Child Observation Experience - Research Paper Example

? 26 May Psychology Child Observation: I found a 7 years child studying in the kindergarten to observe for 30 minutes. This child was the class fellow of my nephew who was his age. I went to drop my nephew at school, but did not let him know that I would stay for this task until the recess. I observed the unknown child for 30 minutes while it was 30 minutes break. I hid myself behind a good thick fat trunk of the Oak Tree. I was allowed in the school for I had formerly seeked permission from the principal regarding this and had taken her into confidence with respect to the project. For the rest of this paper, I shall call this child X. It was 10: 30 am, and was mid time break for 30 minutes in the school in Los Angeles. The bell had just rung and children were rushing out of their classes to get to the canteen. The child, X was in the canteen, stating in a queue between P and Q waiting for his turn to get some sweets. From the age of my nephew being his class fellow, I could guess X’s age to be 7 years. He was average height with green eyes. He wore white shirt and grey shorts, and had a messed up hair. O, P, X, Q, and R made a queue in front of canteen / X slipped out and went to the Mimi (the maid for children) / Mimi took him to the bath room / X remained in the bath room / X came out. R had left / X stood behind N / Q left and M came behind X / X was standing in the queue in front of the canteen in front of M and behind N / X tried to cross three children in front of him, N, O, and P / P pushed X out of the queue, saying “It’s my place. Go away you cheat!” X said, “I came before you. I had gone to the bathroom in between.” P said, “So you were out for the bathroom means you were out of it. Now go away.” / X gave himself three slaps in the face, and started to cry / X slid in between the M and N / M pushed X out of his previous position / X said to M, “You know you were behind me, don’t you?” M said, “Not after you got yourself outta here!” / M kicked X in the buttocks / X lay on the floor / K, L, M, N, O, and P turned their heads towards X and said, “Ho ho shame shame! Shame shame! Shame shame!” / X got up and stood behind K. He was the last in the queue, sobbing with tears / X kept sobbing while P left the queue / X moved further while O left the queue / X stepped further when N left the queue. X had stopped sobbing / X stared at M while he bought the candies / M was done and moved past X / X protruded his leg to make M stumble. M watched in time and escaped the leg / X and M exchanged envious looks / L left the line, and K followed / X bought a Snickers / He threw the wrapper on the floor, and ran towards the ground / X occupied a bench, and ate up the chocolate / He drank water from his bottle / School bell rang after 30 minutes and X rushed towards the class room. While watching X, I had mixed feelings for him. I felt that he was learning important lessons of his life. I was surprised by the confidence of X as he did not go to the end of the line after being denied the position by P, and instead slid in between M and N, to enter into a new fight. This tells that X is not a sensitive person, so he will not be hurt much in life. I believe that X’s parents must have taken a very lenient approach in the Anal Stage of development of X as identified by Freud in (Cherry 3). That was the reason why X had developed a sort of anal-expulsive personality. I can tell this from the way X messed up with P and M. He was displaying a destructive behavior. Among the cognitive development stages identified by Piaget, X is in the concrete operational stage. This stage of cognitive development commences at the age of 7 years and sustains until the child turns 11. Children enhance their knowledge of various operations of the mind in this stage. They develop logic for concrete events, though they can not interpret hypothetical terms in this stage. In this case, X was not able to deduce the outcomes of standing in front of P and later M when it was not his turn. Previously, X might have successfully managed to cross children and take the lead, and from that specific experience, X would have deduced the general principle and the line can be crossed to get in first. But the general principle yield different outcome in this experience. Since X was not able to determine its outcome at the outset, it hurt him and he could not help crying. X fits in the criteria of the psychosocial stage 4 of the Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development given the fourth stage is meant for children ranging in age from 5 years to 11 years. Erikson says that this stage of psychosocial development of children decides the inculcation of either industry or inferiority in the children. Children tend to develop pride in their skills via social interactions. The skills and competence are also determined to much an extent, by the encouragement offered to the children by their teachers or parents or both. Children who receive encouragement tend to be very confident in their social interactions whereas children whose teachers, peers or/and parents do not encourage them lack self confidence and are suspicious about their tendency to achieve success. In the case study under consideration, X is by no means, unconfident! In fact, he is confident to the extent that he can dare get the position he may not even deserve. He tends to dominate and knows how to fight for his right. X came all the way to P and stood in front of him, moved by his confidence that he will be able to make it. Even when P did not let him stand in front of him, he did not stand in the last. Instead, he resolved to take his old position back in front of M because he was confident he will manage that, though M was no less confident about fighting for his right, so X was finally left to stand in the last of the row. Irrespective of whether X succeeded in his two attempts of violating the rules, his confidence is obvious which essentially tells that X is encouraged a lot by his parent, and teachers, or both. I think X’s parents have adopted the permissive parenting style to bring him up. Permissive parents have little to no demands from their children and are very lenient in their attitude with their children. X’s anal expulsive personality and lack of discipline can be attributed to the very leniency of his parents. Permissive parents, in general, are “more responsive than they are demanding. They are nontraditional and lenient, do not require mature behavior, allow considerable self-regulation, and avoid confrontation” (Baumrind). Permissive parents encourage their children a lot and are more of friends with them than parents. Works Cited: Baumrind, D. “The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use.” Journal of Early Adolescence. vol. 11. no. 1. (1991): 56-95. Cherry, Kendra. “Freud's Stages of Psychosexual Development.” 2011. Web. 26 May 2011. . Read More