Please visit her Website to read about her other books regarding her experience of fostering and to receive advice about this rewarding career.
At an age when "ba-ba" and "da-da" may be their only utterances, infants nevertheless comprehend words for many common objects, according to a new study.
In research focused on 6-to-9-month-old babies, University of Pennsylvania psychologists Elika Bergelson and Daniel Swingley demonstrated that the infants learned the meanings of words for foods and body parts through their daily experience with language. Bergelson is a doctoral student and Swingley an associate professor in Penn's Department of Psychology. Their study will be published the week of February 13th in the early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. These findings unseat a previously held consensus about infant learning. It was widely believed that infants between 6 and 9 months, while able to perceive and understand elements of the sounds of their native language, did not yet possess the ability to grasp the meanings conveyed though speech. Most psychologists believed word comprehension didn't emerge until closer to a child's first birthday. In fact, infants are often referred to as "pre-linguistic," according to Bergelson. But there have been few attempts to determine just when infants begin understanding what is meant by specific words. The belief that infants do not comprehend language for most of the first year is easy to understand, given that infants do not often speak in words, or even gesture meaningfully, before 10 or 11 months. To test this belief, Bergelson and Swingley recruited caregivers to bring their children to a lab to complete two different kinds of test. In the first, a child sat on the caregiver's lap facing a screen on which there were images of one food item and one body part. The caregiver wore headphones and heard a statement such as, "Look at the apple," or, "Where's the apple?" and then repeated it to the child. The caregiver also wore a visor to avoid seeing the screen. An eye-tracking device, which can distinguish precisely where a child is looking and when, then followed the child's gaze. The second kind of test had the same set-up, except that, instead of the screen displaying a food item and a body part, it displayed objects in natural contexts, such as a few foods laid out on a table, or a human figure. For both kinds of test, the question was whether hearing a word for something on the screen would lead children to look at that object more, indicating that they understood the word. In total, Bergelson and Swingley tested 33 6-to-9-month olds. The researchers also had 50 children from 10 to 20 months complete the same tests to see how their abilities compared with the younger group. As part of their analysis, Bergelson and Swingley corrected for eye movements not related to caregivers' speech. Bergelson pointed out that to infants some objects are more interesting than others, whatever their parents might say. "So if you have a boring cup and a really colorful cup, they're going to look at the more interesting thing, all else being equal." To eliminate this potential source of error, the researchers subtracted the amount of time that the babies gazed at a given object when it was not being named from the time they looked when it was named. "The idea there is that they have some sort of baseline for how much they like to look at the thing, so when you take that away, what's left is their word recognition," Bergelson said. In both the two-picture and scene tests, the researchers found that the 6- to 9-month-old babies fixed their gaze more on the picture that was named than on the other image or images, indicating that they understood that the word was associated with the appropriate object. This is the first demonstration that children of this age can understand such words. "There had been a few demonstrations of understanding before, involving words like mommy and daddy," Swingley said. "Our study is different in looking at more generic words, words that refer to categories." "We're testing things that look different every time you see them," Bergelson said. "There's some variety in apples and noses, and 'nose' doesn't just mean your nose; it could mean anybody's nose. This is one of the things that makes word learning complicated: words often refer to categories, not just individuals." Bergelson and Swingley were also curious to know whether they could observe a pattern of learning during the months from 6 to 9. But, when they compared the performance of 6- and 7-month-old babies with that of 8- and 9-month olds, they found no improvements. "That is a surprising result. We don't know why it is that performance remains flat for so long," Swingley said. Factoring in the results of the older babies, the researchers found little improvement until the children reached roughly 14 months, at which point word recognition jumped markedly. "Maybe what is going on with the 14-month olds is they understand the nature of the task as a kind of game and they're playing it," Swingley said. "Or the dramatic increase in performance at 14 months may be due to aspects of language development we did not measure specifically, including better categorization of the speech signal, or better understanding of syntax." He noted that it is also possible that children do improve between 6 and 14 months, but that that improvement is countered by the fact that older babies in this range may be more distractable and less attentive. The study's novel results contribute to an ongoing debate about infant language acquisition and cognitive development. "I think it's surprising in the sense that the kids at this age aren't saying anything, they're not pointing, they're not walking," Bergelson said. "But actually, under the surface, they're trying to put together the things in the world with the words that go with them." "I think this study presents a great message to parents: You can talk to your babies and they're going to understand a bit of what you're saying," Swingley said. "They're not going to give us back witty repartee, but they understand some of it. And the more they know, the more they can build on what they know."A key government adviser on wellbeing and fairness will warn on Wednesday that cuts to children's services at the same time as increasing taxes on the poor are of deep concern and could exacerbate already high levels of inequality.
