Tag: Model Answer

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

– ## MODULE3DiscussionResponcerwoclassm.docx

**## MODULE3DiscussionResponcerwoclassm.docx**

1.
[**Paige Fanelli**](https://molloy.instructure.com/courses/38987/users/47068) Anecdotal Notes:
First, the child (wearing a blue dress) was playing well with others near the sensory table. They were filling containers with medium/small-sized round stones. Another child asked for a chair, and the child in the blue dress did the same. She reached over to help a peer fill their funnel while also filling her own container. A bit later, a boy tried to pour rocks into her cup, and she told him to stop.

Running Record:
The student is filling a measuring cup and allowing another student to help her. She assists him in pouring stones into the funnel, which then fall into her cup. When the child next to her asks for a chair, she follows by asking for one too. Her face is neutral while speaking. She converses with others about their activity and asserts, “this is my cup.” A few seconds later, the boy tries to put stones in her container and she responds, “hey, I didn’t ask you to put that in there—I’m doing it myself,” showing a furrowed brow and glancing at the teacher. She continues filling her cup and calls out “hey!” when others try to take some of the materials. Eventually, she pulls the rocks closer to her, and the boy leaves the table.

Reflection:
1. What surprised you about the experience?

What surprised me the most about this experience was how much more detail came through during the running record. Even though both observations captured the same event, the running record helped me focus on tone of voice, facial expressions, and the timing of each interaction. It also helped me see the complexity of peer dynamics at the sensory table- how the child could be helpful and social, but also firm and self directed.

2. What were the major differences in both experiences?

The major difference between the two observation formats was the level of detail and structure. The anecdotal notes captured a general summary and key interactions, but the running record showed how behaviors unfolded second by second. This made it easier to interpret the child’s emotions and intentions in the moment.

3. How young is too young for formal assessments?

I think it depends on how we define “formal.” I believe toddlers and preschoolers are too young for standardized testing, but not too young for observational or portfolio-based assessments, which are developmentally appropriate and offer meaningful insights (Morrison et al., 2022). Assessments should fit the child, not the other way around.

4. How are the results of Child Observations useful on a school/district/state/public policy level?

Child observations are useful at every level– school, district, state, and even in shaping public policy. When collected and analyzed thoughtfully, these observations help educators plan instruction, identify early intervention needs, and advocate for appropriate supports. At a systems level, consistent observation data can inform resource allocation, staff training, and family engagement strategies. It’s a small but powerful part of data-driven decision-making in early childhood education.

Reference:
Morrison, G. S., Woika, M. J., & Breffni, L. (2022).
_Early childhood education today_ (15th ed.). Pearson.

2.
[**Viacheslav Cherniaev**](https://molloy.instructure.com/courses/38987/users/46367)

     The video recording occurred in an early childhood classroom where three-four-year-old children were playing in the classroom’s sensory center. There were four children in the video, along with a teacher. It was free play time. Four children were playing with stones on the sensory table.

     Observation: After watching the video for 3 minutes and 8 seconds, I recall the girl in the blue dress engaging actively at the sensory table with stones. She independently pulled a chair to the table, indicating initiative and autonomy. The girl in the blue dress pretended to make medicine and talked with a girl in a blue t-shirt.  She also said she needs more (stones). She interacted with a boy in a red t-shirt, expressing mild frustration when she noticed he added stones to her toy, saying, “Hey, I didn’t see you put some in there. I put some in my own.” She loudly said, “Hey, you took it from my spot!” when the boy took her stones. Her tone suggested she wanted control over her materials. At the end of the video, the girls said, “You're using mine, okay? I may use yours.”

     She appeared engaged in cooperative play but was assertive about her contributions, showing awareness of her actions and those of others. The interaction included dialogue about the activity, with phrases like “i put medicine” and “pretty medicine,” suggesting imaginative play or assigning roles to the stones (e.g., “medicine” or “baby”). Her behavior reflected social and emotional development, as she negotiated space and materials with peers.

1.
**What surprised you about the experience?**

The experience of conducting both an anecdotal and running record revealed the challenge of capturing detailed, objective observations in a dynamic, social setting like a sensory table. I was surprised by how much the girl’s interactions revealed about her social and emotional development in such a short time. Her assertiveness about her contributions (“I put some in my own”) and her imaginative play (“pretty medicine,” “baby”) highlighted her ability to navigate peer interactions and engage creatively, which I didn’t initially expect to be so prominent in a brief observation. The fast-paced nature of the children’s dialogue and actions made it challenging to recall or record everything accurately, especially without including subjective interpretations, as emphasized by Dr. Sharon Smith Sanchez in her video on keeping data “clean and objective.”

