Foxygloves in the original post: I do wonder why some academics make claims for stating something we have all known (and practised) since our children were babies, and our mothers and grandmothers before us probably as far back as Adam and Eve! Talk about Department of the Bleedin’ Obvious!
Agreed.
I finished schooling at 16. We both read to our children. I find it hard to believe that anyone who posts here has less education than me - we all read, sing, teach rhymes to small children. It's not rocket science.
Our children all have master's degrees. They did well/ do well in every way - despite my total lack of education.
Academics and their articles 
Gransnet forums
Grandparenting
This should come under “Parenting” but as a mother and a Gran, I do wonder why some academics make claims for stating something we have all known (and practised) since our children were babies, and our mothers and grandmothers before us probably as far back as Adam and Eve!
Talk about Department of the Bleedin’ Obvious!
TALKING to babies can help boost their brain development, according to a new study.
Researchers from the University of East Anglia (UEA) discovered that two-and-a-half-year-olds who heard more speech in everyday life had more myelin – a substance that makes brain signals more efficient – in language-related areas of their brains.
The researchers said their findings, published in the Journal of Neuroscience, demonstrate how talking to toddlers can shape their developing brain, and can have a similar effect on babies as young as six months.
On reflection though, it makes me think how some young mums, glued to their phones are both missing out on that lovely interaction with a tiny and possibly unwittingly affecting their little one’s development.
So on second thoughts, perhaps it does need saying 
Sorry if that sounded terse - I was waiting to be called into an appointment, and it was clearly vaccination day for the babies of the parish - the atmosphere was less than peaceful with howling little ones everywhere 
.
I meant that people often get sniffy about the apparent 'obvious' nature of research, yet what they've read is just a passing finding, which has been written up by a journalist who has read the press release and picked out one or two small areas which may not represent the whole. If it is published in a general interest magazine it is unlikely to be focused on myelin, but articles on child development have a broader audience.
Doodledog
Sorry if that sounded terse - I was waiting to be called into an appointment, and it was clearly vaccination day for the babies of the parish - the atmosphere was less than peaceful with howling little ones everywhere
I meant that people often get sniffy about the apparent 'obvious' nature of research, yet what they've read is just a passing finding, which has been written up by a journalist who has read the press release and picked out one or two small areas which may not represent the whole. If it is published in a general interest magazine it is unlikely to be focused on myelin, but articles on child development have a broader audience.
I wasn't offended. I hadn't looked at it the way you presented it to me. Thank you for the information. Knowledge is power!
Join the conversation
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »