There is an on-going debate on whether or not to separate twins once they begin school. This study was published in April of 2004 in Twin Research. The authors in this study investigated “the effects of classroom separation on twins’ behavior, progress at school, and reading abilities”. The twins selected were assessed at the age of five, when beginning school, and followed up at the age of seven. This study focused on three groups: twins who were in the same class at the age of five and seven, twins who were not in the same class at neither the age of five or seven, nor twins who were in the same class at the age of five, but were later separated by the age of seven. For the purpose of this study, identical twins and fraternal twins were referenced.
The authors discuss the results in relation to the affects on the parents and teachers. Parents often question if classroom separation will be beneficial for the overall development of their twins. Frequently, this discussion is not left up to the parents, but rather to school districts and officials without parental input. There is little research that compares these issues between twins who are kept in the same class and those who are separated. Therefore, the decision on whether or not to separate twins is often not evidence-based.
The authors state that the issue of classroom separation is a concern since there is some evidence that identical twins are closer than fraternal twins. Because of this, extra focus may be placed on whether or not to separate identical twins. The U.S. study indicated that fraternal twins were more likely to be separated. This could also influence parental views on classroom separation. The authors state that there in no evidence to prove this. It was the authors’ intent to research these effects by investigating whether there were “differences in children’s school behavior, progress at school, and reading abilities according to whether twins were separated or together at school”. There were three groups studied: 1. NS group (not separated) 2. SE group (separated early, separated in both classes) 3. SL group (separated late, same class at the age of five and separated by the age of seven).
Methodology
The authors took their participant sample from the Environmental Risk (E-risk) Longitudinal Twin Study. The study consisted of two cohorts in the Twins’ Early Development Study for the years 1994 and 1995, which is a register of twins born in England and Wales (Trouton et al., 2002). Of all parents of twins born in 1994 and 1995 who were invited to participate, 71% joined. The authors’ sampling did not include opposite-sex twin pairs and instead focused on same-sex twin pairs.
At the follow-up for these families, teacher questionnaires were obtained. Families were given shopping vouchers for their participation and the children were given coloring books and stickers. Based on the questionnaires, 813 twin pairs were in the same class with the same teacher, and 217 pairs who were in separate classes with different teachers (Tully et al., 2004). According to the authors, there were 552 twin pairs who were in the NS group, 162 pairs in the SE group, and 164 twin pairs in the SL group.
Measures
Externalizing and internalizing problems were assessed using the Child Behavior Checklist Teacher Report Form (Achenbach, 1991). Prosocial behavior was indicated by teachers using items from the Revised Rutter Scale for School-Age Children and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1994; Sclare, 1997). Teachers also rated the children’s performance in comparison to other students in the class. These measures were used at the ages of five and ages of seven phases of the study. Reading was individually tested using the Test of Word Reading Efficiency. This was assessed at the age of seven phase of the study only.
Data Analysis
Data was analyzed by a series of planned comparisons using sets of contrast codes (Rosenthal et al., 1999). The authors used standard regression techniques and with all tests based on the Huber/White Variance estimator (Rogers, 1993; Williams, 2000).
Results
The SE group showed more internalizing problems at age five than the NS and SL groups for both identical and fraternal twins. This group also showed more problems at this stage than the SL group, but only for identical twins.
The SE and SL groups showed more problems than the NS group at the follow-up. This was only for identical twins; fraternal twins showed no significant differences.
The SE group had more problems than the NS group, identical twins only. They also had lower standard reading scores than the NS group, for identical only. Fraternal twins showed no significant differences.
The NS group was showed having more prosocial behavior than the SL group at the age of five for identical twins only.
The SE group showed a greater increase in internalizing problems from age five to follow-up when compared to the NS group, for identical twins only. They also showed lower standard reading scores after controlling for IQ at the age of five, identical twins only. For fraternal twins, the SL group showed greater increases of how hard they were working from the age of five to follow-up.
Discussion and Conclusion
After all of the data had been collected and analyzed, various conclusions were drawn. One, twins who were separated at the age of five had more internalizing problems and the problems were long-lasting with identical twins. The authors came to the conclusion that school separation may be the major cause of the development of internalizing problems. Two, it was determined that separated twins experienced more academic problems than non-separated twins since the identical twins separated later had more reading problems. Three, fraternal twins were found to work harder separated than those not separated.
