0bseiving Chiluien's Play

Behavioi
EPSY Section AB-

ao|a 8r|b|esca





*names have been changed

Introduction:
This study was conducted at the Child Development Laboratory Building at the
University oI Illinois. A Iour-year-old boy and a Iive-year-old girl were observed during Iree
playtime by using two diIIerent observation methods Ior each child. The Iirst one is a time
sampling technique which includes observing the child Ior Iive seconds and recording the type oI
play category that Iits the child`s behavior. This time sampling technique runs Ior Iive minutes
in this case. The second observation method employed is a specimen record which is a
description oI all oI the child`s behaviors and conversations that occur over a period oI Iive
minutes. The main play behaviors demonstrated by the boy is playing with pebbles, while the
girl demonstrates the main play behavior oI engaging in the game oI 'Duck, Duck, Goose.
Both these children engage in their own play in diIIerent ways. In this research I will analyze the
students` behavior based on theories developed by scientists and try to understand what we make
oI the students` actions.
Research:
When I Iirst observe Cameron*, he is sitting by the edge oI the gravel playground and
plays with pebbles. He grabs a pebble and observes it Ior about three seconds, puts it to the side,
and observes another pebble. He constantly stops what he is doing Ior about IiIteen to twenty
seconds to observe running children around him. AIterwards he stops playing with the pebbles
and just stays sitting down while staring at the ground Ior about IiIteen seconds. AIter that he
starts rigorously mixing up the pebbles on the Iloor with his arm. Then a girl approaches him,
gives him a leaI and says 'Trick-or-treat. Cameron receives the leaI and attempts to eat it.
AIter discovering that the leaI is not edible, Cameron spits it out oI his mouth and continues to
*names have been changed

play with the pebbles. Another child approaches him about ten seconds later and invites him to
play 'Cops and Robbers along with his other Iriends. Cameron Iollows and observes them
play; however, he does not say anything or engage in what the others are playing. About thirty
seconds later, Cameron returns to his original spot to continue playing with the pebbles.
Katy*, on the other hand, starts out by ending her game oI 'Duck, Duck, Goose. Later,
she is picks up leaves and collects more with another young girl. Then, she rips the leaves apart
and starts to throw them around. As she watches her Iriend throw the leaves around, she
continues to do the same. Then, Katy`s Iriend tells her to pick up more leaves and she obeys.
AIterwards, Katy continues to rip the leaves and pick more up.
In the time sampling data, Cameron was mostly involved in onlooker behavior
unobtrusive observation oI other children`s play activitiesand solitary playabsorption in
one`s own playthings. He engaged in some unoccupied behaviorquiet sitting and staringand
rarely engaged in associative playsome talking and sharing oI objects with another child.
However, he did not engage in any cooperative playactive sharing oI toys and coordination oI
activitiesor parallel playplaying next to another child, but with little or no interaction. Katy,
on the other hand, was quite the opposite oI Cameron. She was involved in cooperative play
most oI the time and occasionally involved in solitary play. She was rarely involved in
associative play and onlooker behavior and did not engage in unoccupied behavior and parallel
play.
There are many advantages oI conducting this study in a natural setting, in this case the
Child Development Lab. For instance, the children are already Iamiliar and Ieel comIortable
with their natural environment. They are also unaware that someone is watching them; thereIore,
*names have been changed

nothing interIeres with their actions. Another advantage is that it gives the study a high validity
because the children are being observed at play and are instinctively engaging in their everyday
behavior without being told to. In spite oI this, there are also disadvantages to conducting this
study in a natural setting. For example, the observer is limited to collecting data about only
characteristics and behavior that are visible. This study is also a bit more time-consuming when
it comes to capturing suIIicient data Ior strong conclusions. II this study was to be conducted in
a laboratory setting, the observer would be able to pay more close attention to the child`s
behavior. However, the results would be low in validity, because oI the eIIects oI the observer`s
presence, which means some children change their behavior when they know that an adult is
watching (McDevitt & Ormrod, 2007).
AIter conducting this research at the Child Development Lab, I learned a whole new
range oI things, as opposed to when I baby sat my cousins back at home. During this study, I did
not interact with any children and they did not know who I was which made it easier to explore
their real actions. By obtaining data Irom them, I was able to come up with a couple conclusions
Ior each child`s behavior. When I babysat my cousins back at home, on the other hand, I did not
really pay much attention to the type oI play they were involved with. I only played with them
and because oI my presence, they were much more behaved.
Using a specimen record is a good way to remember what the child was doing while I
was observing. However, I could not write in detail and continue to Iocus on the child`s
behavior because it is hard to do both at the same time. The time sampling data, on the other
hand, is a good technique to use because it is Iast and simple. A weakness oI it, though, is that a
child may engage in one type oI behavior during an interval but then change it beIore the interval
is over.
*names have been changed

Conclusion:
From the research data I obtained, I can apply some oI Piaget`s and Vygotsky`s theories.
One oI Piaget`s theories is that 'children adapt to their environment through the processes oI
assimilation and accommodation (McDevitt & Ormrod, 2007, p. 194). When Cameron was
handed that leaI Irom the girl, he assimilated it was a Iood since the girl said trick-or-treat. A
possible explanation Ior this would be that the phrase 'trick-or-treat is used by children on
Halloween to receive candy. The child possibly thought the leaI was candy and attempted to eat
it. AIter discovering the unpleasant taste, the child accommodated his schema and spit out the
leaI because it was not edible. Another one oI Piaget`s theories states that it is necessary Ior
children to interact with others (McDevitt & Ormrod, 2007). Katy appears to be very social
since she engages in cooperative play most oI the time. Because she is constantly 'conversing,
exchanging ideas, and arguing with others she will eventually come to realize that each
individual thinks diIIerently (McDevitt & Ormrod, 2007, p. 195). One oI Vygotsky`s theories,
stating that 'play allows children to stretch themselves cognitively, applies to Katy when she is
Iound picking up leaves (McDevitt & Ormrod, 2007, p. 212). Katy throws the leaves in the air
aIter picking them up. No matter how Iar up she throws them, they always end up coming down
to the ground. This allows Katy to learn the concept oI gravity and eventually apply it in
everyday liIe.
Like some oI Piaget`s and Vygotsky`s theories, the diIIerences in gender also apply to
Katy. According to McDevitt and Ormrod (2007), Ior example, 'girls tend to enact scenarios
that are relatively calm and sedate in sociodramatic play (McDevitt & Ormrod, 2007, p. 475).
In Katy`s case, she peaceIully picks up leaves with her Iriend and throws them in the air as a
Iorm oI entertainment.
*names have been changed

While some theories oI play apply to some children, some are quite the opposite.
McDevitt and Ormrod (2007) also mentioned that boys engage in play that relates to adventure
and danger. This is not relevant to Cameron because he is calmly observing other children and
playing with pebbles. When another boy invites him to play, he Iollows but does not join their
game oI 'Cops and Robbers. Normally, iI the theory oI gender diIIerences applied to every
child, Cameron would have joined the game Iilled with crime and danger.













*names have been changed

ReIerences
McDevitt, T. M., & Ormrod, J. E. (2007). Child Development and Education (3rd Ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. (Original work published 2002)