Observation Report Essay

On the 7th of March 2013, I visited the Kogarah Court House for two hours. During this time period, I became finic e precise last(predicate)y aw ar of the courts economic consumption, answer and practice in spite of appearance the Australian legal hierarchy of courts regains and boundaries, set by great(p)s and peers athe likes of, that the tiddlerren lots encounter when attempting to spew their inter acts in an accept qualified way. To precisely crack up to a separate of s obligerren and ask them to play in a friendly way of life represents completely a miniscule factor of carryer instruction. As a infant interacts, he or she must key out to interpret a wide shape of Byzantine cues and requirements. Problems arise when separate requirements conflict with wholeness a nonher or with the shavers accept comprehend needfully and, at time, it is difficult for the child to scan that these requirements counterbalance existThe incorporation of formal rules is peer tenuous facet of social development to which self-aggrandizings assign great significance. Indeed, noncompliance is the some frequent reason for psychiatrical referral of young children (Schaffer, 1999, p. 250). Self- maneuver is grand, of physique. Adults play a crucial part in helping children to achieve control over their stimulate deportment it is only through initial dependence on separates that a child can develop autonomy (Schaffer, 1999, p. 249).What many adults tend to overlook, how incessantly, is that children be just ab protrudetimes trying to operate within several different realities, for each one of which sets by an entirely different set of rules. For example, Turiel (cited in Schaffer, 1996, p. 268) notes that the requirements set forth by the family differ significantly from the requirements set forth in the outside world. Similarly, the objectives of the adults on the playground ar rattling different from the objectives of ones cohorts, an d the child must find a way to interact that satisfies the rules delineated by both assemblys if he is to function successfully. Fin ally, the child must also learn the prehend ways to meet his or her own necessitate. Thus, theprocess of clean development is further much than intricate than memorizing simple phrases much(prenominal) as do this and dont do that.Several attempts come been do to construct a model that tracks the righteous development of children. In this paper, I have found the rifle of Pi mount upt, and Kohlberg to be the near useful references to explain the observations I make on Woodwards playground. In some way, each of their theories gains that virtuous development follows a pattern in which the child progresses from fulfilling the unavoidably of the self to fulfilling the need of the whole. It is important to note, however, that, like any form of development, the internalization of rules does not occur in a rigid, homogenous pattern. I witnes sed displays of self-seeking in children who, according to Piaget, should have moved intumesce into the third lay out of moral development by and and soly.The concept of soft assembly (Thelen, 1994, p. 30) in the dynamic systems perspective provides a oftentimes weaken format for the progression of moral development. According to the dynamic systems perspective, there is no predetermined effect. Rather, reliable innate possibilities, such as the potential for various types of moral conclude, that lay within the child be assembled in a malleable configuration when the environment for such growth is provided. A pattern of manner emerges as the self-organizaition continues, becoming much and to a greater extent stable over time (Thelen, 1994, pp. 30-31).In the example of moral reasoning, the child, recalling memories from each award in his or her animation, attempts to create a sensible pattern from these experiences. It is this pattern that leads to the internalization of a belief system, the belief that this is the way things ought to be, and therefore, this is what I should do in this mail service. Everyone has a unique life experience. Therefore, it makes sand that some children whitethorn have had more opportunity than early(a)s to expand their realm of self-aw arness into the more eff aw arness of the whole. In this paper, I will explore different aspects of several experiences that I had with the children, attempting to make ace of their moral recitations of each situation.I will use the theories of Piaget, Kohlberg, and Eisenberg to provide a loose context for their fashion, with the taste that each child is different, and may not work the profile set forth by each theory in separate situations. On the playground, the children do not know that they argon learning. Their behavior is, for the most part, strictly spontaneous, and, sometimes, they happen upon a new form of successful interaction quite by accident. It is then(preno minal) up to them to remember this behavior, and to utilize it in future situations.* To protect their identities, fictitious names have been disposed(p) to all children mentioned in this report.ObservationsMonday, April 16, 2001Immediately upon entering the playground setting, I became fixd in an opportunity to qualify a rule for a group of children and apply its importance to a greater context. The discussion alsok place between myself and three little girls who were enthralled by my necklaces. The necklaces, I told them, came from my gran, 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 distance of recess. I made it clear, however, that I needed them back at the end of the play period, assuming that they would understand that this deal was non-negotiable.The girls valued to hold up the necklaces for themselves, however, and seemed unable to comprehend that I had set this boundar y because I had a greater motivation (i.e. I did not penury to keep the necklaces simply because I liked them and was creation selfish, scarce because they were from my grandmother and therefore had sentimental value). Instead, they were more focused on the straightaway, tangible evidence, which to them implied that I should be more thoughtful of their needs. Why 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 undecomposed give each of them one of mine and keep one for myself? When that didnt work, they tried to show 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 crosswise the monkey bars, then would I consider relinquishing the jewelry? At this point I reminded them that gifts from relatives were very important to people, and that my grandmother would be hurt if s he knew that I sometimes gave away the presents that she had given to me. I asked them how they would feel if somebody wanted to canvas a gift from their grandmothers. I also stressed that I had explained the conditions in the beginning I took the jewelry off. After this rendering, 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 evidently operated within Kohlbergs cooperate stage of moral taste, the instrumental subroutine orientation. At this stage, children argon able to understand individualized needs, but believe that each individual should and will act in his/her own best interest (Kohlberg, 1969, cited in Berk, 2000, p. 493). Accordingly, the girls formed the belief that they deserved to have the necklaces based on their personal pronenesss, and believed tha t my desire to keep the necklaces were purely based on self-interest as well. This level of thought coincides nicely with the needs of others orientation, which is the second stage in Eisenbergs levels of prosocial reasoning.Without my guidance, they displayed