biologically based linguistic universals guide the course of language acquisition. Without an innate capacity, or Universal Grammar (UG), human beings would be unable to acquire and master a language. In linguistic theory, UG consists of a set of universal invariant Principles and a small set of Parameters whose settings vary across languages in binary fashion. The Parameters account for most of the syntactic variations among human languages (Atkinson, 1992; Baker, 2001; Chomsky, 1981; Crain, 1991; Leonard & Loeb, 1988; Radford, 1990; Radford, 2004; Roeper & Williams, 1987; Wexler, 1998). Parameters determine such things as word order in a language and whether question words (e.g. Who, What, How) move to the front of a sentence (they do in English, they don’t in Chinese). In terms of word order, English follows a pattern of Subject-Verb-Object. This order is determined by two different parameters. One of them, the Head-Complement Parameter, determines whether the Complement (or Object) of a phrase comes before or after the phrase’s Head. For example, in an English Verb Phrase the Verb or Head comes first or before its Complement or Object (“hit the ball” Head=Hit, Complement=Ball). In other languages the Head comes last, that is the Verb follows the Complement. The other Parameter that must be set in determining word order in a language is the Subject-Side or Specifier Parameter. Subjects can come either before or after the Verb. In English the Specifier or Subject comes first (“The boy hit the ball” Specifier=Boy); in other languages it comes last. The acquisition of language competence can be viewed as a matter of “setting” grammatical parameters through exposure to appropriate receptive language input combined with the learning of a lexicon. Understanding Parameters and the receptive language experiences that “trigger” or “set” them can lead to intervention strategies that are more effective because they suggest the specific linguistic experiences that may optimize or correct the process of language acquisition on a fundamental (versus symptomatic) level. The model suggests that the most successful language intervention should emphasize linguistic input that is likely to interact with innate factors that shape language acquisition, and is likely to “set” the grammatical parameters of the child’s native language (Atkinson, 1992; Hyams, 1986; Lightfoot, 1991; Roeper & Williams, 1987). The Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995, 2002) represents the latest effort within the PPT. As its name suggests, the goal of the Minimalist Program is to reduce the complexity of linguistic theory and enhance its explanatory power (Chomsky, 1995; Abraham, Epstein, Thráinsson, & Zwart, 1996; for a recent overview of the Minimalist Program by Noam Chomsky see “An Interview on Minimalism,” Chomsky 2002). The Minimalist Program completely eliminates the complex transformational rules of earlier versions of generative grammar in favor of a simpler, more elegant system of describing and explaining syntactic forms. One key feature of the Minimalist Program is its emphasis on the role of the lexicon in grammar. Each representation of a word in the lexicon or “mental word dictionary” consists not only of phonological and semantic properties (sound and meaning), but also syntactic features such as categorial membership (i.e., whether it is a Noun, Verb, Determiner, etc.), inflectional behavior (e.g., how it is marked for number, person, and gender), and it’s syntactic Argument Structure (e.g., run requires only one Argument Structure, a subject “The girl runs”; kiss requires two Argument Structures, a subject and an object “The father kisses the baby”; and give requires three arguments “The girl gives the baby a toy.”). In other words, the Minimalist Program assumes that a complete lexical entry includes the specific roles a word can play in the structure of language and the appropriate form of that word in a given grammatical context. Unlike in past generative grammar theories, lexical entries can enter the grammatical computational system or sentence forming process already marked with syntactic features (Abraham, Epstein, Thráinsson & Zwart, 1996; Chomsky, 1995; Epstein, Thráinsson & Zwart, 1996). At Laureate, we have followed the new developments in language science with keen interest. As the concepts regarding the nature of language and its acquisition began to coalesce, we saw exciting implications for improving language intervention content. We have always been guided by the concept that linguistics must form the content bases of language intervention (what to teach) and that psycholinguistic and instructional technology research helps us determine effective training strategies (how to teach). The exciting advances in linguistic theory and language acquisition research have provided the bases for improved language intervention programs. Applying Linguistic Research The PPT, the Minimalist Program, and observations from child language research all stress the importance of appropriate receptive language input. Laureate’s Language Starter Package programs all employ this important language