Adoption and How Genetic and Environmental Factors Impact Academic Achievement in Adoptive Children
The adoption of children is today a common practice among many American families. Several parents prefer adopting children instead of having their own. Society offers adoption as an option in case the parents of the child abandon the child or if they feel they want to give the child a better life that they cannot afford. Thus, biological parents will give up their child for adoption at a tender age to allow the child a chance for a better future. This trend leads to the question of whether adopted children are performing excellently in school. This study seeks to answer the research question, “What do you think of the topic of adoption and how genetic and environmental factors that impact academic children in adopted children?” by examining how the environment and biological factors impact learning. The study thus begins with a review of several pieces of literature whose central focus is on the impact the environment has on the child’s mental development, thus translating to their academic performance. These sources will help support the hypothesis that adopted children excel at school compared to biological children. The reviewed literature indicates a significant connection between socioeconomic status and the child’s academic performance because it determines their neighbourhood, school, and home environment. Our assignment help will hone your writing prowess for papers that will awe your professors.
Literature Review
The home environment is the immediate surrounding of the child, so it is undoubtedly the first determinant of a child’s academic capabilities in school. Yang et al. (2021) researched to prove this statement when they did a literature review study of English and Chinese literature. They collected these sources of information from English and Chinese databases. The study aimed to illuminate the connection between the home environment and the child’s mental and psychomotor skills development. Yang et al. (2021) selected literature based on the frequency of themes evaluated and examined. The theme of interest was the impact of the home environment on the child’s mental development and the effects of the home environment on the child’s psychomotor development. The age of the population also influenced the selection of the studies because the researchers were interested in children aged five years and below. Therefore, this age also formed another theme for the selection of literature (Yang et al., 2021).
Further selection was narrowed down through the dates because the researcher only reviewed literature published between 1990 and 2021. After screening based on these themes, 983 articles were selected. Three hundred thirty-six were from the English Databases, while 647 were from the Chinese database. The literature review showed that the home environment impacts the child’s mental and motor skills. In other words, a positive correlation between the two was strongly identified. It is essential to remember that this study had gaps in the research method used since the literature reviews rely on other people’s findings, thus limiting the researchers’ ability to identify new outcomes. Additionally, reviews do not provide concrete details of the entire research strategy nor give the search methods’ limitations and the search process’s quality, making it not fully reliable. Even so, this study still reaffirms that adoption can play a significant role in the child’s academic performance, especially if the adoptive parents have the resources to create the right environment for the child’s mental and psychomotor skills.
Li and Qiu (2018) also indicated the benefits of adoption in their study that assessed the connection between socioeconomic status and the child’s academic performance. Their study method measured data collected from Chinese Family Panel Studies 2010 baseline survey data (CFPS2010) covering 14,960 households within 25 provinces and other sovereign regions. The research study process involved using three questionnaires for each selected household. The questionnaires were as follows: a family questionnaire, an adult questionnaire targeting children aged 16 years and above, and a children questionnaire targeting children below 16 years. The children’s questionnaire was divided into two parts: the children answered one, and the parents answered another. The data from the children’s questionnaire matched the data collected from the parents and family questionnaire, and 2750 cases for analyses were obtained (Li & Qiu, 2018). In the end, the study confirmed a connection between the family background and the child’s performance in school. The researchers also found that educational opportunities, the parents’ level of education, and their participation in the child’s education played a crucial role in their academic performance. Thirdly, this research unveiled a difference between children’s academic performance in rural and urban regions. However, the gaps identified in this study were that the researcher’s sampled population was Chinese children, and the factor mainly considered was socioeconomic (Li & Qiu, 2018). This makes the study difficult to generalize since the outcomes might differ based on the ethnic background, and other factors like religion, neighbourhood, and even diet might still impact the outcomes.
Consequently, this study will try to bridge this gap by sampling different ethnic groups and focusing on factors other than socioeconomic status alone. But from a general perspective, this study by Li and Qiu (2018) indicates that when parents adopt children with the proper socioeconomic status, they are highly likely to perform well academically. In other words, adoption may be an excellent factor in the lives of children.
The positive impact of the socioeconomic factors on the academic achievement of the adopted children is further supported by this study by Dégeilh et al. (2019). This study examined how the family’s socioeconomic status affects the child’s brain development from infancy. The researchers carried out this longitudinal study over ten years for a proper assessment and a most accurate outcome. The sample population was children observed from seven months to age ten. This approach is applauded because a family’s economic status cannot be regarded quickly. Dégeilh et al. (2019) must have been aware of the fact that the financial status of a family might change over time, thus impacting the eventual results. In their research, Dégeilh et al. (2019) were also looking to prove if there is a connection between the environment where a child is brought up and the child’s mental development. It is important to note that mental development is believed to be what causes the child to perform or underperform in school. Thus, this study further assessed the biological segment of cognitive development. Also, the researchers sought the connection between the environment and the child’s development, which makes this study an excellent reference (Dégeilh et al., 2019). The research outcomes showed a connection between socioeconomic status and the development of the hippocampi and amygdalae, which are also responsible for the socioemotional adjustments of the child. The gaps in this study were the central focus on the hippocampi and amygdalae and the tiny population that was sampled, making it difficult to generalize. This research will thus focus more on academic performance and use a more extensive and diverse population to ensure a more reliable outcome. Even so, Dégeilh et al. (2019) supported the hypothesis that if children are given up for adoption in the right socioeconomic environment from infancy, they are more likely to have better brain development, which translates to better excellent academic achievement in school.
Ramphal et al. (2020) conducted an almost similar study. These scholars were also interested in proving that the parent’s socioeconomic status significantly impacts the child’s mental development, thus determining the mental status of the infant. In other words, this study’s central focus was the child’s mental illness. Ramphal et al. (2020) conducted a state function MRI on 75 full-term newborns and the same on 37 term-equivalent preterm newborns to achieve reliable results. The socioeconomic status of the sampled population was considered by the type of insurance the parents had, the Area Deprivation Index, and a composite score. Seed-based voxelwise linear regression relating the participants’ socioeconomic status to the entire brain function connectivity of five brain regions was examined. These brain regions represented the functional networks necessary for assessing psychiatric illnesses (Ramphal et al., 2020). The researchers believed these same brain regions were affected by socioeconomic disadvantages. In their measurements, when lower socioeconomic status was identified, it was associated with the varied connectivity between striatum and vlPFC. The stratum connectivity between the medial PFC and the frontopolar mediated the connection between socioeconomic status and behavioural inhibition in children aged two as measured by the ITSEA (Infant-Toddler Social Emotional Assessment) (Ramphal et al., 2020). The study thus proved that in cases with lower socioeconomic status, there was a high probability of mental illnesses, while the opposite socioeconomic status proved to cause healthier mental status. Like in the study above, the gap in this study was its overemphasis on mental illnesses, which made it difficult to generalize because mental illnesses differ from academic performance even though they have a relationship. Besides, the sampled population was tiny. However, what is illuminated in this study is that the family’s socioeconomic status impacts the child’s mental growth, which can affect their ability to perform in school.
Past the home environment, the school environment also plays a role in the child’s performance in class. Amiri and Karfa (2022) assessed what the school environment could do to a child’s academic performance. In their study, they specifically sought to examine the impacts of the school environment on the learners’ academic performance. Their method of analysis was the use of a literature review. Amiri and Karfa (2022) used databases from Iran Magiran, Iran Journal, Medex, Google Scholar, SID, PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Knowledge. In the process, they collected 252 pieces of literature on this topic. The theme that guided their research was ‘the impact of school environment on academic performance.’ Therefore, all literature with information within this theme’s range was selected. The factors that interested this researcher were lighting and paintings on the wall (Amiri & Karfa, 2022).
Like every other research that used the literature review method, this study identified some gaps. The primary one was that the researcher failed to give a detailed account of the process they used in literature selection, the quality of the literature they chose, and even the limitations of this literature were not given. As such, the outcomes of the study could not be generalized. Even so, this research supports the prevailing idea that the growth environment, whether at home or school, determines the child’s performance Amiri & Karfa (2022). The researchers believed that a classroom environment that is not well-lit and unattractive to the learners could impact their learning capabilities and behaviour, translating to their academic outcomes. The impacts can be on the child’s social development, mental growth, or even motor skills. These domains of development then determine the child’s performance in school. When connecting these findings to the question of adoption, it is clear that allowing a child to be adopted by financially stable parents will determine the school the child attends. The school environment will then translate to academic performance.
Fishbein et al. (2019) also studied a child’s environment. Unlike Amiri and Karfa, they looked at the whole environment. At this point, it is essential to note that the home environment is the main focus of this study since it is where the adoption takes place. In other words, at home is where the adopting parents live, and it is there that the child’s brain and capabilities grow to help them excel in school. Fishbein et al. (2019) used a survey method to conduct this research to determine how the home environment affects a child’s executive functions. The sampled population was a group of 66 children aged between 8 and 11 years and living in Illinois and Indiana counties of the United States of America. In their research, the home environment was the neighbourhood. As such, they did not look at factors within the house but within the environment of the house. The questionnaires and interviews were used to collect data on the home environment. Then, the selected population was evaluated based on their IQ. The cognitive evaluation using their IQs was believed to be similar to their ability to perform in school. The study uncovered that the neighbourhood only had negative impacts on the children.
