Observation Report Essay

On the 7th of March 2013, I visited the Kogarah Court mansion ho soulfulnessa for ii hours. During this time period, I became divergeicularly aw be of the courts percen drop backe, advise and coif indoors the Australian legal hierarchy of courts rules and boundaries, zeal by adults and peers alike, that the infantren a lottimes encounter when attempting to frame their fundamental fundamental interactions in an accept competent modality. To aver duration now walk up to a radical of chel arn and ask them to p prep ar in a mavinly room represents sole(prenominal) a miniscule mover of companion able development. As a babe interacts, he or she mustiness bring to interpret a wide variety of complex cues and requirements. Problems fig up when separate requirements employment with unitary a nonher or with the childs feature observed postu tardy and, at times, it is difficult for the child to control that these requirements birth down existThe incorporation o f spend a pennyal rules is wiz facet of social development to which adults assign great significance. Indeed, noncompliance is the nigh frequent causation for psychiatric referral of young children (Schaffer, 1999, p. 250). Self-control is grievous, of logical argument. Adults breeze a crucial part in answering children to achieve control over their let demeanor it is lone(prenominal) th robustious initial dependence on early(a)s that a child can develop autonomy (Schaffer, 1999, p. 249).What m both adults lead to overlook, however, is that children be both(prenominal)times settleing to operate within several(prenominal) different realities, separately of which sets onward an enti deposit different set of rules. For example, Turiel (cited in Schaffer, 1996, p. 268) no(prenominal)s that the requirements set forth by the family differ significantly from the requirements set forth in the out aspect founding. Similarly, the endives of the adults on the adjoingro und be truly different from the objectives of ones cohorts, and the child must find a way to interact that satisfies the rules delineated by twain groups if he is to function successfully. Fin aloney, the child must too conduct the appropriate ways to sustain his or her own fatefully. Thus, the change of example development is remote much than complex than memorizing simple phrases such as do this and dont do that.Several attempts stomach been flummox out to reach a model that tracks the deterrent example development of children. In this paper, I pass on plunge the work of Piaget, and Kohlberg to be the near useful references to formulate the musings I made on Woodwards playground. In just about way, each of their theories assumes that clean-living development follows a pattern in which the child progresses from fulfilling the needs of the ego to fulfilling the needs of the whole. It is important to none, however, that, like any form of development, the int ernalization of rules does non occur in a morose, homogeneous pattern. I mantraped displays of self-centeredness in children who, according to Piaget, should have moved well into the third percen get overe point of incorrupt development by then.The creation of soft assembly (Thelen, 1994, p. 30) in the dynamic systems perspective suffers a much better format for the improvement of object lesson development. concord to the dynamic systems perspective, on that point is no predetermined outcome. Rather, trusted innate possibilities, such as the potential for several(a) types of moral reasoning, that lay within the child are assembled in a malleable course when the surroundings for such growth is provided. A pattern of conduct emerges as the self-organizaition continues, becoming much and to a greater extent(prenominal) stable over time (Thelen, 1994, pp. 30-31).In the example of moral reasoning, the child, recalling memories from each stage in his or her life, attempt s to compose a sensible pattern from these experiences. It is this pattern that postulates to the internalization of a dogma system, the belief that this is the way things ought to be, and thence, this is what I should do in this emplacement. Everyone has a eccentric life experience. Therefore, it makes virtuoso that some children whitethorn have had more probability than some separates to expand their realm of self-awareness into the more complete awareness of the whole. In this paper, I forget explore different aspects of several experiences that I had with the children, attempting to make sentiency of their moral interpretations of each situation.I will use the theories of Piaget, Kohlberg, and Eisenberg to provide a loose context for their behavior, with the empathizeing that each child is different, and may non fit the profile set forth by each system in other situations. On the playground, the children do not know that they are knowledge. Their behavior is, fo r the or so part, purely spontaneous, and, sometimes, they happen upon a sensitive form of successful interaction quite by accident. It is then up to them to memorialize this behavior, and to utilize it in future situations.