development strategy. From the beginning infants attend to their caregiver’s speech. Very early on they establish concepts of cause and effect as well as turn taking in communication dyads. These are important foundational skills in the development of communication competence. Creature Chorus provides early training in turn taking and cause and effect using speech as a part of this process. Students can be introduced to Creature Chorus long before the emergence of first words. This program is also useful in training students to use a particular interface device such as a touch screen, mouse, or single switch. Even the student who has begun to understand words can benefit from the interface and turn taking training Creature Chorus provides. In addition to Creature Chorus, Laureate’s Language Starter Package has five programs that train specific language concepts. First Words, First Verbs, and First Words II focus on early vocabulary acquisition, First Categories trains early superordinate categories (e.g. Animals, Food, Clothing), and Simple Sentence Structure is designed to promote word order parameter setting. All use receptive language training strategies. Developing an early core lexicon is an important step in the acquisition of language. First Words, First Verbs, and First Words II use illustrations (and, in the case of the two Noun programs, photographs as well) of each word together with the spoken word to promote basic semantic vocabulary development. The paired stimulus presentation strengthens the association between the lexical representation of a word and the perceptual-cognitive properties the word is intended to reference. The acquisition of word meaning, however, describes only part of what a child is learning in the single-word stage of language development. Contemporary linguistic theory emphasizes that the child must also be learning about the Parameters of the language being acquired – the grammatical options that distinguish one language from another. Further, children are learning a great deal about the inflectional properties of the language they are acquiring. That such grammatical learning occurs during the early single-word stage is evidenced by the rapid progression of syntactic competence: typically, at about 12 months a child will begin to produce isolated words with no evidence of grammatical marking. Within another six months or so, however, the child will begin to produce forms such as Determiner “No” (e.g. “No shoe”) and the progressive Verb marker –ing (e.g. “running”). There is evidence that by this time a number of crucial Parameters have already been set. Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff, et. al. showed that when children as young as sixteen months (still in the one word stage) were presented with televisions showing Big Bird tickling Cookie Monster and vice versa, and then were told, “Oh look! Big Bird is tickling Cookie Monster!” or vice versa, they preferentially attended to the appropriate visual stimulus (Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff, Fletcher, et al., 1985). In the earliest stages of language acquisition, children are also learning the lexical features associated with the grammar of their language. Within the PPT, the lexicon is divided into content words or Lexical Categories (e.g., Nouns, Verbs, Adjectives) and non-content elements or Functional Categories that serve essentially grammatical functions. David Adger characterizes Functional Categories this way, “One intuitive way to think about functional categories is that they erect a syntactic skeleton above lexical categories which serves to hold together the various syntactic relations that take place in the phrase.” (Adger 2003, p. 165) The Functional Categories include Determiners, Tense (in earlier work called Inflections or INFL), and Complementizers. • Determiners are associated with Nouns and are so-called because they specify (or determine) that to which a noun expression refers. Determiners include, for example, articles (a, the), prenominal determiners (this, that, these, those) and pronouns (I, you, me, his, her). A Determiner Phrase (DP) is headed by a Determiner. • Tense is associated with Verbs and refers to elements that inflect Verbs for tense and agreement. Tense includes, for example, the regular past tense –ed, infinitival to, auxiliary be, and third person singular –s. A Tense Phrase (TP) includes a Verb and its inflectional elements. • Complementizers include words such as that, if, and whether which serve to introduce and characterize complement clauses in several ways. Also included are various operations involved in the formation of questions (e.g. Interrogative Reversals and Wh-Questions). More recently, Baker (2003) has presented arguments for including Prepositions among the Functional Categories. Like the other members of that group, Prepositions are a closed class of words. While languages freely add Nouns, Verbs, and Adjectives to the lexicon, this is not the case with the Functional Categories. Most linguists, however, continue to include prepositions among the Lexical Categories. While many of the earliest