Genes 'play key role in classroom performance'

[bassybill]

From the BBC news:

Originally Posted by Article

Politicians may be keen to measure schools' effectiveness, but the quality of the school environment is only half of the story, researchers have found.

Academics at King's College London's Institute of Psychiatry say the genetic factors children bring to the classroom are just as influential.

In a study of 4,000 sets of UK twins, nature and nurture was found to have an equal effect on their achievements.
Researchers say this strengthens the case for personalised learning.

The researchers examined the test results of 12-year-old twins - identical and fraternal - in English, maths and science.

They found the identical twins, who share their genetic make-up, did more similarly in the tests than the fraternal twins, who share half their genetic make-up.

The report said: "The results were striking, indicating that even when previous achievement and a child's general cognitive ability are both removed, the residual achievement measure is still significantly influenced by genetic factors."

The study says the findings point to a need to re-examine what schools, colleges and universities offer young people, particularly in the light of modern technology. This genetic perspective on learning suggests a return to the original meaning of education (from the Latin educatio, which means 'to draw out')”

It says: "Instead of thinking about education as a way of countering genetic differences among children, the field of education might profit from accepting that children differ genetically in how much they learn.

"This way of thinking is compatible with the current trend towards personalising education by optimising children's learning, which is increasingly possible through the use of interactive information technology."

The report concludes: "More generally, instead of thinking about education as instruction (from the Latin instruo, which means 'to build in'), this genetic perspective on learning suggests a return to the original meaning of education (from the Latin educatio, which means 'to draw out').

"That is, instead of a model of instruction in which children are the passive recipients of knowledge, a genetically sensitive approach to education suggests an active view of learning in which children select, modify and create their own education in part on the basis of their genetic propensities."

The lead researcher, geneticist Dr Claire Haworth, said taking a genetic perspective on education meant moving away from the notion of children being "passive recipients" of knowledge.
Instead, children should be seen as active participants who "select, modify and create" their own education - in part on the basis of their genetic propensities.

"These findings do not mean that educational quality is unimportant, in fact environmental factors were just as important as genetic factors," said Dr Haworth.

"However, these results do suggest that children bring characteristics to the classroom that influence how well they will take advantage of the quality.

"Consider a classroom full of students being taught by the same teacher - some children will improve more than other children, even though their educational experience at school is the same."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12339798

[fdeck]

Interesting. However, the notion of children being "passive recipients" of "knowledge" has been obsolete for at least a couple of generations, unless you're Amy Chua. In fact, I would call that a straw man. The beauty of personalized education is that it doesn't matter whether differences among children are due to nature or nurture. And if we teach things like critical thought, then children can become self-teaching when it comes to finding the knowledge that they desire.

[bassybill]

Originally Posted by fdeck

Interesting. However, the notion of children being "passive recipients" of "knowledge" has been obsolete for at least a couple of generations, unless you're Amy Chua. In fact, I would call that a straw man. The beauty of personalized education is that it doesn't matter whether differences among children are due to nature or nurture. And if we teach things like critical thought, then children can become self-teaching when it comes to finding the knowledge that they desire.

Assuming, of course, that each pupil is ultimately capable of truly critical thought.

[daystcity]

Yup, genes play a depressingly important part in intelligence.

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by bassybill

Assuming, of course, that each pupil is ultimately capable of truly critical thought.

Understood. But that could still be nature or nurture. Also, the researchers didn't consider the possibility that parents treat sets of fraternal twins differently than identical twins.

I think we're not at a point as a society where we can trust teachers or "the system" to make decisions for kids based on real or imagined hereditary factors.

[daystcity]

They've done adoption/twin studies on heredity's effect on intelligence, and from closest to furthest apart the results are, (with correlation coeffecient): Identical twins reared together (.85), Identical twins reared apart (.7), Fraternal twins reared together (.6), Siblings reared together (.45), Unrelated individuals reared together (.3). These are rough, (read from a graph in my psych textbook).

If anyone wants the source I can check for you, the general consensus at the time (2003) was that genes accounted for 50 to 75 percent of intelligence variation for adolescents and adults. I've seen studies that read the adult intelligence as being 80% similar to the parents' (the percentage increases with age).

The real question for me is the existence of an intelligence ceiling that someone can never pass, an inborn potential that can only at best be met. Mild mental retardation is defined by a learning ceiling of 6th grade, with moderate going down to the 2nd grade. I wonder if higher IQ's have similar restrictions that we have just not noticed because the individual can function in society?

