Words: 2166
The purpose of this assignment is to compare and contrast two observations in different contexts. The children in both contexts where aged 4-5. I chose children of the same age so that age would not affect the results. According to Jean Pigged children of this age children are in the Operational Stage (RADAR. 201 2) did not see any evidence to suggest that this was not the case. However I don’t think that all children reach the same stage of development at the same time, each case must be looked at individually.
Tina Bruce (2001) discusses the stages of play and according to her descriptions I would say hat the children I observed were in the cooperative stage. However, I do not feel that have enough information about the children to make a true assessment of the stage of play because many factors affect observations and believe the stages of play overlap and are revisited as children develop, as discussed by Jerome Burner (Pound, 2006) in his spiral curriculum theory. Observation A observed these children in a reception class in a local authority Primary School.
There were 28 children in the class and came from a variety of socio, economic backgrounds, the children were aged 4-5 and of mixed gender. The observation was of a child initiated outdoor activity. The children made a ‘path’ using tires, blocks and crates. The class teacher was in the playground but not interacting with this group of children. Was observing them but they were unaffected by my presence. This was because constantly observe them; therefore it was nothing unusual to them.
Observation B This observation was taken at a private ballet school; most of the children came from affluent areas in and around Halifax and were aged 4-5 and all female. This class was all adult focused and has a traditional ballet school eel. The principle is very strict; she does not tolerate talking in class to each other or their parents. They are able to ask questions but the teacher expects them to watch each other for corrections and also to stay focused and give 100% effort throughout the lesson.
The adults present were: The school principle, sat at the front of the studio giving verbal feedback The class teacher demonstrating and giving a small amount of verbal feedback. Sat at the front of the studio with the principle observing, did not affect the class dynamic or interact With the children. Discussion One child started to move blocks, crates and car wheels, as he did this he said ‘l am making a path’. Other children were standing near and watching him, slowly the other children started to copy him and join in with his game.
He was the dominant child or to use a Vestryman term the ‘expert other’ he was the one leading the play and teaching the others. He was showing them how to move along his path, saying ‘do this, that’s right’. In my opinion this child was the dominant one because on this occasion it was his game that he had made up and therefore was the expert. This play was also child led; had not seen other children in this class experiment with this type of play before. As the play progressed saw the others join in, this is an example of cooperative play and co-construction.
The child was focused on the task he was not distracted by other children or me. In terms of the Eleven scores would score his wellbeing at 5 and his involvement at 5. (Leavers, 2005). The score for involvement and wellbeing is not always the same because many factors can influence this scale e. G. The task, child, situation, time of day etc. Due to he score being so high and observing the child’s body language, facial expression and outcome I would say that this child was very focused on the task. At first the children did not talk to each other most of the children watched the boy as he built his path.
This boy was talking to himself saying ‘l am building a path’. A few children gradually got nearer and then started to walk on the path like the boy who had made it. Noticed that they kept their distance and joined in gradually, I think they did this to see how the boy would react. This happened until there was a mixed gender group of children n the path. I did not notice any verbal communication but they did not bump in to each other and seemed very spatially aware, this is a good example of cooperative play. Eventually the boy who started it began to direct the play through spoken language. Do this’ at the same time as jumping to demonstrate, the other children copied, which in my opinion shows that they understood; I did not hear any further spoken language. The children were smiling and laughing and did not notice me observing. From my observations would say that in my opinion the children were skilful in communicating wrought spoken language, body language and actions, they also appeared to understand the rules of the game and of the expectations of the social setting. Believe this because they were smiling and getting along.
I know these children very well and have observed them on many occasions. Know that each child is individual and has different personality/temperament traits. However on this occasion I did not see the expected traits from all of the children. The boy who started the game can in my opinion is usually shy and uncooperative, he does not often show his confidence as witnessed on this occasion. Other children who can push and hurt people showed compassion and care whilst playing this game, as a teacher it is often easy to label children or to expect behavior when it is seen frequently.
However in this play I saw a different side to some children, I feel play allows children to try new roles and express themselves in many different ways, I believe that dance and drama can also let children try out new characters. I have seen other occasions when children’s personalities shape the play and affect the game, on this occasion I feel that I was able to see a different side to some of he children and that they cooperated well with each other to develop the game.
