4.0 Article

Clones in the Classroom: A Daily Diary Study of the Nonshared Environmental Relationship Between Monozygotic Twin Differences in School Experience and Achievement

期刊

TWIN RESEARCH AND HUMAN GENETICS
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 586-595

出版社

AUSTRALIAN ACAD PRESS
DOI: 10.1375/twin.11.6.586

关键词

Nonshared environment; diary study; classroom environment; academic achievement; monozygotic twins

资金

  1. UK Medical Research Council [G9424799, G050079]
  2. US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [HD44454]
  3. British Academy
  4. MRC [G19/2, G0500079] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Medical Research Council [G0500079, G9817803B, G19/2] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Do genetically identical children experience the same classroom differently? Are nonshared classroom experiences associated with differences in achievement? We designed a telephone diary measure which we administered every school day for 2 weeks to 122 10-year-olds in 61 monozygotic (MZ) twin pairs. Each pair shared genes, a classroom, peers and a teacher. We found that MZ twins did experience their classrooms differently (rMZ < 0.65 for all measures of classroom experience). Furthermore, MZ differences in peer problems were significantly associated with MZ differences in Mathematics achievement (ES = 8%); differences in positivity about school were significantly associated with differences in Mathematics (ES = 15%) and Science (ES = 8%) achievement; and differences in 'flow' in Science lessons were associated with differences in Science achievement (ES = 12%). In a multiple regression analysis, MZ differences in positivity about school significantly predicted MZ differences in Mathematics achievement (R(2) = 0.16, p < .01) and MZ differences in 'flow' in Science significantly predicted MZ differences in Science achievement (R(2) = 0.10, p < .05). These results indicate that MZ twins experience the classroom differently and that differences in their experience are associated with differences in their achievement.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据