Comments on: Good teachers help students to realise their genetic potential at reading

By: Garen

Garen — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 05:41:47 +0000

This is truly an informative article. Genes are in one way or another play a big part on how children can read. I just wonder how a good teacher copes up with those students who have ADHD and reading disabilities. I agree that those who usually handle them are those who are trained to do so but sometimes teaching kids goes beyond what is in text books. A teacher who has the heart to teach others the joy of reading will benefit from the knowledge that they are making a large contribution to molding young minds in the right direction.

Having the knowledge that genes as its way of influencing the pace of how a person can easily or have a hard time reading one can only wonders if what will works best.

Having a highly skilled teacher can make all the difference in the world even in just helping those who have a hard time learning move even an inch better in improving themselves. Some people who have the affluence may have the edge because they have better resources to give themselves the right care and nourishment while the baby is still in the womb. The right vitamins and minerals given to a growing baby inside the womb and outside can help create a better brain.

By: gcochran

gcochran — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:51:50 +0000

“Reading will not develop optimally in the absence of effective instruction.”

I doubt if this is the case at the highest levels of proficiency. My daughter taught herself to read at age 3: should she have waited ?

By: gillt

gillt — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 04:14:05 +0000

Young: “If they all get similar educations, that would mask the effect of teaching. So she deliberately set out to recruit twins from a wide variety of ethnic groups and social backgrounds.”

That doesn’t make any sense to me. The author it seems is adding more unaccounted for variables, which could explain the different results.

By: Preston

Preston — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:56:41 +0000

It would be truly wonderful if research like this focused on dyslexia and dyscalculia. A treatment would be ideal, but just knowing that the child had a higher-than-normal risk would help the family and teachers choose teaching strategies.

Children have enough to go through without being surrounded by baffled adults unintentionally making things worse.

There is a potential downside that worries me. I would not want a perceived “biological ceiling” to achievement. I would not want an excuse for the educational abandonment of a child.

By: Briana

Briana — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:30:14 +0000

jdmimic: my thoughts exactly. In a psychology textbook I had for a psych 101 class, it had a chapter devoted to this, saying it was both but there was some debate still going just because the idea of genes dictating life is so strong (this was in 2003). But if the official word was “both” in a textbook, I thought the debate was pretty much over. Maybe now that the whole epi-genetics idea is starting up, that genes can be altered during the course of ones lifetime by the environment, we’ll get some more balance. Or at least the realization that things are always more complicated than we give credit for (which I thought THAT debate was over too haha).

By: marto

marto — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:22:10 +0000

Springs Alive Children’s Centre(SPACC) has some international schools we are having collaboration with but havenot really figured out a project to do with them,we even have signed Memorandum of Understanding with them.
If we can have projects that SPACC can have with each of these schools for the benefit of either the children,teachers or our communities then please pass on those ideas we see how to set the ball-rolling.
Our schools’ cooperations need to be kept alive
Thanks alot

By: jdmimic

jdmimic — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:27:56 +0000

This study is good for helping explain to people that teachers can not be blamed for every student that fails, but good teachers do make a difference.
However, I would have thought it patently obvious by now that genetics can only set parameters of performance, genes determine potential. The environment determines how much of that potential is reached. The smartest person in the world will not prosper intellectually if beaten, deprived of decent food, and denied access to informative material. Surely everyone knows this by now? Are people really still debating this?

By: Alison

Alison — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:10:29 +0000

Interesting. I’m troubled by some of the way this is expressed, although I know what you’re trying to say. If all of the environmental factors are balanced by good teaching, then the variation that’s left is much better explained by genetic variation. The genetic variation is always there (it doesn’t have to germinate…), but its effects may be compounded with other factors.

Oral fluency sounds like a good measure, actually, because it’s open-ended; lots of measures are subject to floor and ceiling effects.

Only with good teaching do children with the greatest natural abilities reach their true potential.

Well, I’d read that slightly differently: good teaching benefits everyone, and helps everyone reach their reading potential. The difference made by good teaching to a poor reader may make a huge difference to their performance.

(disclaimer: am reading as mother of dyslexic daughter – deeply depressed by the focus on high achievement, even if that’s exactly how I used to think)

By: Simfish InquilineKea

Simfish InquilineKea — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:50:33 +0000

Quite interesting. It seems that in most schools/subjects, the gap widens even with poor teachers – since the smart students can self-study or their parents pursue additional resources for them. But this is 1st/2nd grade reading.

By: Jan

Jan — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:24:53 +0000

oral reading fluency only measures the number words read (WCPM) correctly per minute on a one minute timed test. It’s not a very thorough assessment…