* To protect their identities, fictitious arrive ats have been given to all children mentioned in this report.ObservationsMonday, April 16, 2001Immediately upon entering the playground setting, I became engaged in an opportunity to define a rule for a group of children and commit its importance to a greater context. The discussion took place between myself and triple teeny girls who were enthralled by my necklaces. The necklaces, I told them, came from my grandmother, and so they were pretty special to me. I then took the necklaces off to give them a closer look, and offered to let them wear one each for the duration of recess. I made it clear, however, that I needed them back at the end of the play period, assuming that they would represent that this dea l was non-negotiable.The girls wanted to keep the necklaces for themselves, however, and have the appearance _or_ semblanceed ineffective to catch that I had set this boundary because I had a greater motif (i.e. I did not want to keep the necklaces plainly because I desire them and was being selfish, solely because they were from my grandmother and therefore had sentimental value). Instead, they were more center on the immediate, tangible evidence, which to them implied that I should be more thoughtful of their needs. wherefore should you get to keep all of them? one of them asked me. I had several necklaces, they went on to explain, so why couldnt I near give each of them one of mine and keep one for myself? When that didnt work, they tried to file me how similar the necklaces wereI could give them that one and keep the one that looked just like it.When I held my ground, they resorted to bargaining if they could make it all the way crossways the monkey bars, then would I fence relinquishing the jewelry? At this point I reminded them that gifts from relatives were very important to people, and that my grandmother would be shock if she knew that I sometimes gave away the presents that she had given to me. I asked them how they would looking at if person wanted to dribble a gift from their grandmothers. I also upset that I had explained the conditions before I took the jewelry off. After this explanation, they seemed to be more thoughtful, and willing to accept the limitations of our agreement. At the end of the play period, each of them willingly sought me out and gave the necklaces back, asking if they could wear them again next time.Without guidance, these girls manifestly operated within Kohlbergs present moment stage of moral reckoning, the instrumental purpose orientation. At this stage, children are able to understand individualized needs, but swear that each individual should and will act in his/her own outperform interest (Kohlbe rg, 1969, cited in Berk, 2000, p. 493). Accordingly, the girls formed the belief that they deserved to have the necklaces base on their personal desires, and confided that my desire to keep the necklaces were purely based on self-interest as well. This level of thinking coincides nicely with the needs of others orientation, which is the s stage in Eisenbergs levels of prosocial reasoning.Without my guidance, they displayed limited perspective-taking skills, as they were unable to desist on their own that I big businessman want to keep the necklaces because they were a gift. Their interest was more focused on the concrete, material desire (Eisenberg, 1982, cited in Berk, 2000, p. 493). Once I pointed out that my grandmother would be hurt and discussed how they might feel if they were in my position, they were able to take a more empathic perspective on the situation.In this situation, the girls thinking process coincided more effectively with Eisenbergs level of empathetic orie ntation (Eisenberg, cited in Berk, 2000, p. 505), as Eisenberg was less concerned more with an empathetic agreement of rules than Kohlberg, who is more oriented toward a utilitarian ethical structure that focuses on punishment, authority, and the needs of society (Berk, 2000, p. 505). With my reminder, they were able to reflect hypothetically upon the situation and understand how they would feel if they were either in my situation, or my grandmothers.While it is helpful to severalise the childrens level of moral reasoning in instal to understand that a progression did take place with the priggish instruction, it is more important to understand that a childs moral development is just that a progression. With their life experience, the girls were not yet able to instantly consider how some other person would feel, and based their demand on their immediate need. Here, the scheme of soft assembly comes into play. They would be able to take this experience and apply it in the futur e, incorporating more and more experience into their moral development. Selman (1980) in postulately supports the possibleness of soft assembly through his model of childrens stages of empathy, by postulating that children set off upon the path to empathy by perceptiveness the views of others as being highly individualized and tractile.Later, as their ability to think in more abstract impairment develops, and as their experiences accumulate, they bug out to consider the views of others simultaneously (Selman, 1980, cited in Schaffer, 1996, p. 173). Although the fact that they were unable to advance right away is partially due to their lack of equal cognitive development, empathetic reasoning is also hindered by lack of experience, and a sufficient template of the circumstances of others. I provided this template by describing my feelings and my grandmothers feelings, connecting both of our individual sentiments to the overall concept of sentimental value.When I reminded them t o reflect upon how they would feel, they considered their own varied assortment of life experiences and applied certain experiences to the concept I had just explained, and were more capable of understanding why I had dictated this limitation on their use of the necklaces. With clear and positive guidance, these third graders exhibit that they were capable of developing a sense of empathy and understanding a hackneyed in the spirit of its application, but only when they were provided with the opportunity to think near(predicate) their actions.In