Developmental Blog 4: Teaching Feelings.

           After last week’s discussion about whether or not you can teach emotion, I caught myself teaching emotion at my practicum site on Monday.  I was totally against the idea that feelings could be taught. As some people were voicing, everyone’s idea of a feeling is different therefore they can’t be taught.

            Monday morning while working at my practicum, I contradicted myself. I was trying to teach a child that he was feeling mad.  During playtime, a child was asked to place their feet on the ground. After a few requests, the child was physically prompted to place his feet on the ground.  At this point the child started to kick, slap, and throw things at his surrounding classmates and me. I took the child away from his classmates and tried to block the aggressive behavior. As the tantrum was unfolding I was instructed to tell him that his tantrum behavior was not an option and that he can say “I feel mad” along with signing “mad” to him. Totally contradicting myself, I was instructed to teach a child the feeling of mad.  Behaviorally, I can say I was trying to reinforce him saying or signing, “I feel mad” instead of using aggressive behavior. Either way I found it funny that I had contradicted myself.

            Once I looked closer at my everyday interactions at my practicum site the other teachers and myself are teaching children feelings all the time. We differentially reinforce one child for saying, “I feel happy” instead of screaming when he gets excited and teaching “I feel mad” instead of throwing a tantrum. Teaching feelings surrounds me everyday, but I still find it odd to teach feelings. 

Children’s Perception of Gap Affordances: Bicycling Across Traffic-Filled Intersections in an Immersive Virtual Environment. By Jodie M. Plumert, Joseph K. Kearney, and James F. Cremer

           This study investigated children and adult’s road-crossing behavior in an immersive virtual environment. With bicycle crashes among the most common severe injuries in childhood, the researchers wanted to investigate the why collisions between bicycles and cars. Sixty ten and 12 year olds and adult participated in this study. They rode a bicycle mounted on a stationary trainer through a virtual environment that consisted of 6 intersections.

            After the participants rode the bicycle through a 3-5 minute warm-up period they participated in a 10-minute test session, which had them riding on a street where they crossed six intersections. The intersections had continuous traffic moving through them. The temporal distance between the cars was stated as “the difference between the time which the rear of the first vehicle reached the crossing line and the time which the front of the second vehicle reached the crossing line.” The participants were randomly assigned to two groups. One group experienced cars travelling at 25mph for intersections 1-3, and then 35mph at intersections 4-6. The second group experienced cars traveling at 35mph for intersections 1-3 and 25mph for intersections 4-6.  The participants were given instructions to stop at each of the 6 intersections but cross when they felt ready.

            The results of the study examined five behaviors measured among the different age groups: stopping, waiting time, gap choice, time left to spare, and start-up time.  At the first intersection almost all of the participants came to a complete stop before crossing the intersection, but at the remaining intersection many did not come to a complete stop. The ten-year-olds in the 25mph first condition were less likely to stop at the intersections than the ten-year-olds in the 35mph first group. This result could suggest that starting out with slower moving vehicles led children not to be as cautious about stopping at the intersections. Participants in both conditions waited longer at intersection one than any of the other intersections. The waiting time behavior result suggested that participants were more cautious before crossing an intersection when the cars were going faster. The researchers came to this conclusion based on data that showed participants in the 35mph first condition waited for larger gaps than their counterparts in the 25mph first condition. The age difference had an effect only in how much time children and adults left to spare between themselves and the approaching car when they decided to cross the intersection. There was no age difference seen in the size of the gaps children and adults chose to cross.

             There are several reasons why children had less time to spare when crossing the gaps even though they chose the same gaps to cross as the adults. One reason may be that it takes children longer to start moving than an adult. The measurements for this theory were not significant. Another reason why children had less time to spare is that it may take children a longer period of time to bicycle from the starting point to the edge of the roadway, but the measurement of this theory show there was no effect with age. The final possible conclusion the researchers can make about why children have less time to spare than adults is that it is a combination of the two previous reasons, getting started and reaching the roadway.

            In conclusion the study noted that children have a harder time coordinating their body movements than adults, which is why they have left time to spare between cars than adults. The study also noted that because children and adults chose the exact same gaps to cross shows that children and adults do not vary in their opinion of the relevant visual information. A further area of study would look at whether children and adults act differently in a virtual situation than in a real life situation, but it is not ethical to perform this exact experiment in real life.

            The conclusions of this study about children not having great coordination to get the bicycle moving relates to what the Berk book is discussing as far as physical and mental development in children.  As children develop their coordination gets better and their motor skills improve, as they get stronger. As children perform more and more task that require them to use their visual perceptive skills, these skills will also improve. I found the result of this study surprising in that children and adults picked the same gaps to cross. I would have thought that children and adults would have varied because adults have experience with driving, they may have a better perception of how fast a car is moving and when a safe time to cross would occur. Also I would have thought age would have played a factor because they tested children who were at the age they start to develop the idea that they are invincible and bad things don’t happen to them. Obviously, my ideas are not right, and physical development and motor skills seem to play the biggest role.