multi-morpheme utterances may consist of bare Noun and Verb Phrases, Functional Categories are apparent from the time typically developing children enter the two-word stage. As the Functional Categories are acquired, the hierarchical nature of sentences begins to emerge. The process of joining elements to form larger units is called Merge. Nouns Merge with Determiners and become Determiner Phrases. Verbs Merge with Tense elements and become Tense Phrases. Hence, for example (functional elements in bold): N    V                                              DP     TP Ball Roll comes to be replaced by The ball is rolling This developmental step generally does not proceed smoothly for children with language disorders. In fact, one certain conclusion that can be drawn from the research is that Functional Categories are especially problematic for children with language disorders (e.g., Bedore & Leonard, 1998; Leonard 1995, 1998; Rice, 1998; Rice, Wexler, & Cleave, 1995; Rice, Wexler, & Hershberger, 1998; Roeper & Seymour, 1994; Wilson & Pascoe, 1999; Wilson, 2000). Current linguistic theory and research suggests that even early language intervention intended to develop the lexicon should not merely focus on teaching the phonological and semantic features of the lexical categories such as Nouns and Verbs. Rather, intervention should also place considerable emphasis on illustrating the use of the Functional Categories in association with those Nouns and Verbs in various syntactic settings. Without this input, children with language impairments will find it more difficult to establish a rich and complete lexicon and to acquire syntax. Nouns, for example, should be presented in singular and plural forms in conjunction with appropriate Determiners. Verbs should be presented in ways that illustrate and highlight associated Tense forms and structures. The linguistic theory and research implications for language intervention provided direction as we designed our Language Starter Package with its all new Sterling Editions programs. We have included a number of instructional components to facilitate the acquisition of language from developing a core vocabulary and establishing superordinate categorization abilities to providing training designed to trigger the word order Parameters to their English Subject-Verb-Object settings. In designing the early vocabulary training programs, First Words, First Verbs, and First Words II we enhanced traditional approaches based on current research findings. During instruction and feedback, words in training are always presented in the context of full sentences. The sentences employed are designed to provide systematic receptive language input illustrating functional elements associated with the Lexical Category of the word being trained. In the case of Noun instruction, Determiners are included such as the use of articles (a, the) before and after reference is established, and the proper use of prenominal determiners in singular and plural contexts (This/These). In the case of Verbs, systematic input illustrates the Tense elements associated with Verbs. Verbs are more complex than Nouns, however, so in addition to including examples of Tense elements, we have included systematic receptive input focusing on the Argument Structure(s) and Thematic Roles (e.g. Agent, Theme) associated with each Verb. First Verbs includes examples of Verbs with only one Argument Structure also known as Intransitive Verbs (e.g. run, jump), Transitive Verbs with two required arguments (e.g. hit, wash), and finally Ditransitive Verbs with three required arguments (e.g. give, bring). Since Tense, the Functional Category associated with Verbs, assigns Nominative Case, instruction also includes the substitution of proper Nouns with third person Nominative Case pronouns (he, she, they, and it). Furthermore, once a student has moved past the basic training levels, each word is associated with a unique reinforcement animation that provides additional examples of the word in full sentences. Nouns are presented in additional sentences that illustrate Determiner constructions; i.e., the Noun is Merged with a determiner to form a DP. Included are sentences featuring articles, pronouns, the Genitive (Possessive) ‘s inflection, and DPs that include one or more Adjectives. In the case of Verbs, these sentences provide receptive language input illustrating Tense and Tense Phrases; i.e., several morphological forms of the verb (e.g., past tense, simple present, third person singular, and future modal “will”) in complete sentences. All this happens during reinforcement animation, at a point when one would expect the student’s attention might be most fully engaged. In establishing a core lexicon, First Words I and First Words II are training basic level categories. Categorization is a key language and concept development capacity. In terms of objects, three levels of categorization have been described: basic, superordinate, and subordinate (Rosch et. al.,1976). The basic level consists of Nouns representing object groups (e.g. dog, apple, chair). This level then is essentially one of object labeling and is associated