Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T06:37:06.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effects of Two EFL (English as a Foreign Language) Teaching Approaches Studied by the Cotwin Control Method: A Comparative Study of the Communicative and the Grammatical Approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

J. Ando
J. Ando*
Affiliation:
Department of Education, Keio University, Mita, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan
*
Department of Education, Faculty of Letters, Keio University 2-15-45, Mita, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 108, Japan

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The present study compared two different types of English-language teaching approaches, the grammatical approach (GA) and the communicative approach (CA), by the cotwin control method. This study has two purposes: to study the effects of teaching approaches and to estimate genetic influences upon learning aptitudes. Seven pairs of identical twins (MZ) and 4 pairs of fraternal twins (DZ) participated in the experiment along with 68 other nontwin fifth graders. Each cotwin was assigned to the GA and CA respectively and received 20 hours of lessons over a 10-day period. The behavioral similarities between MZ cotwins were statistically and descriptively depicted. No major effect of either teaching approach was noted, but the genetic influence upon individual differences of learning achievement was obvious. Furthermore, an interesting interaction between the teaching approaches and intelligence was found, that is, that the GA capitalises on and CA compensates for intelligence. This interactional pattern could be interpreted as an example of genotype-environment interaction. The relationship between genetic factors and learning aptitudes is discussed.

Keywords

Cotwin control methodHeredityEnvironmentAptitude-Treatment InteractionCommunicative approach
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , October 1992 , pp. 335 - 352
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1992

References

REFERENCES

1. Amo, Y (1988): The twin world: Longitudinal study of twins for 25 years (in Japanese). Brain Shuppan.Google Scholar
2. Anastasi, A (1958): Heredity, environment, and the question “How?”. Psychological Review 65:197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Ando, J (1990): Heredity in education (in Japanese with English summary). Philosophy 91:547–566.Google Scholar
4. Ando, J (1992): Human behavioral genetics and education (in Japanese with English summary). Jpn J Educ Psychol 40:96–107.Google Scholar
5. Ando, J, Fukunaga, N, Kurahachi, J, Suto, T, Kage, M, Nakano, T (1991): Experimental study on communicative approach and grammatical approach (in Japanese with English summary). Studies in Sociology, Psychology and Education 32:1–10.Google Scholar
6. Bouchard, TJ Jr. (1984): Twins reared together and apart: What they tell us about human diversity. In Fox, SW (ed): Individuality and Determinism. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
7. Buss, AH, Plomin, R (1986): The EAS approach to temperament. In Plomin, R and Dunn, J (eds). The study of temperament: Changes, continuities and challenges. Hillside: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
8. Cronbach, LJ (1957): The two disciplines of scientific psychology. Am Psychol 12:671–684.Google Scholar
9. Daneman, M, Carpenter, PA (1980): Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19:450–466.Google Scholar
10. Fukunaga, N, Kurahachi, J, Nakano, T, Kage, M, Suto, T, Ando, J (1991): The effectiveness of the communicative approach on EFL (English as a foreign language) beginners: The comparative research on the two EFL teaching methods (in Japanese with English summary). Studies in Sociology, Psychology and Education 31: 117–126.Google Scholar
11. Gesell, AL, Thompson, H (1929): Learning and growth in identical infant twins. Genetic Psychology Monograph 6:5–120.Google Scholar
12. Goldsmith, HH (1983): Genetic influences on personality from infancy to adulthood. Child Dev. 54:331–355.Google Scholar
13. Holden, C (1980): Identical twins reared apart. Science 207:1323–1328.Google Scholar
14. Kurahachi, J, Ando, J, Fukunaga, N, Suto, T, Nakano, T, Kage, M (in press): The relationship between communicative approach in teaching English and motivation to learn (in Japanese with English summary). Jpn J Educ Psychol.Google Scholar
15. Lykken, DT (1982): Research with twins: The concept of Emergenesis. Psychophysiology 19:361–373.Google Scholar
16. Miki, Y, Kimura, Y (1954): Elder-brother-like and younger-brother-like (in Japanese). Jpn J Educ Psychol 2:69–78.Google Scholar
17. Miki, Y, Amo, Y (1954): On the relationship between personality differences of identical twins and their treatment by the family (in Japanese). Jpn J Educ Psychol 2:141–149.Google Scholar
18. Miki, Y, Amo, Y (1956): On behavioral characteristics of twins and personality differences between twin siblings. In Uchida, Y (ed): The twin research. Vol. 2 (in Japanese). Nihon Gakujut-su Shinkoukai. pp. 243–247.Google Scholar
19. Miki, Y, Hatano, G, Kuhara, K, Inoue, S (1963): A study of personality formation through twin research (I) (in Japanese). Jpn J Educ Psychol 11:142–151.Google Scholar
20. Miki, Y, Hatano, G, Kuhara, K, Inoue, S, Eguchi, K (1964): A study of personality formation through twin research (II): Development of interpersonal relations in identical twins (in Japanese) Jpn J Educ Psychol 12:1–11.Google Scholar
21. Miki, Y, Kuhara, K, Hatano, G, Takahashi, K (1969): A study of personality formation through twin research (III): Development of friendship relations in adolescent twins. Jpn J Educ Psychol 17:1–10.Google Scholar
22. Namiki, H (1991): Individuality and instruction. In Takizawa, T and Azuma, H (eds): behavioral science of instruction and learning (in Japanese). Fukumura Shuppan pp. 218–235.Google Scholar
23. Plomin, R, Willerman, L (1975): A cotwin control study and a twin study of reflection-impulsivity in children. J Educ Psychol 67:537–543.Google Scholar
24. Plomin, R (1983): Developmental behavior genetics. Child Dev 34:253–259.Google Scholar
25. Plomin, R, De Fries, JC (1985): Origins of individual differences in infancy: The Colorado Adoption Project. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
26. Plomin, R, De Fries, JC, Fulker, DW (1988): Nature and nurture during infancy and early childhood. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Plomin, R (1990): Nature and nurture: An introduction to human behavioral genetics. California: Brooks & Cole.Google Scholar
28. Sakurai, S, Takano, S (1985): A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation toward learning in children (in Japanese with English summary). Tsukuba Psychological Research 7:43–54.Google Scholar
29. Sato, T (1991): Sibling relationship. In Hanta, S et al (eds): Developmental psychology of sociability (in Japanese). Fukumura Shuppan.Google Scholar
30. Scarr, S, McCartney, K (1983): How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype-environment effects. Child Dev 54:424–435.Google Scholar
31. Snow, RE (1989): Aptitude-Treatment Interaction as a framework for research on individual differences in learning. In Ackerman, PL et al (eds): Learning and individual differences: Advances in theory and research. New York: W.H. Freeman & Company.Google Scholar
32. Sugihara, K (1981): Development of cognitive styles and the relationship between cognitive styles and scholastic achievement. In Suzuki, K (ed): The analytic study on the cognitive ability structure and its developmental change in children (in Japanese) Unpublished report of Grant-in-Aid for Co-operative Research (A).Google Scholar
33. Takuma, T (1991): Twin studies in psychology. Newsletter of the Japan Society for Twin Studies 9:2–12.Google Scholar
34. Wilson, RS (1978): Synchronies in mental development: An epigenetic perspective. Science 202:939–948.Google Scholar
35. Wilson, RS (1983): The Lousville twin study: developmental synchronies in behavior. Child Dev 54:298–316.Google Scholar