influence to facilitate this development, the authority discover can use several techniques. Each can have a different stupor upon the way that a child processes information, and therefore each can lead to a different outcome in the development of a moral enrol. Hoffman (1977) hypothesizes that authority figures use three methods of discipline to verbalize children the constitution of their moral mistakes love-oriented discipline (if you do/dont do this, my opinion of you will be enhanced/lessened), power-assertive discipline (do/dont do it because I said so), and inductive discipline (do/dont do it for this reason) (cited in Schaffer, 2000, pp. 305-306).Hoffmans research has shown that inductive discipline is commonly the most effective, because it not only explains the rules, but also woos to the childs own emotions (Hoffman & Salzstein, 1967, cited in Schaffer, 2000, p. 306). This was the technique that I used, and it did indeed prove to be effective.Through this convert, one can see the connection with the dialogue between the authority figure and the child described by Schaffer. With patience, the adult uses the childs questions to provide feedback about important details in everyday life, and to picture and bring off rules and boundaries (Schaffer, 1996, p. 261). I used the girls questions to talk about the alliance between grandparents and grandchildren, and the nature of giving gifts. By the en d of the conversation, the little girls had a slightly deeper understanding of the concept of sentimental value.Thursday, April 19, 2000Hoffman has found that, firearm most parents tend to use one of the three techniques more often than the others, parents usually end up exploitation some combination of all three in order to gain compliance from their children emotions (Hoffman & Salzstein, 1967, cited in Schaffer, 2000, p. 306). I found that, in order to effectively maintain control over a larger group of children, I sometimes fictional the division of the enforcer, using power-assertive discipline along with inductive discipline.The first incident that illustrated this combination of techniques problematic a small group of sons, both in the third or fourth grade, who were threatening to jump off of the swings. I told them that this might not be such a honest idea, because, I explained, they seemed to be able to swing very high. They talked back, claiming that they would, and I told them that if they did, they would have to sit with me for the rest of the period. This instruction seemed to have the desired impact. The boys opinionated not to jump off of the swings. Later, however, it became unmingled that my more authoritative instruction failed to instill a true sense of vie safe and soundly on the playground.This was illustrated five minutes later, when I sour around and saw that the boys were challenging the other children to walk between the swings without acquire hit. Once again I informed them that their behavior was unsafe, but they act to play in this manner until I stepped into the area between and physically stopped the swinging. If you cant play safely, I told them, You cant play.By assuming a more authoritative role, I was responding to both aspects of the situation. First of all, their behavior was dangerous, and there was a very real misadventure that one of the children running between the swings could have gotten hit at any mom ent. Secondly, these boys were responding in a very confident manner, and acting assertively was the only way I could get their attention. Actively stopping the swinging by itself without providing an explanation would have been a purely power-assertive role, however, because I provided the boys with feedback for why I was doing this (they were not playing safely and person could have been seriously injured) I was also using inductive discipline.However, there were drawbacks to my answer, and, while it did keep them safe for the moment, power assertion is not the best way to instill an free reaction to a rule. The rule came from the after-school(prenominal), and (fortunately) they were unable to recover the consequences of their actions. Piaget argues that the best way for children to obtain his highest stage of moral understanding, moral subjectivism, in which children recognize that rules are arbitrary agreements that are sometimes based on motivation, is to interact with the ir peers. He believed that cognitive conflict, which is the most powerful motivating factor in provoking change, can be caused most easily by interpersonal conflict (Piaget, 1932, cited in Schaffer, 1996, pp. 292-293).It is difficult for interpersonal conflict to emerge in a vertical relationship between a child and an adult, the one-way interaction wherein the adult sets aside his/her own needs in order to meet the needs of the child. In a horizontal relationship, however, which takes place between peers, multiplicative inverse behavior is demanded by both parties, and conflict can easily begin if one party feels that his/her needs are not being met (as cited by Tan, 2001).It was not until I became involved in a more organize enlivened, where adult rules were consistent and obvious, and the interactions of the children were joint and directed at meeting a wide variety of goals, that I was able to retrieve the scope of the variables in moral development. I also was able to com pare the more flexible nature of the informal rules that emerge within a group of children without direct adult feedback. Thursday, April 26, 2001The wager that allowed such a rich opportunity for observation is called Pom Pom Pull- Away, and it is usually run by bloody shame, one of the luff playground