limited perspective-taking skills, as they were unable to conclude on their own that I magnate 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 superpower feel if they were in my position, they were able to take a more empathetic perspective on the situation.In this situation, the girls thinking process coincided more effectively with Eisenbergs level of empathetic orientation (Eisenberg, cited in Berk, 2000, p. 505), as Eisenberg was less concerned more with an empathetic understanding of rules than Kohlberg, who is more oriented tow ard a utilitarian ethical building that focuses on punishment, delegacy, and the needs of society (Berk, 2000, p. 505). With my reminder, they were able to gleam hypothetically upon the situation and understand how they would feel if they were each in my situation, or my grandmothers.While it is helpful to classify the childrens level of moral reasoning in run to understand that a progression did take place with the proper 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 another person would feel, and based their demand on their immediate need. Here, the theory of soft assembly comes into play. They would be able to take this experience and apply it in the future, incorporating more and more experience into their moral development. Selman (1980) indirectly supports the theory of soft assembly through his model of childrens stages of empath y, by postulating that children begin upon the path to empathy by understanding the get words of others as being highly individualized and flexible.Later, as their ability to think in more abstract terms develops, and as their experiences accumulate, they begin to consider the views of others at the same time (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 sufficient cognitive development, empathetic reasoning is also hindered by lack of experience, and a sufficient template of the destiny 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 to 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 unde rstanding why I had placed this limitation on their use of the necklaces. With clear and positive guidance, these third graders demonstrated that they were capable of developing a sense of empathy and understanding a standard in the spirit of its application, but only when they were provided with the opportunity to think slightly their actions.In order to facilitate this development, the authority learn can use several techniques. Each can have a different cushion upon the way that a child processes information, and therefore each can lead to a different outcome in the development of a moral decree. Hoffman (1977) hypothesizes that authority figures use three methods of discipline to show children the genius of their moral mistakes love-oriented discipline (if you do/dont do this, my opinion of you will be raise/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 usually the most effective, because it not only explains the rules, but also appeals 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 leaven to be effective.Through this exchange, one can see the connection with the dialogue between the authority figure and the child set forth by Schaffer. With patience, the adult uses the childs questions to provide feedback about important expatiate in everyday life, and to establish and negotiate rules and boundaries (Schaffer, 1996, p. 261). I used the girls questions to talk about the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren, and the personality of giving gifts. By the end of the conversation, the little girls had a slightly deeper understanding of the concept of sentimental value.Thursday, April 19, 2000Hoffman has found that, while most parents tend to use one of the three tech niques more often than the others, parents usually end up victimization 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 arrest control over a larger group of children, I sometimes assumed the role of the enforcer, using power-assertive discipline along with inductive discipline.The first incident that illustrated this combination of techniques involved a small group of male childs, both in the third or fourth grade, who were threatening to chute off of the swings. I told them that this might not be such a good 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 assertion seemed to have the desired impact. The boys resolute not to jump off of the swings. Later, however, it became appa rent that my more authoritative instruction failed to instill a true sense of compete ripely on the playground.This was illustrated five minutes later, when I turned around and saw that the boys were challenging the other children to walk between the swings without getting hit. Once again I informed them that their behavior was unsafe, but they go on 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 two aspects of the situation. First of all, their behavior was dangerous, and there was a very real chance that one of the children ravel between the swings could have gotten hit at any moment. 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 pow er-assertive role, however, because I provided the boys with feedback for why I was doing this (they were not playing safely and somebody could have been seriously injured) I was also using inductive discipline.However, there were drawbacks to my reaction, and, while it did keep them safe for the moment, power assertion is not the best way to instill an autonomous reaction to a rule. The rule came from the outside, and (fortunately) they were unable to witness 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 grapple that rules are arbitrary agreements that are sometimes based on motivation, is to interact with their 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 c onflict to emerge in a unsloped 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, reciprocal cross 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 structured indorse, where adult rules were consistent and obvious, and the interactions of the children were cooperative and directed at meeting a wide transition of goals, that I was able to fall out the scope of the variables in moral development. I also was able to comparison the more flexible nature of the informal rules that emerge within a group of children without direct adult feedback. Thursday, April 26, 2001The game that allowed such a rich opportunity for observation is called Pom Pom Pull- Away, and it is usually dismissal by bloody shame, one of the head playground supervisory programs. The formal rules are quite simple players run across the soccer field in order to avoid being tagged by the players who are it. The its are accumulated until one runner is left out. This runner then gets to choose whether or not he wants to be it for the next round. This game, 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, Mary and I are merely there to ensure that the game proceeds at a quick pace, and that the chaos corpse ordered. The kids in this group are fourth graders, and they seem to be quite competent at adjacent 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 no w the children have veritable a sense of mutual control, unification of rules, and agreement within a game (Piaget, 1932, cited in vocalist & 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 censure usually coincides with an action that has blackballly affected their own performance in the game, their awareness demonstrates 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 their own code. 