with the establishment of an initial Noun vocabulary. It is at this level that semantic divisions are applied to abstract categories of objects in the world. The number of members in a basic level semantic category can be infinite. For example, there is no practical limit to the number of different dogs, apples, or chairs in the world. The superordinate level is more general than the basic level and includes heterogeneous items. For example “furniture,” is a superordinate category that includes such diverse objects as chairs, tables, and dressers. The subordinate level is the most specific (e.g. Poodles, Boxers, Golden Retrievers). In terms of order of acquisition, basic level categories are acquired first, followed by superordinate categories, and finally subordinate categories (Mervis & Crisafi, 1982). After mastering a core basic category level Noun lexicon, concepts of superordinate categorization can be introduced. A broad range of persons with language impairments encounter problems with categorization. First Categories was designed to address these problems by providing instructionally sound yet captivating intervention. The program tests and trains six superordinate semantic categories (Animals, Food, Body Parts, Clothing, Furniture, and Vehicles) using ten basic level semantic categories (e.g. chair, hat, nose) for each superordinate category. The categories and noun exemplars are based on both child and adult research (Battig & Montague, 1969; Carroll & White, 1973; Posnansky, 1978; Rosch et. al., 1976; Schaeffer, Lewis & Van Decar, 1971). Another program appropriate for use in the late one-word stage and beyond is Simple Sentence Structure which focuses on training to assist in setting the word order Parameters. For children who have begun working with the three early vocabulary intervention programs in the Language Starter Package, the exposure to the vast variety of sentences may be sufficient to set the word order Parameters for English, an important late one-word early two-word stage development. While the incidental Parameter setting training provided in the early vocabulary programs can be expected to have assisted most children in setting the Parameters associated with canonical sentences in English (Subject-Verb-Object word order), some may still need additional training to trigger these Parameter settings. For these children, we have designed Simple Sentence Structure. The PPT suggests that the acquisition of syntactic competence can be viewed as a matter of “setting” grammatical Parameters through exposure to appropriate receptive language input. In the acquisition of canonical word order, two Parameters are key: • Complement-Head or Head Directionality Parameter (Complement First/Complement Final). This Parameter determines whether Complements (or Objects) come before or after their Heads. English is a Complement-Final language (Complements follow their Heads). In Korean, Complements precede their Heads. • Specifier-Head or Subject Side Parameter (Specifier First/Specifier Final). This Parameter determines whether Specifiers (or Subjects) come before or after their Heads. English is a Specifier-First language (Specifiers precede their Heads). Each of these Parameters can be set to either First or Final. Any combination of Complement-First or -Final and Specifier-First or -Final is therefore possible, yielding an assortment of potential base word orders (see Baker, 2001 for additional discussion). Wexler (1994) has proposed that the Complement-Head and Specifier-Head Parameters are the only two Parameters that need to be set in order to establish base word order in any language. In the case of English, these Parameters are set to Complement-Final (Complements follow the Head of a phrase) and Specifier-First (Specifiers precede the Head), yielding the canonical Subject-Verb-Object or SVO word order. In the phrase “hits the ball,” the Head of the phrase is “hits” and the Complement (or Object) is “ball.” Simple Sentence Structure was designed to provide what are believed to be salient “triggering” data for setting the Head-Parameter and Specifier-Parameter which determine the Subject-Verb-Object word order of English. The program systematically takes the student through contrasting Verbs, contrasting Complements (Objects), contrasting Specifiers (Subjects), and finally to a set of reversible sentences (e.g. The girl is splashing the boy/The boy is splashing the girl). Following the progression suggested by current linguistic theory, the next step in the language intervention progression is to provide specific training on the Functional Category members. Just as receptive training is critical in developing a core lexicon and triggering early parameter setting, comprehension training on the various Determiner, Tense, and Complementizer forms can assist in the acquisition of syntax. Instructional Research Laureate’s language programs use an instructional approach that emphasizes comprehension or receptive language training. Research has shown that language is acquired through listening not speaking. Language input provides the data necessary to trigger Parameter setting. Pinker (1994) stated this succinctly when he wrote, “It is not surprising that grammar development does not depend on overt practice, because actually saying something aloud, as opposed to listening to what other people say, does not provide the child with information about the language he or she is trying to learn.” (Pinker 1994, p. 280) All the programs in the Language Starter Package are Laureate’s latest releases. These Sterling Editions provide the most salient receptive language input designed to draw attention to the vocabulary, concepts, and forms being trained. The well-established learning principles of behavioral analysis (Holland and Skinner, 1961) provide an additional foundation for instructional design in the Sterling Editions. Especially important is the approach of explicit instruction employed. Explicit instruction uses carefully controlled instruction and stimulus presentation. Over the past thirty years research has demonstrated that explicit instruction is effective in teaching a variety of language skills (Wilson, 1977; Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996; Justice et. al., 2003). Laureate’s language intervention programs include several kinds of instructional support in training. When Pretrial Instruction is included, the target picture is presented and the target is spoken before the student is asked to respond. Cueing to the Correct Response (CCR) is also provided on lower training levels. This consists of an arrow or animated character that appears above the correct response target. In addition, two kinds of instructional feedback are used in the programs. Even after CCR has been faded, it is still provided following an incorrect response or if no response is made. This always occurs in the earliest vocabulary training programs and is gradually faded as the student advances in syntax. The student is then given a second chance to respond. The second kind of feedback is Knowledge of the Correct Response (KCR). In KCR, the learner is always told the correct answer, either as part of the reinforcement sequence following a correct response, or as informational feedback following an incorrect response. In all cases, then, at the end of each trial the learner receives informational feedback indicating the correct response. In our own research we have found that, in training using only feedback as an instructional component, both KCR and CCR were effective (Wilson & Fox, 1983). There have been other demonstrations of the effectiveness of these procedures as well, across a range of computer administered instructional programs (Gilman, 1969; Tait, Hartley & Anderson, 1973; Wilson & Fox, 1981), including Laureate’s language development software (e.g., Gale, Crifford & Gillam, 1999; Gillam, Croford, Gale, & Hoffman, 2001; Miller, 1993). Computer aided instruction has a long history of demonstrated effectiveness. Not until the advent of inexpensive personal computers, however, did individualized computer administered intervention become feasible. The use of computer-based language intervention software offers many advantages to clinicians, educators, parents, and administrators. Software programs can provide the highly structured interactions needed to illustrate the formal aspects of language. Additionally, computers provide a cost-efficient delivery system for individualized language intervention. Most importantly, research has shown that language intervention software works. Significantly improved language development and communication skills have been documented when regular use of language intervention software was added to the ongoing curriculum in special education classrooms. Moreover, using language intervention software with non-professional adult assistance, children with special needs in the early stages of language acquisition can make language gains comparable to those seen during individual language therapy with a speech-language pathologist (Gale, Crifford, & Gillam, 1999; Howard, 1986; Schery & O’Connor, 1995; Steiner & Larson, 1991; Wilson & Fox, 1983; 1986). One investigation even demonstrated that three to six year old children with autism were more attentive and motivated when using a computer, and actually learned and retained more vocabulary than they did during one-on-one instruction with a teacher (Moore & Calvert, 2000). The theory and research behind Laureate’s new Sterling Edition programs have provided the bases for the development of innovative software to deliver improved assessment and intervention for students with language delays. One of the scientifically based advancements incorporated into the Sterling Editions language intervention programs is an Optimized Intervention® system. Optimized Intervention® The Optimized Intervention® system was originally inspired by methodology developed by the Software Technology Branch of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration at the Johnson Space Center (Way, 1993). This group had developed software to train space shuttle astronauts that incorporated many useful features. In particular, the software was able to codify the knowledge and skills of professionals