Understanding Minds and Evidence for Belief: A Study of Mofu Children in Cameroon. Penelope G. Vinden

            This study looked at Mofu children’s ability to give evidence for a belief and their understanding of minds. The study participants were 154 schooled and nonschooled children who were given a novel evidence task and a series of theory-of-mind tasks. They ranged in age from 4 to 11 years of age and were tested by two native Mofu speakers.

            In the standard understanding of minds scenario, a series of three tasks were conducted. In the change of location task, a false belief was created by the child for another person. The child transferred objects from one location to another without the other person’s knowledge. Then the interviewer questioned the child about false belief. They were asked questions such as where would the other look for the object and where he would think it was?  These questions are designed to test a child’s ability to apply their knowledge about a situation in the area of emotion.

             The next scenario testing the understanding of minds was the change in contents tasks. The child removed matches from a matchbox and replaced them with small stones.  Then the child was questioned about what he thought was in the box and what another person would think was in the box before it was opened. Also the child was given a piece of wrapped candy that was actually piece of millet stalk when the child opened it. He was asks the same questions about what he thought was in the wrapper and what another person would think was in the wrapper.

            The final scenario was the surprising objects tasks. During this task a sponge rock and a rubber snake were placed in a box of leaves. The child was asked what the items looked like, what they were, and what another person would think the items were before they touched them.

            To examine a child’s understanding of evidence a scenario was conducted in which one experimenter asks the other to take a close cardboard outside. The experimenter tries to lift the box but can’t. He then says he is going to go find someone to help him because the box is too heavy. After the man leaves the other experimenter shows the child what is inside the box, bags of sand. Then the child is asked, “Whys is this box so heavy?” After this question is asked the experimenter suggest that they hide the bags of sand from the man as a trick. The bags are then hidden and the following questions are asked of the child, “When he comes back, but before he lifts it with his friend, will he think the box is heavy or light? How will he know it is heavy or light? When they come back, when they lift it, will they think the box is heavy or light? How will they know the box is heavy or light?”(p.175)

            The results show that at age 5, 75% of schooled and 45% of nonschooled children have an understanding of theory of mind. Nonschooled children have the opportunity to improve with age, but will never catch up to their schooled peers. The study also suggests that theory of mind may develop before children go to school, but a school setting helps to enhance their understanding of mind. For the evidence task, almost all the children answered the simple questions about evidence correctly (Why was the box heavy and would the man think the box is heavy or light when he returns?). There seemed to be an improvement with age but not with schooling for the children’s ability to give evidence for a false belief. The study also suggest that relying on real world experiences instead of schooling may give children a better understanding of evidence for beliefs. Overall the study concluded that understanding of minds may be universally developed, and understanding of evidence is acquired more gradual than understanding of minds.

            I found it interesting that the study suggested that school only promoted an understanding of minds but was not necessary. School may enhance the development of this type of understanding, but it is not completely responsible for the acquistion of this skill. Children who were nonschooled learned the idea of theory of mind from their parents and their surroundings. To me, this suggests a strong parental involvement and a nurturing environment can help a child to understand their world and schooling can promote the further understanding of the world. Parents can help to guide children when they make an illogical explanation for something just as school can guide them through logical reasoning.

Developmental Journal #3

            After reading chapter 8 and the books discussion on when children acquire writing skills, I started looking at my three-year-old nephew. I found an interesting contrast between what the book says and what is being played out in front of me.

            My nephew just turned three last week and has been writing his own name and a few other simple words for about 6 months now. Granted, he has a fairly simple name, its only three letters and they are all simple letters to reproduce. I found it unusual that the book said that children begin to copy letters around the age of 4-5 and copy simple words around age 5-6. As much as I would like to think that my nephew is a genius, I don’t think this is the case. My nephew’s preschool class, which is all three-year-olds, has a class goal of having them all be able to write their name by the end of the school year. I feel that this is an acceptable goal for three-year-olds and they should be capable of achieving it.  The contrast between the book and what I am seeing with my nephew had me wondering if schools are placing more emphasis on being able to write at a younger age?  With more children being placed in childcare systems, more emphasis is being placed on a classroom setting. Therefore, I feel that skills such as writing are being taught and mastered earlier. I also wonder if this will cause any long-term effects such as dislike for writing because it was being taught at an earlier age? 

            This is just an interesting contrast I have noticed in my own life. I’m curious to know if those people with children have seen any other contrast such as this?

            Here is a picture of my nephews attempt to write his own name. Like I said it is only three letters (Ari) but I feel like it is legible given his age. His handwriting is only going to get better as the years go by.