Saint Mary-of-the-Woods College.
Indiana State University.
Child Dev. 2019 May;90(3):993-997. doi: 10.1111/cdev.13125. Epub 2018 Aug 13.
In response to Golinkoff, Hoff, Rowe, Tamis-LeMonda, and Hirsh-Pasek's (2018) commentary, we clarify our goals, outline points of agreement and disagreement between our respective positions, and address the inadvertently harmful consequences of the word gap claim. We maintain that our study constitutes a serious empirical challenge to the word gap. Our findings do not support Hart and Risley's claim under their definition of the verbal environment; when more expansive definitions were applied, the word gap disappeared. The word gap argument focuses attention on supposed deficiencies of low-income and minority families, risks defining their children out of the educational game at the very outset of their schooling, and compromises efforts to restructure curricula that recognize the verbal strengths of all learners.
针对 Golinkoff、Hoff、Rowe、Tamis-LeMonda 和 Hirsh-Pasek(2018)的评论,我们澄清了我们的目标,概述了我们各自立场之间的共识和分歧,并讨论了词汇差距这一说法带来的潜在危害。我们坚持认为,我们的研究对词汇差距提出了一个严峻的实证挑战。我们的研究结果并不支持 Hart 和 Risley 在其语言环境定义下的说法;当采用更广泛的定义时,词汇差距就消失了。词汇差距的论点关注的是低收入和少数族裔家庭所谓的不足,这有可能使他们的孩子在一开始上学就被排除在教育游戏之外,并破坏了为承认所有学习者的语言优势而重新调整课程的努力。