Teaching the Teachers the Genetics of Learning: An Application of the Mixed Blessings Model

Larson, Little, & Byrne’s (2022) “Teaching the Teachers the Genetics of Learning: An Application of the Mixed Blessings Model” in Mind, Brain, and Education. I love this article because it addresses the pros and cons of sharing genetic information with teachers. Haslam and Kvaale (2015) proposed the mixed blessings model, “as a framework for defining both positive and negative repercussions of disseminating the findings of educational genetic research to teachers.”

They cite high heritability estimates of 0.73 for reading, 0.57 for mathematics, and 0.66 for general achievement (de Zeeuw, de Geus, & Boomsma, 2015), then note that many people see genetics in a deterministic fashion, e.g., “when genes are invoked as explanations for psychological disorders, it can both increase stigma against sufferers and reduce blame attributed to the individual for their disorder.”  

The mixed blessings model proposes first, that genetic explanations tend to diminish blame upon an individual for a psychological or behavioral condition; genes are perceived to be outside the control of the individual; hence, one cannot be held accountable for a condition that they cause. Second, and more negatively, genetic explanations can provoke essentialist modes of thought and lead to perceptions that because genes are fixed, they contain the key, unalterable essence of our character, behavior, and abilities (Dar-Nimrod & Heine, 2011). Genetic essentialist thinking in turn leads to three consequences: (a) a desire for social distance between individuals with genetically influenced psychological disorders and nonaffected others, (b) an increased pessimism about the prognosis for such disorders, and (c) a perception that individuals with these disorders are dangerous.

Larson, Little, & Byrne then document research finding that teachers are provided very little training in genetics, citing as an example the highly heritable nature of dyslexia with little accurate information provided to teachers about its symptoms. They move on to suggest that genetic information might lead teachers to be less likely to blame learning disabled and ADHD students or the educational environment in their homes for the students’ learning challenges.

Further, acknowledging that behavioral problems, such as ADHD, have a genetic basis (Rovira et al., 2020), and that genetic correlations exist between behavioral and academic domains (Daucourt, Erbeli, Little, Haughbrook, & Hart, 2020), could act to reduce blame on students arising from multiple challenging conditions. Information about genetic correlations, for example, could prompt teachers to consider whether students are affected by multiple deficits (e.g., Pennington, 2006) rather than only the first identified or most obvious. If a child has difficulty learning to read, for example, teachers might also investigate whether they have similar difficulties with mathematics or attention problems. 

They move on to the negative consequences of genetic essentialism, the first being the inclination to divide students into those affected and those unaffected by a ‘disorder’.

Even though learning disabilities are increasingly understood to exist on a continuum of severity from normal functioning through to disability (McGrath, Peterson, & Pennington, 2020; Pennington, 2006), diagnostic labeling is categorical: either a student has a diagnosable learning or behavioral condition, or they do not. Such dichotomous thinking can generate a cognitive distance between diagnosed students and both their nondiagnosed peers and their teachers.

Secondly, teachers may be pessimistic about a child’s learning future:

Rather than a renewed determination to identify the most effective interventions to support students with learning disabilities (Asbury, Rimfeld, & Krapohl, 2017), explicitly identifying the genetic underpinnings of these problems could induce a level of fatalism among both teachers and students and further exacerbate pessimistic views of students' learning progress. 

The third negative repercussion they cite is that children with learning-related diagnoses are unpredictable and more difficult to manage:

Emphasizing the point that learning disabilities, such as dyslexia, and behavioral problems, such as ADHD, are genetically correlated (Daucourt et al., 2020; Kovas & Plomin, 2007) could further reinforce a perception among teachers that these problems are intractable and unresolvable, and that the behavior of children diagnosed with these conditions is unmanageable in school classrooms.

They conclude by conceding that making educational decisions is not easy:

A pertinent recent example of the unintended effects of ability grouping on nonacademic outcomes demonstrated that students separated into lower ability groups within classrooms at age 7 showed greater hyperactivity and emotional problems from age 7 through 14—even when subsequent groupings may have been altered (Papachristou, Flouri, Joshi, Midouhas, & Lewis, 2021). . . . Inclusive education advocates have argued for decades that it is to the benefit of all children to create school systems in which the full spectrum of human diversity is represented and supported (Graham, 2020; Hansen, 2014; Sheehy, 2014). Incorporating genetic information into decisions around classroom placement or grouping thus may unintentionally work against the philosophies of inclusion and equity that underpin educational reform.

In the end, this is an important article that suggests that diagnosticians be careful about how they describes learners’ challenges and what they propose as educational interventions.