supervisors. The formal rules are quite simple frauds run across the soccer content in order to avoid being labelled by the players who are it. The its are accumulated until one runner is left(p) out. This runner then gets to choose whether or not he wants to be it for the next round. This plunk for, I have found, is the most efficient way to observe the childrens behavior on their own terms, in their world, according to their own laws of social functioning.When the game runs smoothly, bloody shame and I are merely there to ensure that the game proceeds at a energetic pace, and that the cuckoos nest remains ordered. The kids in this group are fourth graders, and they seem t o be quite competent at following the simple structure of the game. According to Piaget, children of this age have generally entered what he calls the cooperation stage of the application of rules.At this age, winning is still the primary goal of playing the game, but by now the children have developed a sense of mutual control, oneness of rules, and agreement within a game (Piaget, 1932, cited in Singer & Revenson, 1996, p. 99). The children tend to be hyper-conscious of the rules, and are quick to point out the mistakes of their teammates. Usually they try to direct Marys or my attention to the actions of the culprit. 9Although their charge usually coincides with an action that has negatively affected their own performance in the game, their awareness licences that they are beginning to internalize the need for the rules, and most of them understand that the rules do not merely exist because the adults said so.I am more interested, however, in the kids set of rules they have th eir own enrol. Piaget accounts for this in his stages, stating that children at this level often retain individual interpretations of the rules (Piaget, 1932, cited in Singer & Revenson, 1996, p. 99). During the course of the game, it also became apparent that they had a separate understanding of the purpose of the game from the adults. Mary mentioned that she has them play this cooperative game because it helped them to function better as a group, and since they had started it she had noticed a significant improvement in their cooperative behavior at lunchtime. The children themselves, however, seem to play the game for various other reasons, especially military position.The game becomes an excellent opportunity for the child to view his or her own behavior compared to other members of the group, and, generally, there is a firm consensus about what is satisfying to the group and what isnt. For example, whiny or pouting behavior is tolerated far more easily by the adults than by the children, whereas, interestingly enough, the children seem to have a higher tolerance for ill will, unless it is directed at them. For example, I observed several particularly rough tags during the course of the game, but only the children at whom the aggression was directed would respond.However, when children resisted assuming the position of it, (and they often did) I would frequently construe comments from his/her peers such as You are holding up the game Conversely, Mary and I are more liable(predicate) to stop aggression, and we are far more sympathetic to tired or frustrated children, reminding them frequently that it is ok to take the option of resting on the side of the field. Nevertheless, it seems to be far more detrimental to ones social status to break the grave set forth by the children themselves than it is to break the rules set forth by the adults This code is far more intrinsic in their behavior it is simply expected that their standards (such as bravery or stoicism) will automatically be known.This higher expectation could be because they have yet to understand the situational nature of behavioras stated before, rules are still rather rigid and universal before Piagets stage of moral subjectivism is reached. Also, the rules set forth by the adults represent a convention that shifts from situation to situation the teachers in the classroom hold different expectations from Mary on the playground. However, at Woodward, the childrens group always remains the comparablethe same class has the same playground hours. Thus, they have more of an opportunity to observe one some other, and they establish a more consistent code, which I will call the code of social morality. This code is intrinsic enough to be consistent with Turiels definition of convention versus morality, as described by Schaffer. . . children learn to make the distinction between these two categories from a quite early age because of the different types of social interactio n that they involve. Conventions are dogmatically taught, being reach down by authority. Initially, they may be regarded as universal it does not take long, however, before children realize that the done thing in ones own family is not necessarily the done thing in any other family. Moral principles, on the other hand, are acquired because children perceive that certain actions have consequences for other people that are intrinsically pernicious witnessing a young child being hit is sufficient to show that such an act, in whatever social context, is undesirable. Thus children begin to construct two quite different domains of knowledge about the social world and its functioning (Turiel, 1983, cited in Schaffer, 1996, p. 268).In this quote, the teachers play the role of the family, and the playground assumes the role of the real world. Here, the children have the opportunity to witness the actions that are intrinsically wounding within the social needs of their age group. Because t hey are less intimately supervised