Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Can the Achievement Gap Be Linked to Differences in the Development of Naming Strategies? A Comparison of African American and European American Children’s Responses on a Picture-Labeling Task

  • 231 Accesses

Abstract

In this study, working- and middle-class African American and European American adults and children aged two through six were shown a series of pictures including “normal” referents and unfamiliar combinations which they were asked to identify. There were both age- and class-dependent differences in terms of naming behaviors but there were none according to ethnicity. When these results are interpreted in consideration of the still-widening achievement gap, it is clear that linguists and educators continue to face the same issue: there remains a societal insistence on furthering the primacy of middle class linguistic structures and language behaviors which serves to maintain a cycle of educational failure for African American working-class children.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Education Trust is a non-profit organization that “promotes high academic achievement for all students at all levels—pre-kindergarten through college. [Their] goal is to close the gaps in opportunity and achievement that consign far too many young people—especially those from low-income families or who are black, Latino, or American Indian—to lives on the margins of the American mainstream.”

  2. 2.

    Between 2007 and 2011, more than a quarter of African Americans but only 9% of Whites lived in poverty. (US Census Bureau 2007—2011 American community Survey). Black children are even more likely to be poor. For example, the Pew Research Center reported in 2013 that “children make up 27% of the black population, but 38% of blacks in poverty. And children account for 33% of all Hispanics, but 42% of impoverished Hispanics. By contrast, children make up roughly equal shares of the white and Asian populations and of whites and Asians living in poverty” ( Patten and Krogstad 2015)

  3. 3.

    An equal number of European American and African American children (as identified by their parents) were selected for this study and were matched according to age and socioeconomic status. In some cases, there were significant differences in the data according to SES within age groupings (Bloomquist 2009).

  4. 4.

    The ethnicity of the interviewer is worth mentioning here due to the extensive work done by Labov (1970) and others who have long established the difficulties involved in data collection from African American children by European American researchers. While the argument can certainly be made that all children may be reluctant to complete language tasks in the presence of new adults, it remains the case that African American children are especially hesitant to perform linguistically in the presence of unfamiliar European American adults. In the case of this study, ethnic differences between the children and interviewer were minimized as much as possible, and the researcher also spent a great deal of casual time in the classroom before engaging the children in the language task in an effort to reduce the children’s level of discomfort.

References

  1. Anastasiow, N., Hanes, M., & Hanes, M. (1982). Language and reading strategies for poverty children. Baltimore: University Park Press.

  2. Berelinski, S., Galiani, S., & Gertler, P. (2009). The effect of pre-primary education on primary school performance. Journal of Public Economics, 93(1), 219–234.

  3. Bereiter, C., & Engelmann, S. (1966). Teaching disadvantaged children in the pre-school. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- Hall.

  4. Bloomquist, J. (2007). Developmental trends in semantic acquisition: evidence from over-extensions in child language. First Language, 27(4), 407–420.

  5. Bloomquist, J. (2009)“Class and categories; do middle-class children have the advantage when it comes to semantic acquisition?” Multilingua.

  6. Bradley, R., Caldwell, B., & Rock, S. (1988). Home environment and school performance: ten-year follow-up examination of three models of environmental action. Child Development, 59, 852–867.

  7. Britto, P. R., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2001). Beyond shared book reading: dimensions of home literacy and low-income African American preschoolers’ skills. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 92, 73–89.

  8. Brownstein, R. (2016). The Challenge of Educational Inequality. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/05/education-inequality-takes-center-stage/483405/. Accessed 20 Dec 2017.

  9. Clark, E. V. (1973). What's in a word: On the child's acquisition of semantics in his first language. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press.

  10. Department of Education. (2015). National Center for Education Statistics, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/. Accessed 8/29/17, http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/droppub_2001/. Accessed 8/29/2017.

  11. DeStefano, J. (Ed.). (1973). Language, society and education: A profile of black English. Worthington: Charles A. Jones.

  12. DeStefano, J. (1978). Language, the learner, and the school. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

  13. Dickenson & Tabors. (1991). Early literacy: Linkages between home, school and literacy achievement at age five. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 46(6), 30–46.

  14. Evans, R. (2005). Reframing the achievement gap. The Phi Delta Kappan, 86(6), 582–589.

  15. Gentner, D. (1978). A study of early word meaning using artificial objects: What looks like a Jiggy but acts like a Zimbo? Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 15, 1–6.