Observation B The principle is elderly so she is very skilled at describing the movements for example a found is sticky like chewing gum. When describing moving to an arabesque she said “legs, body, arms and head” this helps the children get the correct position and to have the feeling of pulling up and transferring the weight. She is also very skilled at building on knowledge and steps. She does not just follow the syllabus, she adds exercises if needed and also focuses on section of the work per week, this lessons focus was allegro.
All the children know how to behave in this lesson and they do not misbehave or challenge this teacher. She is the same with all ages of children and so most of the children know what to expect. Another advantage of this school is that almost all of the children have a desire to be there so they are self-disciplined and want to listen and learn. The teacher gave both verbal and physical corrections; she often gave a positive and constructive correction followed by positive feedback.
She positioned one girls arms in arabesque after asking “may l? Then she asked her to do it by herself she also told the others to try. She gives specific feedback to some girls, e. G. “curve your arms”. She also gave lots of verbal tips and corrections to the class as a whole. The teacher is very involved at all times and does not miss any mistakes this helps motivate the children to do well. She never gives praise if she doesn’t mean it and that makes the pupils work hard to get it. When giving praise she says why it is good e. . “You worked through your foot, keep it up”. This is a good example of effective feedback as described by Rachel Iris (2001). The students look at he teacher and listen they try to do the steps and are focused on the task. If the teacher gives feedback and the pupil do not try the correction she will remind them. This only happened once during the lesson and the teacher said “come on, this correction is for you as well”. The pupils did not talk to each other whilst in class as this is not permitted.
They looked at each other if one pupil was being corrected or demonstrating. They interacted by using facial expressions for example a smile. I did not see much interaction as the children were focused on dancing and watching/listening to the teacher. This reflects the teacher’s pedagogy, work hard, and listen to what I am saying and doing and also to each other to learn from each other, I have heard this teacher say “we do not dance with our mouths”. The teacher in ‘observation B’ only uses the adult focused method of teaching.
This differs from ‘observation A’ because the children are taking part in child initiated activities in a totally different situation with a teacher with different pedagogical views. This teacher has a more even spread of, adult focused, adult initiated and child initiated activities and is there to teach a reader range of subjects not just ballet. (Fisher, 2008). Conclusion From the observations that I did and the information that I read in RADAR unit 1 , would conclude that the ages and cognitive development stages of the children in both observations were the same.
However each child is individual and I do not know enough about each child nor have I done enough observations to say for certain that age or stage of development did not affect the results of this study. In my experience identifying a stage of play is not straightforward because children learn and develop in different areas of earning at a different rate. I would suggest that for this study to be more reliable, it would be better to observe one class of children taking part in the different situations, over a longer period of time. Believe the children that observed in observation A to be working in the corporative stage of play.
Broached (2010) talks about children working in the cooperative domain, she says “Observers can see the deep learning potential of play as they watch children create and solve problems together and engage in the more complex uses of resources and language that characterize this domain” Broached, 201 0: pep live that children who take part in child initiated or self-chosen activities are generally more focused on that task because they want to do it. Find that young children find it harder to concentrate on some adult focused activities if they do not want to do the task.
However in the ballet class the children were focused even though the lesson was adult focused. In my opinion this was due to the children’s interest in learning and the teachers ability to engage the students. In both observations I would say that in terms of the Eleven scale the children’s involvement and wellbeing was 5 (Leavers, 2005). This would lead me to believe that it did not matter if the activity was adult focused or child initiated and in my opinion the most influential factor for effecting behavior was the teacher and her pedagogy. Eve learnt a lot about differing views on play and pedagogy by training to be a teacher in the primary classroom. Am now aware that not all people understand or value play and also that a school ethos can have a massive impact on playful learning. I also feel it is important to work with children through co-construction and to use an integrated approach as discussed by Wood (2010), she advises that the curriculum should be used as a framework rather than a straitjacket, through reflective and informed pedagogy.
I feel that this rule should also apply for a dance syllabus, so that you can cater for individuals needs and make lessons more varied and interesting. I can see the benefits of play in dance for young children as discussed in RADAR unit 1: “Tina Bruce (2001 ) sees play as part of a network of development and learning which also includes first-hand experience, games with rules and representations, including painting, dancing, dramatic and imaginative play. Bruce suggests that play co-ordinates learning. RADAR 2012, up However I am not sure if play has a role in the ballet classroom for older children.