on the playground, they are more likely to be themselves, and witness the consequences of their behavior firsthand.And, because status is so important, the requirements of the adults naturally become a second priority. One boy grew particularly angry at his peers during a suspension in the game and a shoving match began. Later, I saw two children collide, and their immediate response was to ask one another if they were all right. verifying and negative responses such as these occur without any adult intervention, and it is the social outcome of these behaviors that catalyze the childs formulation of a moral theory.Friday, May 11, 2001 Frequently, the children search for ways to bend the adult rules in order to advance their status. Most of the time, in this game, the key to status is to be attach last, proving that they are faster and better athletes than their peers. Others resort to other methods, such playing tricks. This is usually amusing to the adults as well as the kids. They are permitted to take breaks that last one round, sitting on the sidelines when they get too intense or too tired.Several of the boys, however, simply began to walk across the field one day, stating that they could not be label because they were on break. For them, this was merely a strategy that would help them to avoid being tagged until they reached the other side of the field, at which point they would call time in again. When I reminded them that breaks could only be taken on the sidelines, they claimed that the rules stated that breaks had to be taken by walking across the field. I mute that this was not the case, and another supervisor supported me. At this point the boys laughed, and began to run again.It is amusing to fool the adults and their peers, and none of the children would ever label their own behavior as cheating. They are quick to recognize it in others when it interferes with their efficacy in the game, but they do not s eem to realize that these rules can be applied to themselves as well. When they are labeled as cheaters, they will in fact say nearly anything to defend their behavior, demonstrating that, while children of this age are just learning to understand the actual value of the rules as they apply to the group, they are simultaneously learning to view themselves as playing a functional role within this group.Although the boys were breaking the rules, Schaffer reminds us not to become worried by some demonstrations of noncompliance. Through simple tricks such as these, the boys were developing social skills and strategies to demonstrate their autonomy in a socially acceptable way (Kuczynski, Kochanska, Radke-Yarrow, and Girnius-Brown, 1987, cited in Schaffer, 2000, p. 251). They were tired, but they did not want to be removed from the game, and it was perceived as being more socially acceptable by their peers to walk across the field rather than to sit down.Furthermore, it is completely u nderstandable that they would still demonstrate some egocentrism by believing thatthe rules apply to others and not to themselves, for they are still forming their identities in a group context. Schaffer cites a study by Hartshorne and May (1928-1930) that found that childrens tendency to lie fluctuates depending on the situation with which they are confronted, and that a childs tendency to lie is therefore not an innate characteristic (Schaffer, 2000, p. 301). It seems that, when children engage in behaviors such as bending the rules, they are in fact testing socially acceptable boundaries.Monday, May 14, 2001I observed the most obvious struggle for status in a child whom I will call Justin (not the childs real name). He did not seem to be as athletic as the other children, and many times he would by chance collide with somebody, or trip, and then burst into tears. After falling, he would often blame the other child for his misfortune, and at times fashioning an appeal to authori ty, dissevering me that he had been singled out by his peers, once more, as an object of their aggression. Early in the game, I observed that this was not the case that the move were all accidents, and Justins reactive behavior might be aggravating his social situation. After one particularly bad episode, I decided to talk to Justin.As he collected himself, he began to tell me how he mat up. He claimed that Nobody ever left him for last, meaning that he felt that his teammates were singling him out personally to tag first. Here, he demonstrated that he had a more swellhead interpretation of the social code. Like a younger child in Piagets egocentric stage of moral interpretation, his concept of rules was flexible, indefinite, and tailored to fit his individual needs (cited in Singer & Revenson, 1996, p. 98).At this particular moment, he firmly believed that one of the implied rules of the game was that he, as an individual, should not be tagged so often, even though, to an adul t, it would seem that he did not get tagged any more often then the other children. This slight difference in maturity also affected his percept of the social code, and he eventually developed a tendency to rely upon me to enforce his current interpretation of the rules. For example, when we returned to the game, he expected that I would tell the other children that it was his turn to be it.According to Piaget, write Singer & Revenson, in the egocentric stage of social development, children feel a communion with the abstract, perfection adult who epitomizes fairness and justice, but at the same time they may be inventing their own rules throughout the game (1996, p. 98). Justin clearly hoped that I would deputize when it seemed that his peers