The Emotional Learner

If there’s one topic in education guaranteed to lead to fierce debate, it’s behavioural genetics. Opposing sides take up their positions based on nature or nurture; whether academic achievement is based mainly on heritability or environmental influences. 

Publications such as Robert Plomin and Kathryn Asbury’s G is for Genes and Plomin’s more recent Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are have fuelled the debate on one side, while Blueprint: How our childhood makes us who we are by clinical psychologist Lucy Maddox, has taken the opposite side (and yes, Plomin’s and Maddox’s books have startlingly similar titles).

Behavioural geneticists like Plomin and Asbury argue that how successful a person is at learning depends heavily on heritability. Heritability is the measure of how much of a difference we see in a population can be accounted for by genetics and how much is determined by the environment. It’s an awkward term for sure. Geneticist Adam Rutherford describes it as both a ‘tricky idea’ and a ‘hideously named thing’ – it sounds a little like inherited, and this leads to untold confusion. 

The opposite camp tends to reject the idea, claiming it leads to a deterministic view of learning where learners are assumed to have finite ability. There might be some mileage in this, of course, and evidence does suggest that certain personality traits can help mitigate for lower levels of intelligence. 

Teachers want to know about genetics

Despite the differences between the two camps, research from the Psychology in Education Research Centre at the University of York found teachers are interested in discovering more about how genes influence learning outcomes. Not only are teachers open to knowing more, they already have a pretty good grasp of how academic achievement is influenced by both the environment and genes.

It’s worth noting, of course, that behavioural genetics is concerned with the study or how genetics and the environment influence human behaviour; it’s not only about genes and it’s not only about the environment.

Even though the recent emphasis has focussed on the heritability of IQ, intelligence isn’t the only area of interest to behavioural genetics. For example, a 2014 study looked at several factors related to academic achievement, including intelligence, self-efficacy, personality, well-being and behaviour problems, concluding that academic outcomes are not only influenced by how well people score on an IQ.

In this most recent study, Madeline Crosswaite and Kathryn Asbury asked volunteers to complete a questionnaire that included a range of topics related to their beliefs about the aetiology of individual differences in cognitive ability and about the relevance of behavioural genetics to education. These included beliefs about the relative influence of nature and nurture, knowledge of behavioural genetics, openness to genetic research in education, as well questions about individual mindset (fixed or growth).

The sample comprised 402 teachers, including those working in primary, secondary, state, and independent schools. It was a self-selecting sample, so, as the authors point out, some of those who completed the questionnaire might already have an interest in behavioural genetics.

Results showed that teachers generally perceived genetic and environmental factors to be of equal importance, which is relatively accurate in terms of previous research findings. Few teachers were found to be at either extreme, suggesting that most teachers have a pretty good understanding about what influences academic achievement. 

Despite this, most teachers rated their knowledge of behavioural genetics as low, but their openness to learn more about it was high, especially amongst primary school teachers.

This appears to have been the first study of its kind. A similar study was carried out in 2005, but only with primary school teachers. There have also been huge advances in genetics research over the past decade and a half, so this study adds a great deal to our overall understanding.

Teachers are, it would seem, eager to learn more about the role of genes relevant to teaching and learning. But what should the overriding aim of any professional development program be?

 I asked Kathryn Asbury about the study shortly after its publication.

‘The fundamental aim of any CPD in this area must be to support teachers in becoming well informed and in developing a clear and accurate understanding of, for example, what heritability estimates and polygenic scores represent; and what they can and cannot tell us,’ Kathryn said. ‘Too many debates in this area are based on misunderstandings of the evidence and accurate knowledge and understanding is by far the best route to avoiding harm, in my view. That said, I think it is also important to place the evidence in its historical context as well as the contemporary context.’

The darker side of behavioural genetics

This potential for causing harm was highlighted by Daphne Martschenko of the University of Cambridge, along with Sam Trejo and Benjamin W. Domingue of Stanford University. They point to how the field of molecular genetics is now moving incredibly fast, describing how the floodgates of genetic data have opened. They urge caution, specifically in education, and warn against misuse and repeating the errors of the past where the role of genetics has been used to support unjust and bigoted policies.

Asbury broadly agrees. ‘Genetic research should only be used in education if it has the potential to be beneficial,’ she says, ‘Talking to teachers about what the research might mean for children in schools is an important part of the process of figuring out potential benefits as well as potential risks.’

‘We also need a wider policy discussion to ensure that if DNA data is ever used in education, that it is properly and justly regulated.’

Useful to know?

Winning over the sceptics will not be easy, but ensuring that teachers are provided with accurate and up-to-date information is necessary if genetics is going to play a much wider role in teaching and learning. Hopefully, now that experts in the field have a better understanding of what teachers know and want, they can correct many of the misconceptions surrounding this complex yet potentially very useful area of research.