  16. Gentner, D. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In S. A. Kuczaj (Ed.), Language development: Vol. 2. Language, thought and culture (pp. 301–334). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

  17. Goldin-Meadow, S., Seligman, M. E. P., & Gelman, R. (1976). Language in the two-year-old: Receptive and productive stages. Cognition, 4, 189–202.

  18. Gottfried, A. W. (1984). Home environment and early cognitive development: integration, meta-analyses, and conclusions. In A. W. Gottfried (Ed.), Home environment and early cognitive development: Longitudinal research (pp. 329–342). New York: Academic Press.

  19. Guskey, T.R. (1997). The relationship between socioeconomic characteristics and school level performance assessment results. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Education Research Association. Chicago, IL.

  20. Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaning differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Brookes.

  21. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  22. Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1991). Mother-child conversation in different social classes and communicative settings. Child Development, 62(4), 782.

  23. Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1992). How should frequency in input be measured? First Language, 12(36), 233–244.

  24. Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1994). Influences of mother and child on maternal talkativeness. Discourse Processes, 18(1), 105–117.

  25. Labov, W. (1970). The study of non-standard English. Champaign: National Council of Teachers of English.

  26. Lareau, A. (2000). Home advantage: social class and parental intervention in elementary education. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

  27. Lawrence, V. (1997). Middle and working-class children’s speech during a picture labeling task. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 158, 226–240.

  28. Lawrence, V., & Shipley, E. (1996). Parental speech to middle- and working-class children from two racial groups in three settings. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 17, 233–255.

  29. Lee, V., & Burkam, D. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in achievement as children begin school. Economic Policy Institute: Washington D.C.

  30. Magnuson, K., & Waldfogel, J. (2005). Early childhood care and education: effects on ethnic and racial gaps in school readiness. The Future of Children, 15(1), 169–196.

  31. Neisser, U. (Ed.). (1986). The school achievement of minority children. Hillsdale: Earlbaum.

  32. Newport, E. L., Gleitman, H., & Gleitman, L. R. (1977). Mother I'd rather do it myself: The contribution of selected child listener variables'. In C. E. Snow & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Talking to children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  33. Ninio, A. (1990). Early environmental experiences and school achievement in the school grade: an Israeli study. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 13, 1–22.

  34. Orr, A. J. (2003). Black-white differences in achievement: The importance of wealth. Sociology of Education, 76(4), 281.

  35. Patten, E. & Krogstad, J.M. (2015). Black child poverty holds steady, even as other groups see declines. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/14/black-child-poverty-rate-holds-steady-even-as-other-groups-see-declines/. Accessed 8/29/17.

  36. Quay, L., & Blaney, R. (1992). Verbal communication, nonverbal communication, and private speech in lower and middle socioeconomic status preschool children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 153, 129–138.

  37. Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: using social, economic and educational reform to close the black-white achievement gap. Washington: Economic Policy Institute.

  38. Shipley, E. F., Kuhn, F., & Madden, E. G. (1983). Mothers' use of super-ordinate category terms. Journal of Child Language, 10, 571–588.

  39. Snow, C. (1983). Literacy and language: Relationships during the preschool years. Harvard Educational Review, 53(2), 165–189.

  40. Storch, S., & Whitehurst, G. (2001). The role of family and home in the literacy development of children from low-income backgrounds. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 92, 53–71.

  41. U.S. Census Bureau. (2007–2011) American Community Survey https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmkU.S. Accessed 8/29/17.

  42. US Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics (2000). America’s kindergartners. From http://nces.ed.gov/. Accessed 16 Aug 2011.

  43. Walker, H. M., Schwarz, I. E., Nippold, M. A., Irvin, L. K., & Noell, J. W. (1994). Social skills in school age children and youth: Issues and best practices in assessment and intervention. Topics in Language Disorders, 14, 70–82.

  44. Whittlesey, V., & Shipley, E. F. (1999). Object label-learning by middle- and working-class, African American, European American, younger, and older preschool children. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 20, 429–447.

  45. Williams, F. (1970). Language and Poverty. Chicago.

  46. Willie, C. V. (2001). The contextual effects of socioeconomic status on student achievement test scores by race. Urban Education, 36, 461–478.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Jennifer Bloomquist.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bloomquist, J. Can the Achievement Gap Be Linked to Differences in the Development of Naming Strategies? A Comparison of African American and European American Children’s Responses on a Picture-Labeling Task. J Afr Am St 21, 585–604 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12111-017-9385-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Achievement gap
  • Language
  • Linguistics
  • Education
  • Socio-economic status
  • Category theory
  • Naming strategies
  • Educational policy
  • No Child Left Behind