Lab Report 2

Introduction:
For this observation, we observed Ms. Mowers 4 year old classroom. The children in her
classroom are between 48-60 months of age. We observed three typically developing female
children. We observed Child J age 60 months as our focal child. We observed Child N age 53
months and Child B age 50 months as comparison children. The purpose of this observation
was to compare the patterns and frequencies in a single childs behavior during their
interactions with peers and adults inside the classroom to fellow peers of a similar age. We used
the Skills for Interacting with Others table for our tally event sampling assessment. This table
focused on the childs initiation, acceptance and rejection of contact with peers and teachers as
well as their aggression when interacting with adults and children in the classroom. We used
tally-event sampling to complete our assessment. Tally event sampling is a method that allows
the observer to quickly and efficiently collect data about the frequency and duration of a specific
behavior (Losardo & Syverson, 2011, p.34). It is a quantitative assessment which provides a
series of numerical data which can be used to analyze childrens development. Tally event
sampling is also an example of a naturalistic assessment, which allows the observer to assess a
childs skills in a natural context as they interact with peers and adults they are accustomed to
seeing on a daily basis.
Data: Tally-Event tables from each observation
Tally Event Sampling Observation Sheet: Interactions with Others
Observer:
Agnieszka Felczak
Purpose of observation: Observe Childrens Social Interactions
Classroom observed, and general physical environment: Ms. Mowers 4 year old room
Date, time of day, and routines observed: 9/25/15; morning; freechoice
(Pseudo) Name
Age
Gender
Focal Child A: Child J
01/07/2011
F
Child B:
Child N
04/11/2011
F
Child C:
Child B
07/07/2011
F
Observation of Skills for Interacting with Others
Initiate
contact
with
peer

Initiate
contact
with
teacher

Accept
initiatio
n from
peer

Accept
initiatio
n from
teacher

Reject
initiatio
n from
peer

ll

Focal
Child A
(Child J)
Time: 9:20

lllll
(5)

lll

Child B
(Child N)
Time: 9:30

lllll

llll

Reject
initiation
from
teacher

Ignore
initiatio
n from
peer

Ignore
initiation
from
teacher

ll

llllllllll
(10)

Aggressio
n toward
peer

Aggression
toward
teacher

Child C
(Child B)
Time: 9:40

llllllll
(8)

ll

ll

Focal
Child A
(Child J)
Time: 9:50

llll

llll

Child B
(Child N)
Time:
10:00

ll

lll

lllllll
(7)

ll

Child C
(Child B)
Time:
10:10

lll

Other notes:
Between 9:30 and 9:40, Child N continuously ignored Child Bs initiations. All 10 recorded data points
were between these two children.
Between 10:10 and 10:20, Child B spent nearly the entire time engaged in solitary play at the art table,
not interacting with peers or adults nearby.
Tally Event Sampling Observation Sheet: Interactions with Others
Observer: Caitlin Maag
Purpose of observation: observe childrens social interactions
Classroom observed, and general physical environment: Ms. Mowers 4 year old room
Date, time of day, and routines observed: 09/25/15, 2-3pm, and after naptime transitioning into free
choice
(Pseudo) Name
Age
Gender
Focal Child A: Child J
01/07/2011
F
Child B: Child B
04/11/201
F
Child C: Child N
07/07/2011
F
Observation of Skills for Interacting with Others
Initiate
contact
with
peer

Focal Child
A (Child J)

llllllll
(8)

Initiate
contact
with
teacher

ll

Accept
initiatio
n from
peer

lll

Accept
initiatio
n from
teache
r

Reject
initiatio
n from
peer

llll

Reject
initiatio
n from
teacher

Ignore
initiation
from
peer

Ignore
initiation
from
teacher

Aggressio
n toward
peer

Aggression
toward
teacher

ll

llllll

ll

Time: 2:00
Child B
(Child B)
Time: 2:10

lllll

lll

Child C

lll

(Child N)

llllllllll
(10)

lll

ll

llll

lll

ll

llll

lll

ll

ll

Time: 2:20
Focal Child
A

lllllllllll
(11)

ll

llllllll
(8)

llll

ll

ll

llllllll
(8)

lllllllllll
(11)

llllllll
(8)

llllllllllll
(12)

lll

(Child J)
Time: 2:30
Child B
(Child B)

llllll

llll

Time: 2:40
Child C
(Child N)
Time: 2:50

Other notes:
Throughout the entire observation I noticed that Child J and Child N played together the entire time while
Child B was left to play by herself
Tally Event Sampling Observation Sheet: Interactions with Others
Observer: Ashley Beyer
Purpose of observation: Observe Childrens Social Interactions
Classroom observed, and general physical environment: Ms. Mowers 4 year old room
Date, time of day, and routines observed: 9/28/2015; freechoice and transitioning into small group
(Pseudo) Name
Age
Gender
Focal Child A: Child J
01/07/2011
F
Child B: Child B
04/11/2011
F
Child C: Child N
07/07/2011
F

Observation of Skills for Interacting with Others

Focal Child

Initiate
contact
with
peer

Initiate
contact
with
teacher

Accept
initiatio
n from
peer

Accept
initiatio
n from
teache
r

Reject
initiatio
n from
peer

||||| (5)

||

||

|||

||

||

|||

Reject
initiatio
n from
teacher

Ignore
initiation
from
peer

Ignore
initiation
from
teacher

|||

|||

|||| (4)

