The article was explaining how their is an assumption that twins are somewhat delayed in language development and they are prone to language disabilities. In other words, twins are known to not catch on quicker than non-twins, who are also known as "Singletons."
The reason this assumption came about was because their were several studies done giving facts that twins are more prone to language delays and disorders because of biological and social factors. These studies also showed that twins are catching up with "singletons" on standarized language test during the childhood.
Day(1932) and Davis(1937),are two researchers who did two of the largest studies on the language of twins as a group. Both researchers used similar methods for each study and therefore came out with somewhat similar results. Day's study consisted of 80 pairs of twins and 140 singletons. The age range of the children were 1.5 to 5.5. Twenty pairs of those eighty twins were between the ages of 2,3,4,and 5 years of age. From this study, 50 utterances were recorded among the children while they were playing with toys that were giving to them by the experimenter. The end results were that among the different levels of language complexity,twins were seen to be at least 2 years behind the non-twins(singletons) by the age of five,whereas Davis, who used pairs of twins between the ages 5-9, found that on certain levels of structural measures, the twins caught up with the "singletons" on average, but will probably have problems with articulation. However, there were several things that the studies lacked, which would not make their information credible.
Among these two studies were some others which made this topic very controversial. Although throughout all of the studies, their results were somewhat correlating, their were still different ways of how each researcher came up with their results. At the end of all of the studies, all results were "on average." It was found that some reason for the child's disability was because of biological factors. However, these conditions are not just found among twins. It can also be found among non-twins (singletons) as well.
What do you think about twins and this language disability? Do you think their is a difference between twins and any other person with a language disability? Do you believe that others(non-twins/singletons) are more exempt from this language disability than twins?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
I think that there would be no reason for twins to have a slower rate of learning than singletons. The article and blog say that there were discrepancies in the research studies of twins and singletons. Therefore, until the research is done with as few errors as possible, then I don't think that researchers can definitely say that twins have a sort of language disability. Also, I would think that twins would develop faster than singletons because they have another person who is their own age to communicate with.
I completely agree withe Michaela on this. It seems like the study would be completely irrelevant considering the discrepancies in the research. It doesn't make sense to me that twins would have a slower rate of learning compared with singletons. It makes more sense to say that twins would be faster language learners because of the constant companionship. More test definately needs to be done.
I am going to agree with Charlotte and Michaela here. This doesn't make sense to me that twins would have a slower rate of learning than singletons. I think that they need to do more tests to prove this because there were obvious errors before. You would think that twins would maybe even be faster because there is always that person who they are able to communicate with on a daily basis. They definitely need to do more testing.
The studies discussed just don't seem viable to me. There are far too many factors that varied throughout the studies for me to judge them as reliable. I suppose twins could have a slower learning rate, but these studies don't give reliable evidence of that. There also doesn't seem to be a valid reason behind these claims since they studies had so many discrepencies. Reliable testing, which has been replicated, would have to be done for me to believe these claims.
I'm going to have to agree with everyone else these tests don't seem complete controlled there are way to many variables like Julie said. I don't understand why twins would have different learning rates then singletons. I understand where they are coming from with the social aspect of it because I grew up with 3 or 4 pairs of twins and they all grew up differently then most of the other kids. Some of the social things consist on how often a sibling is with the other sibling the ones that seemed to be more outgoing were the ones who weren't together all the time so the social aspect is a big part to me.
To say that twins have a slower rate of learning than singletons do, as this article states, I believe to be untrue. Sure, there have been studies done, but then again those studies had flaws. Personally, I knew a set of twins growing up and they should no signs of learning disabilities. If you are going to make the assumption that twins are slower learners, the research needs to be better than it is now. Therefore, I will say that for me twins are on the same level as singletons in terms of learning. Plus, I also believe it would be easier to learn if you were a twin because you always have someone learning the same thing you are to talk to.
The fact that the article says that the test had discrepancies makes the results not credible to me. I do not think that twin have delayed language development. I am not a twin but as a young child during pre-school had to go to a speech therapist, although my brother and sister (who are not twins either) did not have to go to a speech therapist. I think it just depends on the child not if the child is a twin or not. I also think that if twins do develop language delays then they will catch up with their peers by early adolescents. Most young children have language develop delays but grow out of them. I really just think it depends on the child and his/her experiences and what they are exposed to.
I don't think there is any reason why twins would learn slower than non-twin children. Just because a few twins have a slower rate of learning than singletons doesn't mean they all do. I don't see how any research could be conclusive on this topic. Every child learns on at a different pace. I would think twins would be able to learn slightly faster because they would always have their sibling in the same class and would be able to discuss their learning together at any time. I think we all learn at out own pace whether we are twins or not.
It is hard to comment on a flawed study and not feel like you are just feeding speculation into what might be an over-scrutinized old-wives tale. When my wife was pregnant everyone said it was going to be a boy because of their own limited observation of human reproduction. Even a nurse didn't believe the ultrasound when she got a certain hormone level back in a test. People believe what they want to believe until real data is collected. Researchers: REDO YOUR HOMEWORK!
As a sister of twins I found this article to be quite inadequate among other things. It failed to mention that one reason for the findings might be because twins oftentimes develope their own language that they use to communicate between themsleves and rely on this alone. My own brothers had a language they used as toddlers and still use today. They are not delayed nor did they have a language disability. Being involved with the IMOTC (Ill mother of twins club) all my life as a sibling of twins I know dozens of mutiples and have not noticed any sort of learning deficiencies that this study suggests. These researchers are reaching and need more credible testing results.
In all honesty, how can they think that twins learn any different than a singleton child? They are making it sound like if you are a twin then you only have half a brain. I mean just because you were born the same time as your sibling doesn't mean that you share the same brain. Each twin is a single person by themselves. They function and learn completely on their own just as any other child. If anything they could be better learners just because they have someone to learn with. I just find that they need to either research more on this issue or better yet drop it. I don't understand why they are making a big deal about it. They are wasting their time.
The very hypothesis of this experiment makes no sense to me. Two of my best friends are twins, and I have never experienced a slower learning curve with them as this study suggests. The way this experiment was ran is flawed by nature, as there is no definite way to gather meaningful data. This experiment is a waste of time.
I also agree that I don't see the connection with twins and slower learning rates. If the researchers where able to tell us why it might be a little more believeable. I do know that twins tend to rely on one another and maybe that could be a factor but then that will only work if the twins were sepearated. There has to be a lot more research done to prove this point and it has to include the many different factors into account as well.
Since the research is not conclusive and admits to descrepancies and error, I cannot agree. Just as everyone else has stated, why would twins learn at a slower pace? They have a constant companion -- someone to always interact with and perhaps, when they are a little older, someone to compete with. If anything, twins should be learning faster than singletons.
I never noticed a big language disability in twins. I can't understand why twins would have worse language than any other child. This was very informative though.
I agree with everyone. I don't see any reason that twins should develop language slower than "singletons". It seems to me like they should develop language faster. Obviously this study has some errors, but I would be interested in another study, done right, on the same subject. I think it would be especially interesting if they said something about phenomenom of twins who develop their own language. I don't know if this really happens, but you hear about it on tv all the time, and if so it would be interesting.
I believe that if it is true that twins have a slower rate of learning, it is only as a very small child. This may only be due to the fact that many twins are premmature. I am sure that if these twins do learn at a slower pace, it is not much time until they catch up.
Post a Comment