to be used to present customized lesson content, evaluate progress during a lesson, and revise the curriculum based on individual patterns of strengths and weaknesses. In the 1990’s, representatives from NASA and a panel of special educators from the Center for Special Education Technology and the Council for Exceptional Children, identified the emerging language problems of children with disabilities as a critical problem in special education that might productively be addressed using NASA’s methodology. Subsequently, Laureate Learning Systems was invited to enter into a Technology Transfer Agreement with NASA. Since that time, Laureate has developed and field-tested a long series of language intervention systems designed specifically to guide students through language development curricula while adapting the emphasis and timing of activities in relation to the changing language capabilities of individual children. Critical to this extended endeavor was the support of the National Institutes of Health, including Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) awards 1R43 DC02709-01, 2R44 HD35255-02, 1R43 DC02601-01A1, and 2R44 DC02601-02. The Optimized Intervention® system in Laureate’s Sterling Edition software is the culmination of these research and development efforts. The system uses artificial intelligence methodology to select appropriate training material and to adjust instructional support in relation to emerging skills and competencies, resulting in highly individualized and efficient language instruction. The system also features extensive data collection and reporting capabilities, thereby greatly simplifying the process of tracking student progress and generating reports detailing areas of strength and weakness. Each Sterling Edition language intervention program has an Optimized Intervention® uniquely designed to test and train the curricular targets. Words, concepts, and forms are arranged in developmental order for testing and training. All the programs begin by probing in developmental order to ascertain the appropriate place to begin training. Once training begins, Optimized Intervention® determines what material a student needs to work on and how much instructional support the student may require to make progress. As a training session proceeds, the training material and degree of support are adjusted continually based on the student’s performance. As powerful as Optimized Intervention® is, it couldn’t be easier to use: • Enter or choose the student’s name • Select the program • Press GO Once the student has achieved mastery over the material being trained, Optimized Intervention® continues to probe and introduce new stimuli until the student has achieved mastery over the entire curriculum for that program. The power of Optimized Intervention® combined with its ease of use means that speech-language pathologists and special educators can prescribe the use of Sterling Edition programs in classrooms and homes thereby increasing the number of individualized language intervention services provided. Optimized Intervention® assures that the curricular content is being delivered in a sound progression and manner. The extensive data collection and reporting capabilities of the programs ensure that the prescribing professional can review in detail a student’s performance within and across sessions. The Sterling Administration System All Sterling Editions programs operate under the Sterling Administration System which provides for extensive data collection and management. The Sterling Administration System Report Writer provides the tools for assessing and documenting student performance. After an educator login, Sterling Edition programs take you to the Sterling Administration System Main Menu. All program settings, student data, and management tools can be accessed quickly from this Main Menu. • Use controls in the “Central Oval” to quickly select or add a student and choose a program (only installed Sterling Edition programs will be listed). • Click on the “Desk” to manage student files, write reports, set up multiple classrooms, etc. • Click on the “Student File” icon to enter or change student information or to review student logs and saved reports. • Click on the “Program Settings” icon to modify the activity, testing and training variables, and interface settings. • Click on the “Report Writer” icon to transform student data into informative student progress reports and to export trial-by-trial data to a spreadsheet for further analysis. • Click on the “Help” icon at any time to access the information about the program and its operation. The Sterling Administration System Report Writer Student data collection, analysis, and reporting is necessary to ensure accountability. In addition to the attention we have paid to instructional integrity in the Sterling Edition programs, through the Sterling Administration System we provide tools for making data collection, analysis, and reporting easy. The Sterling Administration System carefully tracks all variables related to a student’s progress through the curriculum, and stores that information in the Student File. The