were not treating him according to his perception of fairness, even though this perception would demasculinise to fit the current situation. His style of interaction with me also often assumed the form of a monologue, which is Piagets stage o f language development that coincides with the egocentric stage of rule development (cited in Singer & Revenson, 1996, p. 98).In the collective monologue, a group of children play together and speak, but the speech is often unrelated to what the others are saying or doing, and the purpose is rarely to exchange real information (cited in Singer & Revenson, 1996, p. 60). This immature style of parley may inhibit a childs ability to fall with more mature peers, limiting his or her opportunity to absorb the code set forth by the group.Shortly before Justin and I returned to the game, I tried to encourage Justin by stating that everybody has different talents, and that some people are better at sports than others. He comprehended my implication, and stated that he was costly at playing tic-tac-toe. However, he then attempted to show me how to play the game by drawing in the dirt, when I needed to be with the other children, because the other playground supervisor had gone in.He did n ot seem to notice that I needed to be interacting with the other children, and showed little interest in the bigger game until he realized that he now had an opportunity to be it. I want to be it, he told me, but made no further comment when the other children protested. He simply looked at me and was apparently waiting for a response. Here, he relied heavy on our vertical relationship to ensure that he would be hard-boiled fairly. For him, it was perfectly natural to put the game on hold while he showed me his skill, and to expect me to help him to assume a leading role once he was finished. Unfortunately, this perception did not coincide with that of his peers, and Justin experienced even more trouble with word meaning as the game progressed.Later on, Justin did tag one of the bigger boys. This particular child, Alex, often displays reactive tendencies as well, but is far more athletic, and generally it seems that the other children leave him alone. I happened to be watching Ju stin, and thus happened to witness Alexs immediate reaction as well. Immediately he turned around and leaned over Justin, who was a good head shorter than he. His eyes were wide and his expression was angry, and it seemed to me as though he was ready to push the smaller child. I yelled Alexs name and told him that this action was not acceptable, that Justin had tagged him fair and square. This diffused the immediate conflict. Alex, however, go along to insist that Justin always went after him, and that it wasnt fair.Once again, this illustrates how children have the egocentric tendency to alter their own rules to fit their needs during the course of a game. Alex did not want to be it anymore, and so he felt that he was justified in blaming Justin for tagging him all of the time so that he would not have to be. Perhaps he selected Justin because his peers were biased against Justin at the time, and would be more likely to accept his assertion that Justin was acting out again.In this instance, the understood rules, the intense desire for fairness that so often dominates the game, could have very well developed into a bully/victim dynamic should this competitive pattern have been allowed to continue. However, in this early stage of the interaction, it was clear that Alexs behavior was largely due to his perception of Justins intent. In late childhood, asserts Schaffer, children are more likely to link their behavior to the motivations of others (1996, p. 280).Alex also displayed some egocentric behavior, however. His actions, in this instance, can be linked to Kohlbergs stages of moral understanding. By stating that Justin always went after him, he assumed that Justin (and probably others) was doing this in his own self interest, probably because it made Justin look good to tag one of the bigger boys. This fits nicely into Kohlbergs instrumental purpose orientation, in which behavior is reciprocal, but each participant acts in his own self interest with the ass umption that the other will do the same (cited in Berk, 15 2000, p. 493). This provides insight into the perspective that bullies often take when defending their actions toward victims.Because the war-ridden child attributes his/her actions to anothers behavior, he/she is likely to believe that the other child brought it on himself. The aggressors assumption is precluded by another assumption, a moral belief that may lead to a intimidation dynamic that the victim should know that the bully will behave in a way that will further his own interests, and therefore, the victim should take the appropriate measures to protect himself. Fortunately for everybody, the need for social status also encourages prosocial behavior, especially in children such as Justin, who are having difficulty with acceptance from the group.This was certainly the case with Justin. The next observation I made of Justins interaction with his playmates had a far more positive outcome. Either somebody had been teac hing him the benefits of prosocial behavior, or he had simply figured out that it is more beneficial to act in a manner that keeps the game pathetic forward. This time, around the beginning of the game, Justin entered late, when the team member who had been tagged last was onerous to choose a partner who would be it. Justin asked rather brightly if he could help, and the other boy said that he could. Mary, Bill and I all acknowledged his contribution.The need for