Throughout the book, Hart and Risley show how the amount of talk a child hears at a young age is directly related to their vocabulary later in life. This point seems to draw directly from the age-old debate of nature versus nurture. The authors seem to be implying that it is entirely one’s nurture, the environment and the language that one is exposed to, that plays into this language gap. Do you feel that one’s nature has a role in the creation of this vocabulary gap? Or do you side with the authors and their research on the prominence of nurture and its contribution to the gap in language between students in different socioeconomic classes?
The nature versus nurture debate has long plagued society. There is no definite answer as to which plays a larger role in the life of a child - the way a child is brought up or a child's genetic composition. I personally believe that nurture, one's family life and environment, affects a person more than their nature. The language a person acquires directly stems from the input they receive. If a child is born into a family originally from England, not only is that child going to learn and use English terms, but he or she is likely going to acquire an accent. By the same token, a child born to a southern family in the United States is most likely going to learn and use terms associated with the South.
ReplyDeleteA child is not born with language. He or she must hear and make sense of words and sounds before he or she can manipulate and copy them. The vocabulary that a child gains must, as the authors suggest, come directly from those who speak to and around the child early on.
Understanding this, we, as educators, can be sure to expose children to all words so that every child has the opportunity to acquire any vocabulary missing. This reminds me of one of my 5th grade students, Cory. While joining me for lunch bunch, he asked what type of fruit I was eating. I told him I was enjoying blackberries. Although he had heard of them in books, he had never seen one nor did he know they were really real. His lack of knowledge didn't stem from his nature, but from his upbringing, in which I must assume his caregiver never mentioned or bought blackberries. Once I addressed Cory and allowed him to try one, he was able to encrypt the word and the image of a blackberry into his brain.
Teaching and showing children new vocabulary at all ages is crucial so that our society can advance and the achievement gap can be minimized.
Jamie,
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting question, and it's something I think about often, especially as a teacher in inner-city Baltimore. Like Katie, at this point in my life, I too believe that "nurture" plays a more critical role in one's life than "nature." However, this doesn't mean that children lacking in the "nurture" side of things are lost from the beginning. Rather, it simply means that these childrens' schools may have to compensate for a lack of education in early years, working harder to bring these children up to speed.
Guess that's what we're here for.
Lydia
I'm so glad this topic has come up, because I find that my colleagues often use "nature" as an excuse. While there are many neurological processes involved in the creation and processing of language, we can't assume that every "low" child enters the classroom with innate, irreversible deficits. No matter a child's starting point, it is our job as educators to move him or her forward.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the language gap--that 30 million word gap that we hear about so often--I completely agree with these ladies. Providing a child with the opportunity to access, understand, and encrypt new words is critical in literacy development. Rather than blame the child--rather than label her "unteachable"--we've got to brainstorm solutions.
Our society is expert at making excuses for its own shortcomings. Perhaps it's time we take a look at the (mis)steps we've taken to create this gap.
Chloe
Although I'm a great proponent of the benefits of "nurture," I think it's also important not to discount the impact of "nature."
ReplyDeleteI'm sure we've all seen examples of children that despite a challenging home life are exemplary students. I have one student who is at the top of my classes, in spite of the fact that minimal parental involvement exists and minimal nurturing has been a part of her story. I nominated her for a scholarship opportunity in the fall and when I spoke to her guardian about what extracurriculars she was involved in and what awards she had received over the years, she was unable to generate a single answer. It absolutely infuriated me.
As the teachers of these students, we are the stewards of their academic journeys for as long as they are in our classrooms. When they walk into our classes, it's our job to "nurture" the blazes out of them, but we can't take for granted the hands they have been dealt by "nature."
In response to Katie's previous comment, I agree that the language and vocabulary that a child acquires is a result of the language around them. My youngest sister was adopted at the age of 8 months and was already speaking Korean. She had already begun attaching language and vocabulary to the world around her. Watching her language transition was incredible to view. In particular, it was exciting to watch how quickly her vocabulary changed. While my students may or may not have experienced a similar print and language-rich environment, it is my job to provide that environment when they are in the classroom. I agree with Chloe that nature is often blamed for deficits. Rather than viewing the current language and vocabulary deficits as static and unchangeable, focus should be placed on strategies that will reach students where they are at. And as Rebekah mentioned earlier, at that point we must "nurture" the blazes out of them.