Report Writer has been designed to access this Student File and extract meaningful information to include in student reports and other documentation. All Sterling Edition programs come with built-in reports. Just choose the sessions you want to include in your report, select the report you want then click View Report. This will produce an attractive document detailing program use, the material presented, and cumulative outcomes. The report can then be saved in the student’s file, printed out, and/or exported to a word processor. In addition to built-in reports, Sterling Edition programs provide several hundred labeled data items that can be used to customize the built-in reports or to create entirely new custom templates that can be applied across students. You may also wish to export student data into spreadsheets for graphing and statistical analysis. The Sterling Administration System makes this easy. You first create a report using the Spreadsheet Data report template (under Available Reports). This will generate a report that includes general header information, followed by the data from each session included in the data set. Each session will also include header information, followed by tab-delimited column headings and a row of tab-delimited data for each individual trial. For example, the following are some of the data reported for each trial in First Verbs: 1. Trial number 2. Type of trial (e.g., OI Training Level 3, Probe, Confirmation Mastery) 3. Verb 4. Verb category (Intransitive, Transitive, Ditransitive) 5. Verb stimulus (which picture of pair) 6. Foil verb 7. Foil verb stimulus (which picture of pair) 8. Side of screen (which side is correct) 9. First try responses outside of response region (if any) 10. First try response latency 11. First try side of screen response 12. First try outcome (correct/incorrect) 13. Second try responses outside of response region (if any) 14. Second try response latency 15. Second try side of screen response 16. Second try outcome (correct/incorrect) By choosing the Spreadsheet Report option you can export the report as a text file using the Export button. This file can then be opened in most professional spreadsheet programs. Data can then be edited to suit the particular needs of the professional performing the analysis. The occupational therapist, for example, might be interested in response latency by side of screen while a speech-language pathologist might want to analyze errors based on particular foils. Laureate is proud to have begun releasing our next generation of assessment and intervention software under the Sterling Editions banner. Others will join the programs that are currently available. With the Sterling Administration System and Optimized Intervention®, these programs promise to deliver more effective and efficient assessment and intervention while at the same time providing the data that clinicians, special educators, and administrators need for accountability. References Abraham, W., Epstein, S., Thráinsson, H., & Zwart, C.J., Eds. (1996). Minimal Ideas: Syntactic Studies in the Minimalist Framework. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co., 1996. Adger, D. (2003). Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. New York: Oxford University Press. Atkinson, M. (1992) Children’s Syntax: an Introduction to Principles and Parameters Theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Baker, M. (2001). The Atoms of Language. New York: Basic Books. Baker, M. (2003). Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press. Bedore, L. & Leonard, L. (1998). Specific language impairment and grammatical morphology: a discriminant function analysis. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 41, 1185-1192. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris. Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 420 pp. Chomsky, N. (2002). An interview on minimalism. In N. Chomsky, On Nature and Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 92-161. Crain, S. (1991). Language acquisition in the absence of experience. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 14, 597-650. Epstein, S., Thráinsson, H., & Zwart, C. (1996). Introduction. In: W. Abraham, S..Epstein, H. Thráinsson, & C. Zwart (Eds.), Minimal Ideas: Syntactic Studies in the Minimalist Framework. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1-66. Gale, M., Crifford, J., Gillam, R. (1999). Fast Forward vs. Laureate Learning Systems: Comparative outcomes. Paper presented to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Assn. San Francisco, CA. Gillam, R., Crofford, J., Gale, M., & Hoffman, L. (2001). Language change following computer-assisted language instruction with Fast ForWord or Laureate Learning Systems software. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 231-247. Gilman, A. (1969). Comparison of several feedback methods for correcting errors by computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 503-508. Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R., Fletcher, DeGaspe-Beaubien, F., & Cauley, K. (1985). In the beginning: one-word speakers comprehend word order. Paper presented at the Boston Child Language Conference, Oct. 1985. Holland, J. & Skinner, B.F. (1961). The Analysis of Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. Howard, R. (1986) Microcomputer applications in speech pathology. In J.L. Northern (ed.), The Personal Computer for Speech, Language, and Hearing Professionals. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., pp. 101-112. Hyams, N. (1986). Language Acquisition and the Theory of Parameters. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Justice L., Chow S., Capellini C., Flanigan K., and Colton, S. (2003) Emergent literacy intervention for vulnerable preschoolers: relative effects of two approaches. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 320-332. Leonard, L. (1998). Children With Specific Language Impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Leonard, L. & Loeb, D. (1988). Government-binding theory and some of its applications: a tutorial. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 31, 515-524. Lightfoot, D. (1991). How to Set Parameters: Arguments from Language Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Maurice, C., Green, G, & Luce, S. Eds. (1996). Behavioral Intervention for Young Children with Autism. Austin, TX: Pro-ed. Miller, J. (1993). The Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Instruction in Language Intervention. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Education, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. Moore, M. & Calvert, S. (2000). Vocabulary acquisition for children with autism: Teacher or computer instruction. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30, 359-362. Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct. New York: William Morrow. Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell Ltd. Radford, A. (1997). Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Radford, A. (2004). Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Rice, M. (1998). In search of a grammatical marker of language impairment in children. Language Learning and Education (ASHA Special Interest Division 1), 5 (1), 3-7. Rice, M., Wexler, K. & Cleave, P. (1995). Specific language impairment as a period of extended optional infinitive. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 850-863. Rice, M., Wexler, K. & Hershberger, S. (1998). Tense over Time: the longitudinal course of tense acquisition in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 41, 1412-1431. Roeper, T. & Seymour, H. (1994). The place of linguistic theory in the theory of language acquisition and language impairment. In: Y. Levy (Ed.) Other Children, Other Languages. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Roeper, T. & Williams, E., Eds. (1987). Parameter Setting. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel. Rose, S. (1977) Infants transfer of response between two-dimensional and three-dimensional stimuli. Child Development, 48, 1086-1091. Schery, T. & O’Connor, L. (1995). Computers as a context for language intervention. In M. Fey, J. Windsor & S. Warren (Eds.), Language Intervention: Preschool through the Elementary Years. Baltimore: Brookes, 275-314. Steiner, S. & Larson, V. (1991). Integrating microcomputers into language intervention with children. Topics in Language Disorders, 11, 18-30. Tait, K., Hartley, J. & Anderson, R. (1973). Feedback procedures in computer-assisted arithmetic instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 43, 161-171. Way, R. (1993). Intelligent Tutoring and Training White Paper. Houston, Texas: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Software Technology Branch. Wexler, K. (1998) Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua, 106, 23-79. Wilson, M. (2000). The Wilson Syntax Screening Test. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corp. Wilson, M. & Fox, B. (1981). A study of feedback effects in microcomputer administered receptive language training. Unpublished manuscript. Wilson, M. & Fox, B. (1983). Microcomputers: a clinical aid. In Harris Winitz (Ed.), Treating Language Disorders: For Clinicians by Clinicians. Baltimore: University Park Press, pp. 235-248. Wilson, M. & Fox, B. (1986). Microcomputer language assessment, intervention, and enhancement. In J. Northern (Ed.), The Personal Computer for Speech, Language, and Hearing Professionals. Boston: Little, Brown, 101-112. Wilson, M. & Fox B. (1987-2005). Creature Chorus, Winooski VT: Laureate Learning Systems, Inc. Wilson, M. & Fox, B. (1982-2005). First Words. Winooski, VT: Laureate Learning Systems, Inc. Wilson, M. & Fox, B. (1983-2005). First Categories. Winooski, VT: Laureate Learning Systems, Inc. Wilson, M. & Fox, B. (1985-2005). First Verbs. Winooski, VT: Laureate Learning Systems, Inc. Wilson, M. & Fox, B. (1986-2005). First Words II. Winooski, VT: Laureate Learning Systems, Inc. Wilson, M. & Fox, B. (1996-2005). Simple Sentence Structure. Winooski, VT: Laureate Learning Systems, Inc. Wilson, M. & Pascoe, J. (1999). Evaluation of a Grammatical Markers Screening Test for Specific Language Impairments. Paper presented to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Assn. San Francisco, CA