Aggressio
n toward
peer

A (Child J)
Time: 9:25
Child B
(Child B)

|||||||
(7)

||

||

Time: 9:35
Child C
(Child N)
Time: 9:45

|||

||

Aggression
toward
teacher

Focal Child

||

||

||||| (5)

|||

||

|||

||

|||

||||

||

A
(Child J)
Time: 9:55
Child B
(Child B)
Time: 10:05
Child C

||

||

(Child N)
Time: 10:15

Other notes: Child J and Child N played together almost the entire time. The only time they were not
playing together was in the first 10 minutes when I observed Child J.
I did see Child B interact in play with them, but it was not until the last 5 minutes of when I was
observing Child N the second time.
Summary & Interpretation:
In our observations, we noticed Child J initiate contact with a peer 35 times. Child N
initiated contact with a peer 23 times. Child B initiated contact with a peer 28 times. Child J,
therefore, initiated contact with peers most frequently. Child J initiated contact with a teacher or
adult 7 times. Child N initiated contact with a teacher or adult 4 times. Child B initiated contact
with a teacher or adult 9 times. Thus, Child B initiated contact with a teacher or adult most often.
We further observed Child J accept an initiation from a peer 21 times, Child N accept an
initiation from a peer 38 times, and Child B accept an initiation from a peer 17 times. So, Child N
was most likely to accept an initiation from a peer. Child J accepted an initiation from a teacher
10 times, Child N accepted an initiation from a teacher 8 times and Child B accepted an
initiation from a teacher 19 times. Child B was most likely to accept an initiation of contact from
a teacher.
We observed the children reject interactions from peers far more often than they rejected
initiations from a teacher. Child J rejected an initiation from another child 5 times, while Child N
rejected an initiation from a peer 6 times and Child B rejected an initiation from a peer 11 times.
Child B rejected the most initiations from a peer. We observed Child J reject a teachers
initiation 1 time and Child B reject a teachers initiation 2 times. Child N never rejected a teacher
who initiated contact with her.
During our observations, Child J ignored a peers initiation of contact 9 times. Child N
ignored a peers attempt to initiate contact 18 times and Child B ignored a peers initiation of
contact 15 times. Child N most frequently ignored another childs initiation of contact. Over the
course of the observation, Child J ignored a teachers initiation of contact with her 8 times, Child
N ignored a teachers initiation of contact 7 times and Child B ignored a teachers initiation of
contact 15 times. Thus, we observed Child B ignore a teachers initiation most frequently.
We observed a few instances of aggression between the children and their peers as well
as teachers. Child J expressed aggression towards a peer 3 times and towards a teacher 1

times. Child N acted aggressively towards a peer 6 times and towards a teacher 0 times. Child
B expressed aggression towards a peer 11 times and towards a teacher 3 times.
According to the CDC Milestones checklist, a 4 year old child usually prefers to play with
other children rather than just playing on their own. Also, children at this age usually cooperate
with other children. In our findings we found that Child J initiated contact with peers and
accepted peers initiations far more times than she ignored or rejected them. She
initiated/accepted initiations from a peer a total of 56 times. She ignored/rejected initiations from
a peer a total of 14 times. This shows that she mostly cooperated with and engaged with her
peers. Child N initiated/accepted initiations a total of 61 times. She ignored/rejected initiations
from a peer a total of 24 times. She also interacted mostly positively with her peers, cooperating
and choosing to play with them. Child B initiated/accepted initiations from a peer a total of 45
times. She ignored/rejected initiations from a peer a total of 26 times. Thus, all three children
met the CDC milestones expectations that 4 year old children usually prefer to play with others
and to cooperate. We observed these three children to compare how they interact with their
peers and to identify any potential issues in their social development.
Follow-Up Recommendation:
Based on our analysis we concluded that child J is following closely with the CDC
milestones in terms of interactions with peers and adults inside the classroom. As a follow-up
we would like to do another observational tally-event assessment to continue to monitor this
progress. We would also recommend using a more qualitative assessment, such as anecdotal
notes, to observe Child J to provide a more wholesome picture of her social development. The
main stakeholders in monitoring Child Js progress would be her head teacher and assistant
teacher as well as her parents. At this time we do not see a need for intervention with Child J,
but if a follow-up tally-event assessment shows a regression with these interactions and that
monitoring this childs progress is not sufficient then classroom-based interventions may be
necessary. We would also like to consider the possibility of extending our observations to other
children in the classroom while using Child J as a comparison as a way of indicating if any
children who may be in need of classroom-based interventions based on the categories found
on this tally-event sampling table.
Reflection:
What we learned as a group from using this assessment tool to complete this assignment would
be that even though this assessment tool used numerical evidence it still was not enough. We
felt that this information was not sufficiently useful without some kind of qualitative assessment
to go with it. For example, we talked about how a certain child might have ignored 11 attempts
at contact from a peer, but we didnt know anything about the backstory. What had happened
that the child continued to ignore their peer? Were they ignoring the same peer each time? For
this reason, we felt that a quantitative assessment like the tally-event sampling too wasnt
enough to give us a wholesome picture of the childs social development. This was the main
point that we all noticed and talked about within our group while working on this report.