Language change following computer-assisted language instruction with FastForWord or Laureate Learning Systems software

Citation
Rb. Gillam et al., Language change following computer-assisted language instruction with FastForWord or Laureate Learning Systems software, AM J SP-LAN, 10(3), 2001, pp. 231-247
Citations number
46
Categorie Soggetti
Rehabilitation
Journal title
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
ISSN journal
10580360 → ACNP
Volume
10
Issue
3
Year of publication
2001
Pages
231 - 247
Database
ISI
SICI code
1058-0360(200108)10:3<231:LCFCLI>2.0.ZU;2-6
Abstract
This exploratory study was designed to evaluate functional language changes during and after treatment with language intervention software. Two childr en with language impairments received Fast ForWord (FFW; Scientific Learnin g Corporation, 1997), and two other children received a bundle of intervent ion programs published by Laureate Learning Systems (LLS). The children rec eived intervention for 1 hour and 40 minutes per day for 20 days (4 weeks). Treatment was delivered according to a multiple-probe design in which one child was enrolled in Fast FFW immediately after a baseline phase. Another child remained in an extended baseline phase before beginning FFW. The desi gn was replicated for the bundle of LLS programs. The children with extende d baselines were identical twins. Progress was measured by gains on the Ora l and Written Language scales (OWLS) and by visual and mathematical examina tion of trends for language sample measures. All four children made clinically significant gains (posttest scores outsid e the 95% confidence interval of the pretest scores) on the OWLS. Two child ren who received the LLS software and one child who received FFW software m ade clinically significant gains on mean length of utterance in morphemes ( MLU), but only one child, who received treatment with the LLS software, had fewer grammatical errors after treatment. The three children with improved MLU also produced a higher proportion of utterances with mazes. Measures o f language content (percent of response errors) and language use (percentag e of assertive utterances) were not informative due to high variability and floor effects. The similarity of the treatment effects (especially in the case of the identical twins) was surprising since FFW and the bundle of LLS programs targeted different levels of language, used different types of au ditory stimuli, and were designed to promote different kinds of learning.