Professor Sir Michael Marmot, whose work on health inequalities in 2010 has been incorporated into the government's public health reforms, said: "Cutting services has a selective impact the lower down you go in the social hierarchy.
"We see increases in child poverty and are moving from direct to indirect forms of taxation, which are regressive. I am really concerned about these things and their impact [on inequalities]."
Marmot said on the six measures that affect health – relating to employment, education, income and health, child development and environment – he was "not sanguine that we are doing enough on any of them".
Although he said there was around a three point improvement in the percentage of 5-year-olds achieving a good level of development between 2010 and 2011 – from nearly 56% to 59% – this left almost 250,000 children failing to meet the standard set by schools. Such tests include being able to dress, concentrate, and the ability to speak and recognise words.
Marmot said this was evidence that Britain was failing its young children on a grand scale owing to inequality, with many not achieving basic levels of social and emotional development.
He added that Nordic counties such as Finland, Denmark and Sweden showed a much smaller gap between rich and poor children in terms of happiness as well.
"We do really, really badly on international comparisons, really badly," he said. "One of the best things we can do and one of the best trends in policy in Britain had been focused on early childhood. So my concern is that we preserve what we've done."
Ministers confirmed in November that there were 124 fewer Sure Start centres for children than when the coalition formed, but said many of the reductions were owing to "streamlining" of services.
But Marmot said the evaluation of Sure Start programmes was "ambiguous", but added: "If Sure Start performed in a very mixed way – better in some areas than others – the response should not be to throw it out but to learn from the best and build on that. I have concern that we must not cut good services for early childhood."
He warned that although life expectancy was rising, it remained linked to social standing and the poor die sooner. This meant that while average life expectancy at birth in England increased by 0.3 years for both men and women between 2007-09 and 2008-10, the gap widened between the top and bottom decile in society in two-thirds of the 150 local authorities.
The effect means that in Westminster, London, people now have a life expectancy at birth of 84 years. But the richest in the borough would live almost 17 years longer than the poorest. This effect can be seen in poorer areas such as Middlesbrough, where average life expectancy is 76 years but the wealthiest citizens of the town live nearly 15 years longer than the poorest.
Lower life expectancies in the UK are not just about poverty but affluence and expectation. Poorer people are at greater risk of diseases related to inadequate diets, lack of exercise, smoking, poor pay, and job insecurity.
"If you are unemployed you do not get ill because of money. It is because you get depressed, you drink, you become abusive," Marmot said.
He warned that the government's plan to hand councils £2.2bn once they take over public health next April could penalise local authorities in poor areas.
Ministers, he continued, had decided to pay extra to councils that showed "improvements in tackling health inequalities". "The lack of improvement may be because of laziness or incompetence. Or because it is much harder to improve because of deprivation. I hope the government does not end up punishing people because of deprivation."
The public health minister, Anne Milton, said: "It is great that pPeople are living longer but we know that much more must be done to narrow the gap of health inequalities. This is one of the driving forces behind our reform of the public health system. Health inequalities are caused by a complex web of factors and need a cross-cutting approach at every level of government. That is why we are giving councils the power and the budget to tackle public health."
A spokesman for the Department for Education pointed out that next year there would be £1.25bn in spending via the pupil premium: "We have ensured there is enough money in the system to maintain a network of Sure Start services across England – available to all, but focused on the most disadvantaged."
An interesting article from the Guardian (7.02.2012) provides evidence about the fact that helping children and young people to think about the long-term consequences of their actions, and therefore delaying gratification, could help them greatly later in life.
A study revealed that children who were able to wait several minutes to get two sweets rather than one, when given the choice, achieved much more years later than the ones who did not.
An interesting book has been written to help achieve the above mentioned aim, explaining also the brain chemistry underlining the targeted behaviour.