acceptance, however, is not the only motivation for internalizing the rules. I believe that, above all else, the children like each other, and participate in the game with the understanding that everybody should be having a good time. These children had moved well beyond the stage of egocentric empathy described by Hoffman (1987), and well into the stage of having empathy for anothers feelings. Schaffer expands upon Hoffmans theory by stating that it is . . . when confronted by another persons distress that a childs proso cial tendencies become most evident (Schaffer, 1996, p. 271).Most of the children whom I have come to view as more confident and popular seem to have internalized the rules of empathy and are able to put them into practice during the appropriate times, indicating that they have improved their social skills with their peers, not simply their ability to interact well with adults.For example, during this game it is very likely that children will fall, and, while it is not very likely that the child is hurt, most of the kids demonstrate concern for their fallen peer. After one particularly rough collision, the boy who stood up first immediately and sincerely asked the other boy if he had been hurt. Replying that he wasnt, the other boy reciprocated by asking his friend if he had been hurt. This demonstration of prosocial skills exemplifies the awareness that is required for successful peer interaction. demonstrationAs time went on, it seemed that more and more of the children were truly integrating the various codes set forth by the different situations in their lives. They began to develop a sense of empathy necessary to understand the purpose of boundaries, and they began to internalize the real rules of the game and understand how the restrictions of the game applied to their group function. This is partially due to the pitch contour provided by the adults. For example, I indirectly talked with the three girls about empathy, and Mary continually stressed the importance of keeping the game going, and, eventually, they began to demonstrate their new understanding in several ways. For instance, they tend to argue less now when they are caught breaking the rules.During the beginning stages of the games development, they would become very eristical when they ran out of bounds, which serves as the equivalent of a tag. Often, they would blame the person who was chasing them for making them run out of bounds. Now, however, they are far more good-natured. When a playe r runs out of bounds now, I am often amused to witness the realization spread over his or her face.Usually, they grin and shake their heads, make a comment such as Oh, man and go to their proper place as a tagger. This slight difference in reaction illustrates a more mature interpretation of the rules. fryren who react in this manner have made a connection between their realm of understanding and the realm of the adults they realize that the rules do not exist in order to restrict them as individuals, but to keep the game going and to help them to function more smoothly as a whole unit.The interaction itself also gave the children feedback on how to play the game. By acting, and observing the acceptable and insufferable interactions of their peers, the children first internalized the socially acceptable ways of responding and, in turn, began to view the rules in the spirit in which they were intended, instead of interpreting them as moral realism, the outside edict of an adult with the power to punish (Piaget, 1932, cited in Singer & Revenson, 1996, p. 101).Mary has noted that the game proceeds far more smoothly now, and the children seem to facilitate decisions more quickly about who will be it at the end of the game, when there is usually some confusion. Arguments about whether somebody was tagged or not are usually less frequent now, which tells me that the children have begun to apply the rules as something built up progressively and autonomously, thus eliminating the need to quarrel (Singer & Revenson, 1996, p. 100). This increase in cooperation signifies the gradual emergence into the codification of rules stage, the final exam shift into an adult decision-making system based on the needs of the group and the individual.It seems that, while this integration of social codes is a natural occurrence, that the opportunity to do and interact in a cooperative setting provided the greatest environment for the children to learn about the value of rules. When t he rule came as a education to get off the swings, for instance it was simply an inconvenient imposition.Provided with an in-depth explanation of how their behavior might affect others, however, as well as the opportunity to extemporise and test new styles of interaction, the children grew remarkably quickly. They are indeed eager to learn the system as quickly as possible, and absorb information rapidly. It seems that a host of factors, such as a wide variety of new situations, appropriate feedback, and positive reinforcement throughout development all land to a childs development, allowing him/her to flourish a thoughtful, attentive, and adaptable adult.ReferencesBerk, Laura E. (2000). Child Development.Massachusetts Allyn & Bacon. Schaffer, Rudolph H. (1999). Social Development. Massachusetts Blackwell Publishers.Singer, Dorothy G., & Revenson, Tracy A. (1996). A Piaget Primer How a Child Thinks. innovative York Plume.Thelen, Esther. (1994). The improvising infant Learning ab out learning to move. A dynamic systems draw near to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA MIT Press/Bradford Books.Tan, S.L. (2001, April 25). Lecture, Kalamazoo College.