Narrowing the Gap: Jumpstart's Impact on Reducing the Vocabulary Gap Between Children With Low and High Vocabularies

• In Event: 75.024 - The Jumpstart Intervention Program: Effects of Rich Early Learning Experiences on Learning Behaviors and Cognitive Skills

Abstract

There is a strong empirical link between children’s early vocabulary knowledge and later reading comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000). Though we know that instruction can increase vocabulary size (National Early Literacy Panel, 2009), evidence also suggests that vocabulary instruction differentially benefits children based on their initial vocabulary size (e.g. Coyne et al., 2007). In many intervention studies, children who enter the intervention with higher vocabulary benefit more from the intervention than children who come in with lower vocabulary. These “Matthew effects” (Stanovich, 1986) result in a widening of vocabulary gaps—initial gaps can potentially become larger as a result of classroom instruction or interventions.

The Jumpstart program is one intervention that is designed, in part, to support the vocabulary development of young children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Previous research has suggested that the Jumpstart program does increase children’s general expressive and target vocabulary knowledge (Author, 2012). What is less clear is if the Jumpstart program is differentially influencing children based on their initial vocabulary size.

This study investigates these issues by analyzing if the effect of the Jumpstart program on children’s general expressive, general receptive, and target vocabulary development is mediated by their incoming vocabulary size. The study was conducted in six Jumpstart classrooms (N = 92 children) and four comparison classrooms (N = 72 children). All children were administered three vocabulary assessments (the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) (Dunn & Dunn, 2007), the Expressive Vocabulary Test (EVT) (Williams, 2007) and a Target Vocabulary Assessment (Author, 2012) before the Jumpstart intervention began and after it ended. For the purpose of analyses, children in both treatment conditions were divided into high, medium, and low on their incoming vocabulary, and one-way ANOVAs were used to determine the relationship between children’s incoming vocabulary size and their vocabulary growth on each of the three outcomes.

Contrary to findings from many vocabulary interventions (e.g. Coyne et al., 2007), results indicate that there are no Matthew effects (Stanovich, 1986) around vocabulary acquisition in the Jumpstart program. In fact, children who enter the Jumpstart intervention with low vocabulary acquired significantly more vocabulary during the course of the year than their peers with high vocabulary on all three vocabulary outcomes. On expressive vocabulary (EVT), children who started the intervention with low vocabulary acquired significantly more expressive vocabulary than their peers with high and medium in coming vocabulary. This pattern is similar in children in the comparison group—who did not experience the Jumpstart program.

These findings suggest that, among children who experience Jumpstart, the children who are in the greatest need of a boost to their vocabulary size are, in fact, getting that boost before kindergarten entry. This is heartening, suggesting that the Jumpstart program is not exacerbating any vocabulary gaps that exist when children enter their program. Rather, findings suggest that among children who experience Jumpstart, the program may be helping to narrow vocabulary gaps by differentially benefiting children who enter the program with low vocabulary and helping all children to be prepared to succeed in formal schooling.

Author

• Julie Dwyer, Boston University