Please read the full article below...
In the smart restaurant of a very smart hotel in the West End of London, Roy F Baumeister, eminent American social psychology professor, orders a lunch of fish and chips, and then decides not to eat the chips. "I won't eat something that's not good for me unless it's absolutely perfect, and it's going to give me real pleasure," he says. "I'm afraid ... Well, it just didn't look like these were going to do either."
What willpower, you might say. You'd be right; the chips looked pretty good. But Baumeister is also, coincidentally, a leading authority on that very subject, and has just published a smash-hit book on it with The New York Times science writer John Tierney.
Willpower: Rediscovering Our Greatest Strength distills three decades of academic research (Baumeister's contribution) into self-control and willpower, which the Florida State University social psychologist bluntly identifies as "the key to success and a happy life".
The result is also (Tierney's contribution) readable, accessible and practical. It's an unusual self-help book, in fact, in that it offers not just advice, tips and insights to help develop, conserve and boost willpower, but grounds them in some science.
Willpower is, Baumeister argues over lunch, "what separates us from the animals. It's the capacity to restrain our impulses, resist temptation – do what's right and good for us in the long run, not what we want to do right now. It's central, in fact, to civilisation."
The disciplined and dutiful Victorians, all stiff upper lip and lashings of moral fibre, had willpower in spades; as, sadly, did the Nazis, who referred to their evil adventure as the "triumph of will". In the 60s we thought otherwise: let it all hang out; if it feels good, do it; I'm OK, you're OK.
But without willpower, it seems, we're actually rarely OK. In the 60s a sociologist called Walter Mischel was interested in how young children resist instant gratification; he offered them the choice of a mashmallow now, or two if they could wait fifteen minutes. Years later, he tracked some of the kids down, and made astartling discovery.
Mischel's findings have recently been confirmed by a remarkable long-term study in New Zealand, concluded in 2010. For 32 years, starting at birth, a team of international researchers tracked 1,000 people, rating their observed and reported self-control and willpower in a different ways.
What they found was that, even taking into account differences of intelligence, race and social class, those with high self-control – those who, in Mischel's experiment, held out for two marshmallows later – grew into healthier, happier and wealthier adults.
Those with low willpower, the study discovered, fared less well academically. They were more likely to be in low-paying jobs with few savings, to be overweight, to have drug or alcohol problems, and to have difficulty maintaining stable relationships (many were single parents). They were also nearly four times more likely to have a criminal conviction. "Willpower," concludes Baumeister, "is one of the most important predictors of success in life."
So how can we improve ours? Baumeister's big idea, now borne out by hundreds of ingenious experiments in his and other social psychologists' labs, is that willpower – the force by which we control and manage our thoughts, impulses and emotions and which helps us persevere with difficult tasks – is actually rather like a kind of moral muscle.
Like a muscle, it can get tired if you overuse it. Exercising willpower, but also making decisions and choices and taking initiatives, all seem to draw on the same well of energy, Baumeister has established. In experiments, he found that straight after accomplishing a task that required them to restrain their impulses (saying no to chocolate biscuits, suppressing their emotions while watching a three-tissue weepy), students were far more likely to underperform at other willpower-related jobs such as squeezing a handgrip or solving a difficult puzzle.
"The immune system also dips into the same pot, which is big, but finite," says Baumeister, "and, we are pretty sure, so does women's premenstrual syndrome. Having a cold tends to reduce your self-control, and PMS does the same. We get cranky and irritable, but it's not that we have nastier impulses – it's that our usual restraints have become weakened."
So best avoid trying to do too many things involving mental effort at the same time, or if you're ill. As with a muscle, though, you can train your willpower. Even small, day-to-day acts of willpower such as maintaining good posture, speaking in complete sentences or using a computer mouse with the other hand, can pay off by reinforcing longer-term self-control in completely unrelated activities, Baumeister has found. People previously told to sit or stand up straight whenever they remembered later performed much better in lab willpower tests.
The final way in which willpower resembles a mental "muscle" is that when its strength is depleted, it can be revived with glucose. Getting a decent night's sleep and eating well – good, slow-burning fuel – is important in the exercise of willpower, but in times of dire need a quick shot of sugar can, according to Baumeister's lab tests, make all the difference.