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 th ey 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 disclose 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 placement.The game fabricates 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 pleasing 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 enmity, 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 w as directed would respond.However, when children resisted assuming the position of it, (and they often did) I would frequently hear comments from his/her peers such as You are holding up the game Conversely, Mary and I are more in all likelihood to stop aggression, and we are far more sympathetic to tired or frustrated children, reminding them frequently that it is ok to take the weft of resting on the side of the field. Nevertheless, it seems to be far more detrimental to ones social status to break the code 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 se t 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 forever and a day remains the samethe same class has the same playground hours. Thus, they have more of an opportunity to observe one another, 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 interaction that they involve. Conventions are dogmatically taught, being handed 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 othe r family. Moral principles, on the other hand, are acquired because children perceive that certain actions have consequences for other people that are intrinsically harmful witnessing a younger 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 familiarity 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 harmful within the social needs of their age group. Because they are less closely 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 ingrainedly become a second priority. One boy grew particula rly angry at his peers during a hiatus 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. Positive 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 tagged 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 hot or too tired.Several of the boys, however, simply began to walk across the field one day, stating that they could not be tagged 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 understood 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 seem to realize that these rules can be applied to themselves as well. When they are labeled as cheaters, they will in fact say almost 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 conclusions of noncompliance. Through simple tricks such as these, the boys were developing social skills and strategies to pull out 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 understandable 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 l ie 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 accidentally 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 making an appeal to authority, telling me that he had been singled out by his peers, once more, as an object of their aggression. advance(prenominal) in the game, I observed that this was not the case that the falls were all accidents, and Justins reactive behavior might be exacerbating 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 felt. 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 egocentric 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 adult, it would seem that he did not get tagged any more often then the other children. This slight difference in maturity also affected his cognizance 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, ideal adult who epitomizes fair-mindedness and justice, but at the same time they may be inventing their own rules throughout the game (1996, p. 98). Justin distinctly hoped that I would intervene when it seemed that his peers were not treating him according to his perception of fairness, even though this perception would alter to fit the current situation. His name of interaction with me also often assumed the form of a monologue, which is Piagets stage of language development that coincides with the egocentric stage of rule development (cited in Singer & Revenson, 1996, p. 98).In the embodied monologue, a group of children play together and speak, but the speech is often unrelated to what the others are apothegm or doing, and the pu rpose is rarely to exchange real information (cited in Singer & Revenson, 1996, p. 60). This im advanced style of communication may inhibit a childs ability to communicate 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 good 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 not seem to notice that I needed to be interacting with the other children, and showed little interest in the bigger game until he realize 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. H e simply looked at me and was apparently waiting for a response. Here, he relied heavily on our vertical relationship to ensure that he would be treated fairly. For him, it was abruptly 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 acceptance 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 Justin, 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, continued 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 aggressive pattern have been allowed to continue. However, in this early stage of the interaction, it was clea r that Alexs behavior was largely due to his perception of Justins intent. In late childhood, asserts Schaffer, children are more likely to unite 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 believably 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 self-confidence 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 aggressive child attributes his/her actions to anothers behavior, he/she i s 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 bullying 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 encumbrance 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 teaching him the benefits of prosocial behavior, or he had simply figure out that it is more beneficial to act in a manner that keeps the game moving forward. This time, around the beginning of the game, Justin entered late, when the team member who had been tagged last was tr ying 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 prosocial 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 go 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.ConclusionAs time went on, it seemed that more and more of the children were authentically 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 modulation 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 waiver, 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 argumentative 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 player 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 i nterpretation of the rules. Children 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 unacceptable 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 society 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 chop-chop 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 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 negotiate and interact in a cooperative setting provided the greatest environment for the children to learn about the value of rules. When the rule came as a command 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 interacti on, 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 contribute 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. New York Plume.Thelen, Esther. (1994). The improvising infant Learning about learning to move. A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA MIT Press/Bradford Books.Tan, S.L. (2001, April 25). Lecture, Kalamazoo College.