child psych paper 1 - final

8/8/2019 Child Psych Paper 1 - Final

1/7

PHYSICAL OBSERVATION PAPER ASSIGNMENT

PHYSICAL AND MOTOR DEVELOPMENT OF PRESCHOOLERS AND

KINDERGARTNERS

PRERNA AGARWAL

CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY

Agarwal 1


2/7

Question: It is essential for our society to understand the change in and the development of

children over time. Physical and motor skills are one of the crucial components of a childs

development since they indicate the level of intellectual learning, growth and coordination of

muscles and different body parts of the child. To better understand the difference in physical and

gross motor development of a child, we may ask an important question: is the difference in the

motor development between a preschooler and a kindergartner more striking as compared to the

difference in physical development of the two?

Context for addressing the question: Using naturalistic observation and time sampling,

I was accurately able to analyze how the children behaved in their natural environment - the

childrens school, by observing one child at a time for a particular period. Since the data was

collected in their habitat, it was externally validated. On wednesday, September 16, 2009 from

2:25 to 3:10 pm, I observed preschoolers who ranged from the age three to about five. Their

activity time was conducted in the gym room at the Skibo Gym on campus (see figure 1). Using

a rope with loops which each child could hold onto, the teachers guided the children to the gym.

The children were made to do various gym-like activities such as hula hooping, running races

and stretching. The preschoolers stood slightly wobbly, fidgety and most had proportionate

bodies with the exception of some with slightly bigger heads. The teachers gained the attention

of the children by constantly repeating what must be done in a catchy beat and invoking a sense

of achievement within a child on successfully finishing a task. Occasionally the instructors

assisted the child in an activity when attention was required, possibly due to the lesser developed

muscles. The preschoolers had extreme varying energy levels, and even though they were

skeptical to try new activities at first, they demonstrated high levels of eagerness to learn.

Agarwal 2


3/7

On Thursday, September 17, 2009 from 11:15 to 12 pm, I observed preschoolers who

ranged from the age five to about six. The site of the observations was the playground at the

childrens school (see figure 2). The children were presented with open ended activities and were

allowed to run around and play. The playground was filled with props such as tricycles, a

sandbox and slides. The kindergartners were well proportioned, stood erect all the time and were

not fidgety. The lack of constant interaction between the children and the teacher, and more

interaction between children helped the children learn on their own, through trial and error if

necessary. The kindergartners had high but more stabilized energy levels and demonstrated less

skepticism and surprise to new activities.

Even though the physical set up of both the locations varied, in both cases the children

were presented with multiple tasks and objects suitable for their age, with which they could

interact. This enhanced their development and learning through interaction and exploration. The

preschoolers activities helped them improve their balance, gain control over muscles and learn

and improve many other basic physical activities that are used in daily life. Simultaneously, the

kindergartner's activities enhanced their coordination and do tasks on their own and with greater

ease.

Observations associated with specific theories and ideas: There are three theories

along with my observations which have made it easier for us to explain t that the difference

between motor skills of the two children categories is more than the difference in physical

development. These theories include: Piagetian theory, information processing theory and

sociocultural theory.

Agarwal 3


4/7


5/7


6/7

prove a higher level of coordination and thinking. Even though some of the children ran a little

slower and often needed help at first since they were at first unable to register that they were

competing against one another, by the second round they got competitive and were able to run

better than before. While analyzing the kindergartners in the playground, I noticed that they

independently conducted castle building competitions. They definitely would have been unable

to do so if the buckets and spades were not lying outside and the instructor had not recommended

to have the competition. Therefore, we can see that based on difficulty of task the required

guidance differed. The kindergartners had races amongst themselves without the guidance of

teachers, clearly indicating that they could do the task pre schoolers struggled doing.

Conclusion: The physical development of a child slows down as the child approaches the

age of two and difference between the two sets of children is less striking as compared to the

motor development. However, even though the differences in physical development might not be

that obvious, they do exist. Kindergartners are more swift, have more muscular strength and are

more well-proportioned as compared to preschoolers. Since most of the children in both pre

school and kindergarten were American or Asian-American, the ethnicity did not have an impact

on the development. I did however notice that girls are more skeptical about doing certain tasks

as compared to boys. Firstly, Piaget was correct when he stated that children foster their own

learning since a key component of gross motor development is trial and error and building upon

what you already know. Secondly, information processing theorists were right when they said

that a child uses analytical reasoning to develop. The child attempts to understand and break

down the task into smaller parts to successfully accomplish what is required. Finally, social

theorists were also right, the level and kind of interaction is very important.

Agarwal 6


7/7

Reference

Klahr, D. (1978). Goal formation, planning, and learning by preschool problem solvers

or: My socks are in the dryer. In R.S. Siegler (Ed.), Childrens thinking: What develops?

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Piaget J. (1952b) The origins of intelligence in children.New York: Int. University Press.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The Cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Siegler R.S. (1996).Emerging minds: The process of change in childrens thinking.New

York: Oxford University Press.

Siegler, Robert. (2006). How children develop.New York, USA: Worth Publishers.

Wood, D.J., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. (1976) The role of tutoring in problem - solving.

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 17, 89 - 100.

Agarwal 7

child psych paper 1 - final

Documents