[anonymous122511]

"Genes play key role in classroom performance". Believe that and believing eugenics is just becomes not so difficult.

[LiquidMidnight]

The nature-nurture dichotomy has pretty much been discarded in modern developmental psychology.

[hrodbert696]

Sorry, but I remain skeptical of using genetics to explain everything. Fraternal twins can potentially be of different genders, not to mention, of course, simply different in appearance. That can lead to all sorts of subtle but deep-reaching differences in how they are socialized, treated, confidence levels, etc. Identical twins are more likely to be treated identically growing up and therefore have less variation in these areas. Nurture is not just about classroom environment and teaching strategies, it's early childhood socialization.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by jeff arddun

"Genes play key role in classroom performance". Believe that and believing eugenics is just becomes not so difficult.

Genes are responsible for some people being bigger and stronger than others, why is it hard to believe that they'll also play a role in the make up of our brains and the manner in which we process information?

To dismiss something just because you seem to think believing in it would be a step closer to Eugenics, is asinine.

We shouldn't disregard science just because it could fuel anothers agenda.

[Jim Nazium]

Wait, so the study is saying that some people are naturally smarter than others? What shocking news.

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by hrodbert696

Sorry, but I remain skeptical of using genetics to explain everything. Fraternal twins can potentially be of different genders, not to mention, of course, simply different in appearance. That can lead to all sorts of subtle but deep-reaching differences in how they are socialized, treated, confidence levels, etc. Identical twins are more likely to be treated identically growing up and therefore have less variation in these areas. Nurture is not just about classroom environment and teaching strategies, it's early childhood socialization.

+1

I'm not saying that there isn't a genetic effect, but simply that this study doesn't necessarily prove one. You can have a real effect combined with weak science.

[12bass]

Science is not about making proofs.... that's in logic or mathematics. This study shows strong statistical correlations. Also, no one appears to be claiming that genes explain everything, just that they make a statistically-supported impact.

[pacojas]

Gene Simmons played a key role in my classroom performance.

[Skitch it!]

Originally Posted by hrodbert696

Sorry, but I remain skeptical of using genetics to explain everything. Fraternal twins can potentially be of different genders, not to mention, of course, simply different in appearance. That can lead to all sorts of subtle but deep-reaching differences in how they are socialized, treated, confidence levels, etc. Identical twins are more likely to be treated identically growing up and therefore have less variation in these areas. Nurture is not just about classroom environment and teaching strategies, it's early childhood socialization.

+1 With this, for the bigger picture

[jmattbassplaya]

Originally Posted by Jim Nazium

Wait, so the study is saying that some people are naturally smarter than others? What shocking news.

I know, right? I thought studies like this have been around for years now.

[tonesponge]

I don't think it's news that individualized instruction and testing would be better than group instruction and testing, but individual instruction is too costly while human teachers are needed. At some point, maybe we can move to computerized instruction, and allow each child to learn at his or her own pace, with the repetition and reinforcement required for an indiviudual child being delivered to that child as needed for the child to advance while retaining accumulated knowledge.

[Skitch it!]

Originally Posted by fdeck

+1

I'm not saying that there isn't a genetic effect, but simply that this study doesn't necessarily prove one. You can have a real effect combined with weak science.

+1, Personally, I feel whomever conducted this study, and negated the external factors like learned behavioural patterns imprinted in childhood, and external sociological factors, should be going back to school themselves.

[jmattbassplaya]

Originally Posted by tonesponge

I don't think it's news that individualized instruction and testing would be better than group instruction and testing, but individual instruction is too costly while human teachers are needed. At some point, maybe we can move to computerized instruction, and allow each child to learn at his or her own pace, with the repetition and reinforcement required for an indiviudual child being delivered to that child as needed for the child to advance while retaining accumulated knowledge.

That is a very, very bad idea. Students learn so much more than simple academic principles from their teachers, and there is a certain kind of instruction that can only be given from another living, breathing human being.

[anonymous122511]

Originally Posted by jmattbassplaya

That is a very, very bad idea. Students learn so much more than simple academic principles from their teachers, and there is a certain kind of instruction that can only be given from another living, breathing human being.

It is a bad idea.
Using genetics to talk about physical traits like running fast or seeing far is one thing. Using it to make judgments on accommodation to social constructs is another. This is blatant misuse of science.