Session by session results

4.4.4.1 Participant A.

Participant A made rapid progress increasing his use of copula was in both treatment sessions and probe sessions. Based on his progress, the author, dissertation advisor, and Participant A’s family decided to end the intervention phase after 8 pairs of treatment and probe sessions instead of continuing to complete the planned course of 10 pairs of treatment and probe sessions.

Participant A’s use of copula was in treatment sessions is reported in Figure 4.11. The solid line reports the number of times he produced sentences containing copula was in each session, regardless of context. Participant A produced copula was seven times in his first session. This increased to a peak of 24 tokens in his fifth session. The dashed line reports the cumulative number of sufficiently different contexts in which he correctly produced copula was across sessions. Participant A used copula was in a wide range of contexts that became increasingly diverse over the course of eight sessions, demonstrating use of the target morpheme in a wide range of novel contexts. In his first session, he used copula was with two different subject pronouns (he was, she was). Over the course of 8 sessions, Participant A used copula was with four subject pronouns (he, she, it, I) and 23 different subject noun phrases for a total of 27 sufficiently different contexts. In sessions 4-8, Participant A used copula was in 7-10 contexts per session. Direct repetitions of the author’s spoken utterances are not counted as either tokens of use or new contexts.

Figure 4.11. Participant A's use of copula was in treatment sessions

Participant A’s use of was in probe sessions is reported in Figure 4.12. The solid line reports Participant A’s responses using copula was. The dashed line reports Participant A’s responses using both copula was and auxiliary was. Participant A’s use of copula was in probe items increased from 5/10 items (50%) to 9/10 items (90%) over the course of 8 sessions.

Figure 4.12. Participant A's use of copula was in probe sessions

4.4.4.2 Participant B.

Participant B made rapid progress increasing his use of auxiliary does in both treatment sessions and probe sessions. Based on his progress, the author, dissertation advisor, and Participant B’s family decided to end the intervention phase after 7 pairs of treatment and probe sessions instead of continuing to complete the planned course of 10 pairs of treatment and probe sessions.

Participant B’s use of auxiliary does in treatment sessions is reported in Figure 4.13.

Direct repetitions of the author’s utterances are not counted towards any of the lines presented.

The solid line reports the number of times he produced grammatically correct sentences containing auxiliary does in each session, regardless of context. Participant B produced five grammatically correct sentences using auxiliary does in his first session. This increased to a peak of 13 grammatically correct sentences using auxiliary does in his fifth session.

Figure 4.13. Participant B's use of auxiliary does in treatment sessions

Over the course of seven treatment sessions, Participant B used auxiliary does in all of the question types observed in his pretest language sample that require use of auxiliary does.

Across treatment sessions, He correctly used auxiliary does in 29 yes/no questions, 16 what questions, 6 how questions, 1 where question and 1 when question. He did not produce any why questions in his pretest language sample or in any treatment sessions.

Across treatment sessions, Participant B used the negative form of auxiliary does (doesn’t) in two grammatically correct statements and one grammatically correct how question.

His earliest use of doesn’t was observed in Session 4. Aided language stimulation demonstrating

correct use of doesn’t and opportunities to for Participant B to use doesn’t were incorporated into sessions after the first production of doesn’t was observed.

Participant B produced at least one ungrammatical sentence containing auxiliary does and an over marking error in each treatment session. The dashed line on Figure 4.13 reports a combined total of Participant B’s grammatically correct sentences using auxiliary does and sentences containing auxiliary does and an over marking error in each treatment session. In these sentences, such as (34), Participant B marked tense twice in the same clause; once using auxiliary does and once using the third-person present tense singular form of the main verb.

34. Does the cat wants fish

Over marking errors are a type of normal developmental error (Maratsos & Kuczaj, 1978), which many children produce when they are learning how to formulate questions. Over marking errors provide evidence that a child understands the grammatical rules used for tense marking and occasionally over-applies those rules in sentences that follow a different pattern. Most children gradually out-grow over marking errors without intervention.

Participant B used auxiliary does correctly in a range of sufficiently different contexts that became increasingly diverse over the course of seven treatment sessions, demonstrating use of the target morpheme in a growing range of novel contexts. The dotted line on Figure 4.13 reports the cumulative number of sufficiently different contexts in which he correctly produced auxiliary does across treatment sessions. In his first session, Participant B used auxiliary does with two different subject pronouns (does it, does she) and one subject noun phrase (does the macaroni). Over the course of 7 sessions, Participant B used auxiliary does with three subject pronouns (he, she, it) and 9 different subject noun phrases for a total of 12 sufficiently different contexts.

Participant B’s use of auxiliary does in probe sessions is reported in Figure 4.14.

Participant B gave some correct responses and produced some over marking errors in every session. The solid line reports Participant B’s correct responses using auxiliary does. Participant B’s correct responses increase from 2/10 items (20%) to 9/10 items (90%) over the course of 7 sessions. The dashed line reports all of Participant B’s responses using auxiliary does, including correct responses and responses with over marking errors. When responses containing over marking errors are included, Participant B used auxiliary does in 5/10 (50%) items in Session 1 and in 59/60 (98%) of the combined probe items across Sessions 2-7.

Figure 4.14. Participant B's use of auxiliary does in probe sessions