Fishbein et al. (2019) stated that the neighbourhoods were responsible for truancy, aggression, and breaking the rules. This outcome was a significant gap in this study because the study was only conducted in two counties in the U.S.; perhaps other results would have been recorded in different neighbourhoods. Also, the study had a gap because it only looked at the influence of the neighbourhood and failed to examine the impact that parents can have on the neighbourhood. This study will thus fill this gap by holistically looking at the home environment. Holistically includes inside the house, the social and economic status of the parents, the neighbourhoods, and the schools where the adopted children go. Also, the study will fill this gap by looking at the academic performance of both adopted and unadopted children to make a comparison. However, Fishbein et al. (2019) uncover the significance of the home environment on a child’s behavioural development. This finding is significant because the adopted children should be given the best home environment, neighbourhood, and school environment.
References
Amiri, E., & Karfa, A. E. (2022). The impact of learning environment on EFL students’ academic achievement: A study of socio-cultural factors affecting academic achievement. International Journal of Medical Research & Health Sciences 5(7S):360-369 https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/crnkq
Dégeilh, F., Beauchamp, M. H., Leblanc, É., Daneault, V., & Bernier, A. (2019). Socioeconomic Status in Infancy and the Developing Brain: Functional Connectivity of the Hippocampus and Amygdala. Developmental neuroscience, 41(5-6), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1159/000507616
Fishbein DH, Michael L, Guthrie C, Carr C &t Raymer J (2019) Associations Between Environmental Conditions and Executive Cognitive Functioning and Behavior During Late Childhood: A Pilot Study. Front. Psychol. 10(1263) pp. 1 – 12. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01263
Li, Z., & Qiu, Z. (2018). How does family background affect children’s educational achievement? Evidence from Contemporary China. J. Chin. Social. 5(13), pp. 1 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40711-018-0083-8
Ramphal, B., Whalen, D. J., Kenley, J. K., Yu, Q., Smyser, C. D., Rogers, C. E., & Sylvester, C. M. (2020). Brain connectivity and socioeconomic status at birth and externalizing symptoms at age 2 years. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 45, 100811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2020.100811
Yang, Q., Yang, J., Zheng, L., Song, W., & Yi, L. (2021). Impact of Home Parenting Environment on Cognitive and Psychomotor Development in Children Under 5 Years Old: A Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in pediatrics, 9, 658094. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2021.658094
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question 
Adoption and How Genetic and Environmental Factors Impact Academic Achievement in Adoptive Children
You must include six sources, but the instructor stated using the previous ones is okay.
https://eds-s-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/eds/results?vid=0&sid=c331a6e2-6e4f-464f-8abe-299a74b4aa9a%40redis&bquery=adoption%2BAND%2B%2522academic%2Bachievement%2522&bdata=JmNsaTA9RlQmY2x2MD1ZJnR5cGU9MSZzZWFyY2hNb2RlPUFuZCZzaXRlPWVkcy1saXZlJnNjb3BlPXNpdGU%3d
MY TOPIC: Adoption and How Genetics and Environmental factors Affect Academic Achievement in adopted children.
MY RESEARCH QUESTION IS: What do you think of the topic of adoption, and how do genetics and environmental factors affect academic achievement in adopted children?
RESOURCES THAT YOU CAN USE ARE THE FOLLOWING:
Amiri, E., & Karfa, A. E. (2022). The impact of learning environment on EFL students’ academic achievement: A study of socio-cultural factors affecting academic achievement. International Journal of Medical Research & Health Sciences 5(7S):360-369 https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/crnkq
Dégeilh, F., Beauchamp, M. H., Leblanc, É., Daneault, V., & Bernier, A. (2019). Socioeconomic Status in Infancy and the Developing Brain: Functional Connectivity of the Hippocampus and Amygdala. Developmental neuroscience, 41(5-6), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1159/000507616
Fishbein DH, Michael L, Guthrie C, Carr C &t Raymer J (2019) Associations Between Environmental Conditions and Executive Cognitive Functioning and Behavior During Late Childhood: A Pilot Study. Front. Psychol. 10(1263) pp. 1 – 12. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01263
Li, Z., & Qiu, Z. (2018). How does family background affect children’s educational achievement? Evidence from Contemporary China. J. Chin. Social. 5(13), pp. 1 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40711-018-0083-8
Ramphal, B., Whalen, D. J., Kenley, J. K., Yu, Q., Smyser, C. D., Rogers, C. E., & Sylvester, C. M. (2020). Brain connectivity and socioeconomic status at birth and externalizing symptoms at age 2 years. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 45, 100811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2020.100811
Yang, Q., Yang, J., Zheng, L., Song, W., & Yi, L. (2021). Impact of Home Parenting Environment on Cognitive and Psychomotor Development in Children Under 5 Years Old: A Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in pediatrics, 9, 658094. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2021.658094