Psychologists Betty Hart and Todd Risley conducted a study in the mid-1980s where they found “welfare children [are exposed to] 616 words per hour; professionals’ kids 2,153 words per hour.” (223) How does this evidence support their conclusion that “speaking to children EARLY and OFTEN” is a trigger for increasing intelligence? (47) Tie in the types and processes of learning discussed in the behavior & ecology summer reading (imprinting, cognition, etc). Also discuss why it is important that the word estimates are based solely on words spoken in person, not through the TV or radio. Does the TV or radio have a different effect than words spoken in person and why? Do these unaccounted-for variables perhaps make the conclusions of Hart and Risley’s study inaccurate/unreliable? Explain.
(Christine Zhao, c_zhao@ymail.com)
Psychologists Betty Hart and Todd Risley came to a conclusion that “speaking to children EARLY and OFTEN” is a trigger for increasing intelligence (Shenk 47). Based on a study performed in the mid-1980s, they found “welfare children [are exposed to] 616 words per hour; professionals’ kids 2,153 words per hour” (Shenk 223). In the end, this adds up to a 32 million word gap between children raised in professional home and children raised in welfare homes. With a significantly less exposure to different words, the welfare children also lacked tone and word complexity (Shenk 46). This supports the psychologists’ conclusion based on when and how often a child is exposed to human voices.
ReplyDeleteBabies have an imprinting period just like any other animals including geese and bumble bees. An important component of imprinting is the sensitive, or critical, period. During this time, certain behaviors are learned by the young (Campbell 1126). For humans, this period is usually from birth (or possibly even before birth) to age three. While in the womb, babies constantly hear the voice of their mother. It is a voice that they are accustomed to and will favor after birth. This voice recognition is proven by a study done in Canada in China where mothers recorded a poem with their own voices and a stranger recorded the same poem but obviously with a voice different than the mothers. When the recordings were played, the heart rate of the fetus was carefully examined. When the poem was played with the mother’s voice, the babies’ heart rate increased. When the poem was played with the stranger’s voice, the heart rate decelerated because it was a voice that the baby did not recognize (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97635&page=1#.T3EfGGGPWrY).
Another reason why it is important to speak early and often is because humans learn by social learning and classical conditioning. Social learning has to do with the observation of others (Campbell 1140). When a baby hears another human say something, they are likely to try and mimic them. Social learning ties in with classical conditioning where a stimulus becomes associated with a particular outcome: when a mother speaks the baby’s attention is captured and vice versa; when the baby speaks the mother responds (Campbell 1127).
The voices on radios and TVs have a very different effect on babies’ exposure to words and later use of language. As mentioned above, a baby most often responds to the voice of its mother. When an unfamiliar voice is heard, the baby spends more time trying to figure out who the voice belongs to rather than actually listening to the words that are being spoken (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97635&page=1#.T3EfGGGPWrY). Also, when the flashing lights, quick screen changes, and auditory cuts of TV programs over stimulate a baby’s developing brain (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090113074419.htm). It is too complex for them to take in and distracts them from the learning aspect of shows like Baby Einstein. Since babies usually do not learn from TV shows and unfamiliar voices, it is important that the word estimates in the Hart Risley study were based only on words spoken in person and not through the radio or TV.
(continued)
ReplyDeleteThe unaccounted for variables such as radio and TV voices could make the conclusions for the Hart and Risley study slightly inaccurate. The parenting styles in professional versus welfare home may be very different. As it may be true that professional’ children are exposed to more words than welfare children, it was not clarified if either of the sets of studied children actively watched TV or listened to the radio. In a study done by Dr. Dimitri Christakis at Seattle Children’s Research Institute, it was found that TV viewing delayed a child’s ability to learn vocabulary (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1882560,00.html). This being said, if children in welfare homes did in fact watch more TV than children in professional homes, their ability to learn and improve at that point would be at a disadvantage to those children of professionals.
(Katie Donnowitz kdonnowitz94@aol.com)