OBSERVATION 2
FHS 1500
Toddler: 3 to 5 years
Jessie Stuart
Salt Lake Community College
Abstract: The following report is an observation conducted on February 22nd 2013, of a
three year old child at the Redwood Campus’ Eccles Lab School at Salt Lake Community
College. This report includes a description of the environment, the physical development,
intellectual development and social/emotional development of the child, from what I was
able to observe.
Environment: This observation was conducted on February 22nd 2013 in the 3-4 year old
class, at the Redwood Campus’ Eccles Lab School at 4:20 to approximately 5:00 pm. The
room isn’t large but enough room for several children to play comfortably and run around
without obstruction. Compared to the two year old day care I had done for my previous
observation the room in the size was about the same but it looked more organized. Toys
are organized in bins and shelves, and there were several tables with small chairs around.
There are two large windows in the back of the room. There were only 6 children, 2 boys
and 4 girls when I came into observe. As I began my observation a few children had just
come in from playing the snow. The Day Care Attendant was helping them change out of
their snow clothes and put things away. The child I observed will be referenced to as
child ‘Z’; he was one of the children that had just changed out of his snow clothes.
Physical Development: The toddler I observed was a boy, White-Caucasian; he was a bit
taller, lean, looked healthy, alert, and well groomed. I asked child “Z” how old he was I
was surprised when he answered confidently “three and half”, if I hadn’t asked him I
would have thought he was four or older. The description in the text fits this young boy’s
description well: he was “relatively tall and thin, engaged in active play” as children
about this age should be. The reasoning for child “Z” being a bit taller became obvious
when child “Z’s” father came to pick him up. His dad was probably about 6’ 4”. This
child’s physical abilities were what you would expect a child of this age to be, he was
able to run, crawl, stoop, bend, jump up etc. as well as create games by him self and with
others. His fine motor skills were nicely developing as well; he used a comb, put his
shoes on, and did other activities with his hands. He was constantly on the move as were
the other children, I think he sat down once for probably only 1-2 minutes other than that
he was active and about, just as the text says is typical at this age.
Intellectual Development: As I first started observing child “Z”, he was getting help
from the Day Care Attendant taking off his snow pants and snow boots. He was given his
regular shoes to put back on. He walked over where there was more room and before
trying by him self to put them on said “I need help!” “I need help!”, He said it again
probably about four times, than asked the caregiver for help she said she would help him,
but in one moment. I assumed he would wait for her but he struggled himself to put his
shoes on, as I watched I saw they were on the wrong feet, again I assumed the care giver
would have to correct this, but the next thing I know he had it all figured out. Shoes on
the right feet and velco done up! I was sure to give him praise for his accomplishment. I
saw zone of proximal development in action, the care giver was wise enough to know he
needed help changing out of his snow pants and shoes but gave him enough
independence to figure out how to put back on his regular shoes on his own.
I noticed a couple of Piagets theories of operational thought in action. For example Child
“Z” was playing with a toy brush and brushed his hair, but than a girl he was next to he
tried to brushing her hair, probably assuming she would like it and think it was fun like
he did-she was not very happy about it. While I observed the children including, Child
“Z”, they interacted with me, and asked for help, I view this as a type of static reasoning,
they only had the ability to know I was an adult so I must be one of the caregivers and
interacted with me like I had been there the whole time-which I didn’t mind, it was fun
playing their games!
I also saw a lot of animism--an aspect of preoperational thought. In fact every child there
was “interacting” this some sort of “animal” while I was ther, they played with stuffed
cotton lizards, plastic frogs, a pet mouse and child “Z” was particularly fond of his “pet
duck”. Even though he was going from one activity to another and got distracted with
various activities (example that the prefrontal cortex is developing) he was dutifully
attentive to his “pet duck”. The text states the animism is a belief that things our alive,
and an assumption that other creatures-and even things-are similar to themselves. The
theory was clear when child “Z” fed his duck out a toy pet dish and told me “My duck
likes to eat snacks” he also said about dish he was using for this pet duck: “This is for
him to go poop in”. He was also gentle with his duck as he brushed its hair and held it
close to him saying “My baby”.
Language was developing for these young children, they talked a lot, the text states
“Preschoolers normally talk a lot—to adults, to each other, to themselves, to their toys”
all of this was very evident, and child “Z” used his language skills while talking to the
adults, with the other kids and to his toys, some of his sentences were quite well
developed and long for a 3 year old.
Social/Emotional Development:
Child “Z” had good social development, he even came up to me and asked me my name,
I thought that mature for a three and a half year old. Most the children all just interacted
with each other and their animals making up games and playing including him. One girl
would pretend like her frog was caught in her hair and tease that a frog was on her head!
Child “Z” would laugh at her and find it funny. This interaction between the two
definitely showed good social development. Child “Z” played with the other kids in a
nice manner and didn’t exhibit any problems among the other kids and didn’t have to be
corrected in his actions while he played except maybe once because he screamed to
loudly at the other boys toy snake. He interacted well with others. When the boys father
came to pick him up the first thing his father did was show love and affection to his boy
and show he was happy to see him, and also said “What should we do to help clean up?”
He than started to sing “clean up” “clean up” and Child “Z” repeated “clean up” then his
Dad said “team work” team work” and Child “Z” repeated. By this interaction it was
evident that his Dad was teaching good social skills.
Conclusion: From my observation I conclude that child “Z” was developing very well in
his physical development, intellectual development and social/emotional development;
and both a healthy child care environment and a healthy loving environment that he was
going home to, all contribute to his healthy development.