SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Research into language development of young children shows that talking to them at a young age gives them an advantage at communicating effectively when they start school (linked article based on article from page 42 of PsyPAG).
Just saying more words to children, however, isn't enough on its own; diversity and complexity of the language is important.
But it's not enough just to bombard children with a barrage of words: the quality of the speech that they hear matters too. Children who hear language that is diverse, complex, and is directed towards them specifically (child-directed speech), often have a larger vocabulary size and a faster rate of vocabulary growth.
The most consistent finding in why some children are exposed to more speech than others is that it is strongly related to parents' socioeconomic status. Researchers have also found correlations between maternal education, family income, and occupational prestige.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by efitton on Wednesday July 02 2014, @03:49AM
"Consider the following results from some seminal studies in the field:
First-grade children from higher SES groups know about twice as many words as lower SES children (Graves, Brunetti, & Slater, 1982; Graves & Slater, 1987).
High school seniors near the top of their class know about four times as many words as their lower-performing classmates (Smith, 1941).
High performing third graders had vocabularies about equal to the lowest-performing twelfth graders (Smith, 1941).
"
- From http://www.education.com/reference/article/socioeconomic-status-vocabulary-development/ [education.com]
So as far back as 1941 we knew that the top end of third graders had a vocabulary equal to our the student who squeaked out of high school and likely higher than a high school drop out. This isn't because of the books the third grader read. The language (from home) of a high performing third grader is equal to that of the parent of a lower performing student. This is one reason why it is so hard to fix our "failing" schools that disproportionately serve the disadvantaged.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @04:49AM
What is new is the understanding of cause and effect. It used to be the common belief that of course those poor performing kids have weak vocabularies, what else would you expect from a dummy? What's new, in the last decade or so, is the theory that:
(Score: 2) by efitton on Wednesday July 02 2014, @05:00AM
Your quoting an opinion piece? And one that contradicts the parent article that it was as much about the vocabulary used as the amount of talking... If the parent of one third grader has the same vocabulary as a second third grader with highly educated parents, what do you think happens to the first third grader no matter how much their parent(s) talk to them? I think the cause and effect was pretty well understood in 1941 with that scenario. Virtuous circle and vicious circle aren't exactly new concepts either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @05:42AM
> Your quoting an opinion piece?
I'm quoting the part of the opinion piece that quoted researchers.
> what do you think happens to the first third grader no matter how much their parent(s) talk to them?
I dunno, how about you make that can be evaluated instead of expecting people to read your mind instead of your writing?
(Score: 2) by efitton on Wednesday July 02 2014, @06:28AM
Too bad your parents never used rhetorical question around you growing up.
(Score: 2) by efitton on Wednesday July 02 2014, @06:56AM
>> what do you think happens to the first third grader no matter how much their parent(s) talk to them?
>I dunno, how about you make that can be evaluated instead of expecting people to read your mind instead of your writing?
Maybe this: "Hart and Risley later wrote that children’s level of language development starts to level off when it matches that of their parents — so a language deficit is passed down through generations." which is from the same _paragraph_ you quoted.