ReplyDelete-Michelle
I think that as a teacher in our schools, we have to believe that it's nurture that is the difference. We spend all of our time trying to instill a sense of "I can" into our students, I don't think that any of us could really think that a child actually... can't because of their nature. Sure, it will take a little (OK, probably a lot) extra nurture to make up the gaps. But, if we truly believe that ALL children can succeed, then we have to come in with a mindset that there is a way to reach every child, and that it is our job to find it. Teachers are the third parent, and unfortunately, because of many of our students' home lives, this role plays more prominently for us than for teachers in other areas.
ReplyDeleteLike most people who've responded, I agree with these authors in that it is almost entirely nurture that affects the language gap.
ReplyDeleteI would go so far as to say that nature's affect on this is so minimal that it's hardly even worth discussing. The problem with thinking that nature does play a part, is that it implies that certain groups of students are somehow biologically predisposed to lower language--and, therefore, lower academic--skills. Not only do I believe that this way of thinking is false, but I feel that this idea is responsible for a lot of the prejudices seen in our schools.
I've taken a lot of linguistic courses, and language acquisition is something that's studied a lot. From a linguistic standpoint, all humans are biologically equipped with the capacity for language. Save for some abnormalities at birth, humans are born with the same capacity regardless of race, geography, or native language. It is only after an infant is exposed to language that the brain starts to develop certain constructs and the acquisition process starts. In other words, we're all born with a set of switches in our brain, and it is only through exposure that these switches are flipped either up or down. That is why all languages have grammar, but not all languages have the same grammar.
Based on this, I simply can't believe that certain students are born with a lower capacity for language. Any gap that exists in vocabulary is almost purely nurture. If a child enters school with a smaller vocabulary, it is because he or she has simply not had the exposure--it has nothing to do with the physical make-up of his or her inherited brain.
This is good news to us as educators, because if it really is nurture that is causing this language gap, it is fixable (albeit not easily).
Lindsay
I think Jeff's comment is important to recognize because it discusses our job. We are educators, and it is our job to nurture students regardless of their natures. Yes, we need to differentiate and incorporate student choice for assignments, but we cannot use nature as an excuse. We must have high standards, and we must teach students the skills to be able to activate prior knowledge when it comes to language if they come into our classrooms without those skills. We have a big role to fill in regard to vocabulary because many of our students do not have the prior knowledge to understand the multiple meanings of words. However, we cannot feel discouraged by the nature verse nurture debate. We really don't get to take a side because our job to be a nurturer.
ReplyDeletePut simply, I must, I absolutely must believe that it is nurture. If it were to be exclusively nature, then our work would be meaningless. Our work would not be able to affect the outcome of our students' futures. Instead, we and all of our students would be held hostage to something entirely outside of our control. Unfortunately, I feel that if nature were to be the ultimate cause many of us would be forced to subscribe to a racist argument due to correlation alone, which I am certain that many if not all of us firmly oppose.
ReplyDeleteWow. Lot of comments on your post, Jamie!
ReplyDeleteLet me say something short without (hopefully) stealing someone else's idea.
I believe nature and nurture are both very real aspects when it comes to language.
That being said, in the truest sense, a child can only develop their language skills so far if it were only nature playing a role. If you threw John Doe into the world without parents, without teachers, and without an education, he would probably figure out how to talk. However, his vocabulary would likely be extremely limited, and his social ability would also be lacking. But, because of his natural abilities, he would learn how to speak.
Now, in order for this language gap to close for John Doe, he would need a parent in his early years and a teacher as he develops. Like Aaron said, if we all believed in the significance of Nature over Nurture, we might as stop teaching and let Nature take over. We would be essentially pointless. Obviously, this is ridiculous. For John Does gap to close, he needs vocabulary instruction, he needs help learning how to read, and he needs help learning how to write. This is all nurturing, and without it, the language gap would be even larger.
Since finishing the book and stepping away from the blog for a little while, I find myself constantly returning to the idea of teachers in the role of nurturers. Echoing Lydia's closing, "Guess that's what we're here for", and Aaron's sentiment that our work would meaningless if it was all up to nature, I wholeheartedly agree with that nature is what can, will, and does make a difference for our students. As their educators, if we did not believe that nurture could make a difference, then we do not believe that we have any opportunities to change trajectories or outcomes for our students.
ReplyDeleteComing into April, I'm forcing myself to keep this role as nurturer at the front of my mind; my students still have a lot to catch up, and I need to remember that to maintain high expectations for my students and myself.