(This is, of course, something of a problem for crash dieters, who basically need to eat in order to summon up the willpower not to eat. Indeed some very strong impulses, such as the behaviour often exhibited by males in possession of an erect penis, can sometimes prove completely resistant to willpower, even after the ingestion of a can of Coca-Cola.)
Baumeister cites a "very impressive demonstration" of the glucose argument: in a study published last year, researchers found that Israeli judges making the difficult and sensitive decision of whether or not to grant parole opted to do so in roughly 65% of cases after lunch, and hardly ever just before.
Baumeister's top willpower tips: Build up your self-control by exercising it regularly in small ways. Learn to recognise signs that your willpower may be waning. Don't crash diet. Don't try to do too much at once. Establish good habits and routines that will take the strain off your willpower. Learn how to draw up an effective to-do list.
Don't put yourself in temptation's way, or if you can't avoid it, make it harder for yourself to succumb. Use your willpower actively: plan, commit, and do so (like members of religious communities) publicly. "People with low willpower," Baumeister says, "use it to get themselves out of crises. People with high willpower use it not to get themselves into crises."
Much of this, of course, is in the book. You may even learn how to say no to chips.
On Tuesday 7th February, The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP), the UK's national centre dedicated to protecting children from harm, both online and offline - will be launching the 'Parents' and Carers' Guide to the Internet'.
CEOP states that it is just as important to be involved in children’s’ life online, than it is offline. Just as you would ask about their friends at school or the clubs they go to, you should use this approach with the people they meet online – ask the same questions and show the same interest.
To help get you started, CEOP are releasing the ‘Parents’ and Carers’ Guide to the Internet’ - a short, entertaining TV-style programme looking at what it’s like to bring up children in the online world. The programme will help you to:
1. stay up-to-date with the technology your children are using;
2. understand steps you can take to keep your children safe online;
3. know what action to take and where to seek further support if things go wrong.
Visit https://www.thinkuknow.co.uk/ from Tuesday 7th February. From this day, you will be able to view the ‘Parents’ and Carers’ Guide to the Internet’ and have access to information and guidance on how to keep your family safe online.
Please, have also look at the CEOP's videos, e.g. 'Clare thought She Knew' and 'Keeping Up with the Jonese' on YouTube:www.youtube.com/ceop
More Safer Internet Day 2012 resources are available from here….
SID Kit 2012 -Insafe Resources http://www.saferinternetday.org/web/guest/insafe-resources - includes:
Please, follow the links for further information on these topics!!!
The research for Children’s Society’s Good Childhood Report 2012 points toward the essentials for wellbeing amongst children and young people.
The research for 'The Good Childhood Report 2012' involved interviewing more than 30,000 children aged eight to 16.
Choice and family have the biggest impact on children’s happiness.
Key findings in the report include:
Priorities for well-being
The research evidence supports the importance of the six priorities the Society identifies for promoting positive well-being for children. Their Promoting positive well-being for children report identifies the following as the priorities for children’s well-being:
Please look at this interesting website: UK Youth-Positive about Youth
Banya Staff will provide useful information to all people who are considering becoming foster carers for our organisation.
Any concerns and questions will be promptly answered by one of our qualified and experienced professionals.
Please come in at any time between 10.00 am to 12:00 pm to our reception room:
Unit 1
Croxted Mews
286-288 Croxted Rd
Herne Hill
London SE24 9DA
Tel. 0208 678 5330
Having some house rules is a great way to keep your (foster) children safe online.
It’s important that you agree together with your children how the internet will be used in your home.
Below are a list of rules which you can talk about with your children and together select and agree the ones which are most important to you.
Please visit their website for further information:
http://childnet.com/kia/parents/CD/textVersion/parents/SafeOnline/familyAgree...
For more information about internet safety, and safe and responsible use of the internet and new technologies, here is a useful website for children, parents and teachers:
UK Safer Internet Centre
Banya Staff will provide useful information to all people who are considering becoming foster carers for our organisation.
Any concerns and questions will be promptly answered by one of our qualified and experienced social workers.
Please come in at any time between 10.00 am to 12:00 pm to our reception room:
Unit 1
Croxted Mews
286-288 Croxted Rd
Herne Hill
London SE24 9DA
Tel. 0208 678 5330
