Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T06:31:12.230Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Twins in School” — An Australia-wide Program

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

C. Gleeson ,
D.A. Hay ,
C.J. Johnston  and
T.M. Theobald
C. Gleeson
Affiliation:
Australian Multiple Birth Association (AMBA), Coogee, NSW, Victoria, Australia
D.A. Hay*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, LaTrobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
C.J. Johnston
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, LaTrobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
T.M. Theobald
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, LaTrobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
*
Department of Psychology, LaTrobe University, Bundoora, Vic 3083, Australia

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 multiple birth family is more likely to have a dispute with the education system than with any other service. So many potential areas of conflict exist over the abilities and behaviour of multiples and over such issues as separation or keeping back one twin. One reason for disputes is the lack of good data to adequately reflect the different perspectives of parents and teachers and the differing needs of families: the same solution does not apply to all. To provide the first large-scale data base and building upon an initial survey of 85% of all primary school teachers in South Australia, the LaTrobe Twin Study and AMBA worked with Education Departments to set-up in each state Education Research Teams (ERTs) of parents of multiples who were also teachers. The ERTs were crucial in three phases. 1) Developing and circulating questionnaires and publicising the nationwide survey. 784 families and 1264 teachers of their children completed these questionnaires, many reporting that simply having to address the issues raised in the questionnaire was a valuable learning experience. 2) Exploring the data base. Issues arising included the very different bases on which parents and teachers judged separation desirable, with teachers emphasising the unsubstantiated claim that separation is essential to individual development. Separation became more common over the first three years of schooling but 20-25% of twins separated one year were back together the next. 3) Running regional meetings of parents, teachers and administrators to discuss the results and to pool experiences and plan policies at the local level. A need clearly exists to improve the level of consultation between families and school personnel and to ensure the widespread availability of information which identifies key issues in making decisions for that multiple birth family.

Keywords

TwinsSchoolingParental attitudesTeachersSeparation
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , April 1990 , pp. 231 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1990

References

REFERENCES

1.Ainslie, RC (1985): The Psychology of Twinship. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
2.Bakker, P (1987): Autonomous languages of twins. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 36:233–238.Google ScholarPubMed
3.Bryan, EM (1984): Twins in the Family: A Parents Guide. London: Constable.Google Scholar
4.Costello, AJ (1978): Deprivation and family structure with particular reference to twins. In Anthony, EJ, Coupernik, C (eds): The Child in His Family, Vol 4. New York: Wiley, pp 59–71.Google Scholar
5.Douglas, JE, Sutton, A (1978): The development of speech and mental processes in a pair of twins: A case study. J Child Psychol Psychiat 19:49–56.Google Scholar
6.Hay, DA, O'Brien, PJ (1983): The LaTrobe Twin Study: A genetic approach to the structure and development of cognition in twin children. Child Dev 54:317–330.Google Scholar
7.Hay, DA, O'Brien, PJ (1987): Early influences on the school social adjustment of twins Acta Genet Med Gemellol 36:239–248.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Hay, DA, O'Brien, PJ, Johnston, CJ, Prior, M (1984): The high incidence of reading disability in twin boys and its implications for genetic analysis. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 33:223–236.Google Scholar
9.Hay, DA, Prior, M, Collett, S, Williams, M (1987): Speech and language development in preschool twins. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 36:213–223.Google Scholar
10.Hay, DA, Tan, L (1990): One child in 45 is a twin – Do early childhood services meet their special needs? Proceedings 9th Australian Early Childhood Conference.Google Scholar
11.Kenny, D (1989): The effect of grade repetition on the social/emotional adjustment of infants and primary students. The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist 6:1–10.Google Scholar
12.Koch, HL (1966): Twins and Twin Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
13.Luria, AR, Yodovich, FI (1959): Speech and the Development of Mental Processes in the Child. London: Staples.Google Scholar
14.Rosambeau, M (1987): How Twins Grow Up. London: The Bodley Head.Google Scholar
15.Sandbank, A (1988): Twins and the Family. London: Arrow.Google Scholar
16.Savić, S (1980): How Twins Learn to Talk: A Study of the Speech Development of Twins from 1 to 3. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
17.Wallace, M (1986): The Silent Twins. London: Chatto & Windus.Google Scholar
18.Zazzo, R (1960): Les Jumeaux: Le Couple et la Personne. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar