Lab Report 3: Time Sampling

Introduction:
For this observation we observed Ms. Lins 3 year old classroom. The children in her
classroom are between 36-47 months of age. We observed a total of five children. Three
typically developing females, Child Ca, Child E, Child A and two typically developing male
children, Child I and Child Co. The purpose of this observation was to determine what types of
play the children observed were involved in most by comparing that data between the two
observation times, and also to modify any parts of the environment to support more advanced
play. What we, as a group, would like to learn from this assessment is how to modify the
environment to promote more advanced types of play. We used Time Sampling to complete our
assessment. We used the Social Types of Play table for our Time Sample assessment. This
table focused on the different types of play the children engaged in throughout different times
and activities in the classroom. Time Sampling is a method that allows the observer to quickly
and efficiently record the frequency and duration of a behavior within a specific time interval
(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. For this observation we used 10 minute intervals when observing each child.
Every 30 seconds we recorded a tally in the column that best fit the type of play the child was
engaged in at that time. This process was then repeated a second time after waiting five
minutes between observing the first child again.
Data: Time Sampling Chart
Observations 1 and 2 were conducted by Agnieszka who observed Friday, October 2nd, 2015 in
the morning, between 8:30 and 9:30. The children spent the first half of the time engaging in
outdoor free play and the rest of the time in indoor free play.
Observations 3 and 4 were conducted by Caitlin who observed Friday, October 2nd, 2015 in
the afternoon, between 2 and 3 pm. During this time it was after nap transitioning into free
choice activities for the children.
Observations 5 and 6 were conducted by Ashley who observed Wednesday, October 7th, 2015
in the morning, between 9:30 and 10:30. The children moved out of large group and into their
small groups and from there spent the rest of the time in indoor free play.

Observation 1

Child
Ca

Unoccupied/
wandering

Solitary

llll

lllllllll (9)

Onlooker

Parallel

Associ
-ative

llllll (6)

Cooperative

Teacher
directed
activity

Other

8:40
Child
Co
8:50
Observation 2

llll

llllllll (8)

Child
Ca
9:05
Child
Co
9:15

Observation 3

Observation 4

Observation 5

Child
Ca
2:09

llllllll (8)

Child I
2:19

llllllllll
(10)

Child
Ca
2:34

llllllll (8)

Child I
2:44

lllll

Child
E
9:50

||

||

Child
A
10:00
Observation 6

Child
A
10:25

ll

lll

ll

lllllllllllll
(13)

lllll (5)

llll

llllll (6)

lllll

llll

llllllllll
(10)
lll

llll
ll

ll

llll

lll

llll

ll

lll

lllll

||

||||

Child
E
10:15

ll

lllll

l
||||||||||||||
(14)

|||||

|||||||||||
(11)

||||||||||||||
|||||| (20)
||

||||||||||||
|||||
(17)

Notes:
Observation 3: Child Ca was participating in an activity that was provided by the teacher by
herself at the beginning of the observation
Observation 4: Child Ca was wandering around the room before participating in an activity with
another child, even though the other child did not want her to participate
Observation 5: Child E was in small group from 9:50 am-9:58 am.
Observation 6: Child E was at the art table from 10:15 am-10:25 am. From 10:15 am-10:20 am
she was alone, then children joined the table but she did not interact with them.
Observation 6: Child A was at the snack table from 10:25 am-10:33 am.
Summary & Interpretation:

In our observations, we saw Child Ca engage in unoccupied/wandering behaviors

6.25%, while Co was unoccupied 10% of the time, Child I was unoccupied 15% of the time,
Child E and A were both unoccupied only 5% of the time. Although each child was
unoccupied/wandering for a period of time, it was not a particularly significant chunk of any
childs play. Child Ca was engaged in solitary play 31.25% of the time, Child Co was engaged in
solitary play 20% of the time, and Child I was solitary 25% of the time. Child E spent the majority
of her time, 55% in solitary play, while child A spent no time in solitary play. These episodes
comprised a much larger chunk of the childrens play time. None of the children spent
particularly much time as onlookers. Child Ca was an onlooker for 2.5% of the time, Child E 5%,
Child I 10%, Child A 12.5% and Child Co spent no time as an onlooker. While children A and E
spent no time in parallel play, Child I spent 5% of his time in this type of play, Child Ca spent
10% and child Co spent 12.5% of his time there. Children Ca and Co each spent 20% of their
time engaged in associative time, while Child A spent only 12.5% in such play, Child I spent
7.5% in associative play and Child E spent no time in associative play. Child E spent no time in
cooperative play and Child Co spent only 5% of his time in it, however, Child I spent 22.5% of
his time, Child Ca spent 23.75% of her time and Child A spent 27.5% of her time engaged in
cooperative play. Children Ca, Co, and A spent no time in teacher directed activities. Child I
spent 15% of his time there. Child E, unlike her peers, spent 35% of her time in teacher directed
activities. While Children I and E spent no time doing things outside of the aforementioned types
of play, Child Ca spent 6.25% of her time interacting with a teacher in child-driven activities.
Child Co spent 32.5% of his time in the bathroom. Child A spent 42.5% of her time at snack.
The CDC checklist mentions childrens choosing to not play with peers as a potential
sign of a problem. Most of the children we observed engaged in different types of play, which
allowed for social interactions with peers. We did not observe Child E engaging in parallel,
associative or cooperative play. We found that all the children except Child E engaged in
associative play between 7.5 to 20% of the time and 5 to 27.5% of the time in cooperative play.
Modifications to the environment and different opportunities could increase the percent of time
these children spent in these types of advanced play.
Follow-Up Recommendation:
Since we observed Child E, she spent 55% of time in solitary play and 35% in teacher
directed activities, we feel that an increase in support of social interaction and advanced play
from the teachers would support this childs development as well as that of her peers. Thus, as
a follow-up we would like to see more positive group interactions happening inside the
classroom with Child E and her peers, which can be guided by teacher interaction. This simple
modification in the ways teachers interact with children could happen in several ways whether it
is a teacher inviting children to come do an activity with them or gathering children to do an
activity even if the teacher is not present at the activity. Getting more children in one area
increases the likelihood of interactions taking place and more advanced play occurring. Inviting
children to join an activity can also be supported by helping them learn to join group activities,
which is an important part of developing play skills. Once the children are playing together, they
can further their skills in cooperation. Furthermore, when teachers maintain a global view in the

classroom and have a sense of their childrens temperaments it is easier for them to notice who
needs to be supported in joining more advanced play. When the teachers have a stronger sense
of the childrens temperaments and who is more/less likely to engage in advanced play/group
activities, it will be easier for them to support children in joining these activities. Thus, we would
encourage teachers to acquire a strong sense for the personalities of the children in the
classroom and how they can best be supported.
Reflection:
As a group, we learned that Time Sampling, the assessment we used in this
observation, did not provide enough information about the childrens development, even though
it used numerical evidence. As a group we felt that numerical evidence was not sufficiently
useful without some form of qualitative assessment to go with it, such as anecdotal records. We
felt that we could not evaluate the childrens social skills because we only knew how much time
they spent engaging with peers and not specifically what they did and what happened.