This study emphasized that based on all of its findings that support and interventions for families with twins beginning school are a must. Communications between parents and the school are important. These particular findings suggest that it may be beneficial for twins to remain in the same class for the first few years of school. These results show that the effects of separation academically and internally are not temporary. The results of this study also seem to indicate that later separation is no easier than early separation. It also indicates that problems will continue after the initial year of separation.
This study showed that many of the problems lasted for identical twins only, although both identical and fraternal twins had internalizing problems. The study placed importance on the need for continuous monitoring and follow-up. If twins are indeed separated, educators and parents have a responsibility to watch the children for signs of reading and other academic problems, as well as emotional troubles. In the end, the decision to put the twins in the same class can be made if there are considerable problems with adjusting. Finally, it was also suggested that prolonged exposure to separation before the start of school may help prepare the twins for classroom separation.
References:
Achenbach, T.M. (1991). Manual for the Teacher’s Report Form and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Bryan, E., & Hallet, F. (2001). Twins and Triplets: The First Five Years and Beyond. London: The Multiple Births Foundation.
Gleeson, C., Hay, D.A., Johnston, C.J., & Theobald, R.M. (1990). “Twins in school”: An Australia-Wide Program." Acta Geneticae Medicae et Gemellologiae, 39, 231-244.
Goodman, R. (1997). "The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research Note. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 38, 581 – 586.
Koch, H. (1966). Twins and Twin Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Preedy, P. (1999). "Meeting the Educational Needs of Pre-School and Primary Aged Twins and Higher Multiples." In A.C. Sandbank (Ed.), Twin and Triplet Psychology (pp. 70-99). London: Routledge.
Preedy, P. (2001). Are Multiple Birth Children Different From Singletons? Meeting the Educational Needs of Multiple Birth Children Upon School Entry. Unpublished dissertation. School of Education, The University of Birmingham, UK.
Rogers, W.H. (1993). "Regression Standard Errors in Clustered Samples." Stata Technical Bulletin, 13, 19-23.
Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R. L., & Rubin, D. (1999). Contrasts and Effect Sizes in Behavioral Research: A Correlational Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rutter, M., Pickles, A., Murray, R., & Eaves, L. (2001). "Testing Hypotheses on Specific Environmental Risks." Psychological Bulleting, 127, 291-324.
Sclare, I. (1997). The Child Psychology Portfolio. Windsor, Berkshire: NFER-NelsonPublishing Company.
Segal, N.L. (1984). "Cooperation, Competition, and Alltruism Within Twin Sets: A Reappraisal." Ethology and Sociobiology, 5, 163-177.
Segal, N.L. (1988). "Cooperation, Competition and Altruism in Human Twinships: A Sociobiological Approach." In K.B. MacDonald (Ed.), Sociobiological Perspectives on Human Development (pp. 169-206). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Segal, N.L., & Hershberger, S.L. (1999). Cooperation and Competition in Adolescent Twins: Findings From a Prisoner’s Dilemma Game." Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 29-51.
Segal, N.L., & Russell, J.M. (1992). "Twins in the Classroom: School Policy Issues and Recommendations." Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 3, 69-84.
Trouton, A., Spinath, F.M., & Plomin, R. (2002). Twins Early Development Study (TEDS): A Multivariate, Longitudinal Genetic Investigation of Language, Cognition,and Behaviour Problems in Childhood." Twin Research, 5, 444-448.
Tully, L.A., Moffitt, T.E., Caspi, A., Taylor, A. Kiernan, H., & Andreou, P. (2004). "What Effect Does Classroom Separation Have on Twins’ Behavior, Progress at School, and Reading Abilities?" Twin Research, 7, 115-124.
Williams, R.L. (2000). "A Note on Robust Variance Estimation for Cluster-Correlated Data." Biometrics, 56, 645-646.
Tiffani Bowman - My name is Tiffani D. Bowman and I am a former K-12 media specialist. My passions have always been reading and writing, but I have not ...
Join the Conversation