2.
**What were the major differences with both experiences?**

     Anecdotal Observation: This method, as described in Chapter 3 (Morrison et al., 2019, p. 97), involves recording observations after the event, relying on memory. It allowed me to summarize the girl’s key behaviors and interactions, but risked missing details due to recall limitations. The focus was on significant moments, like her frustration with the boy and her imaginative play, but it lacked a precise sequence of events.

     Running Record: As outlined in Chapter 3 (Morrison et al., 2021, p. 98) and Dr. Sanchez’s video, this method requires real-time documentation in the present tense, capturing a continuous flow of actions and dialogue. It provided a more detailed, chronological account of the girl’s behavior, including specific phrases and actions (e.g., “I want a chair,” “Yes, put it (about medicine)". However, it was more demanding, as I had to write quickly while observing, which could lead to missing subtle cues if not practiced regularly.

     Key Difference: The anecdotal record is retrospective and concise, focusing on notable events, while the running record is immediate and detailed, capturing the full sequence of behaviors. The running record aligns more closely with Dr. Sanchez’s emphasis on real-time, objective data collection to inform outcomes-driven systems.

3.
**How young is too young for formal assessments?**

     Chapter 3 (Morrison et al., 2021, p. 117) highlights the challenges of assessing young children due to their rapid, uneven development and the need for age-appropriate methods. Formal assessments, such as standardized tests, are often inappropriate for children under 5 because their cognitive, social, and emotional abilities are still emerging, and test results may not accurately reflect their potential. For example, the chapter notes that high-stakes testing for young children can be unreliable and may lead to misplacement or undue pressure (Morrison et al., 2021, p. 117). Instead, authentic assessments like observations, portfolios, and performance-based tasks (e.g., the sensory table activity) are more suitable for preschoolers (ages 3–5), as they align with natural learning processes and developmental stages, as supported by theorists like Piaget and Vygotsky (Morrison et al., 2021, p. 116). Dr. Sanchez’s focus on observation-based data collection reinforces this, suggesting that even very young children can be assessed informally through methods like anecdotal and running records to guide instruction without the rigidity of formal tests. Thus, children under three may be too young for structured formal assessments, but informal, observation-based assessments are appropriate at any age.

4.
**How are the results of child observations useful on a school/district/state/public policy level?**

     Child observations, as discussed in Chapter 3 (Morrison et al., 2021) and Dr. Sanchez’s video, provide critical data for outcomes-driven systems, impacting various levels:

     School Level: Observations like those of the girl in the blue dress reveal individual needs, strengths, and developmental progress (e.g., her assertiveness and imaginative play indicate social and cognitive skills). Teachers can use this data to tailor instruction, adjust classroom environments (e.g., providing more sensory materials), and support peer interactions, aligning with Chapter 4’s emphasis on child-centered education (Morrison et al., 2021, p. 144).

     District Level: Aggregated observation data can inform curriculum development and resource allocation. For instance, if many children show similar social negotiation skills, districts might invest in cooperative learning programs, as seen in the City and Country School example (Morrison et al., 2021, p. 138).

     State Level: Observation data can support advocacy for universal preschool or full-day kindergarten, as Chapter 4 (Morrison et al., 2021, p. 124) notes the benefits of early education for disadvantaged groups. States can use this to justify funding, as seen in programs like Georgia’s Pre-K (Morrison et al., 2021, p. 118).

     Public Policy Level: Observations provide evidence for policies like the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) or Head Start, which prioritize early intervention (Morrison et al., 2021, p. 131). Data showing positive outcomes (e.g., HighScope’s $17.07 return per dollar, Morrison et al., 2021, p. 140) can influence federal funding for inclusive, high-quality early education programs, addressing inequities highlighted during the COVID-19 era (Morrison et al., 2021, p. 132).

     By collecting objective data through observations, as Dr. Sanchez advocates, educators and policymakers can create evidence-based, child-centered systems that promote equity and long-term educational success.

References:

Focused Observations Chapter 4 Video 9"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdZJiWnxhg0Links to an external site.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdZJiWnxhg0)

Dr. Sharon Smith Sanchez
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHGL4rxxzY4Links to an external site.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHGL4rxxzY4)

Morrison, G. S., Breffni, L., & Woika, M. J. (2021).
_Early childhood education today_ (15th ed.). Pearson.

## image1.png

**## MODULE3DiscussionResponcerwoclassm.docx**

1.
[**Paige Fanelli**](https://molloy.instructure.com/courses/38987/users/47068) Anecdotal Notes:
First, the child (wearing a blue dress) was playing well with others near the sensory table. They were filling containers with medium/small-sized round stones. Another child asked for a chair, and the child in the blue dress did the same. She reached over to help a peer fill their funnel while also filling her own container. A bit later, a boy tried to pour rocks into her cup, and she told him to stop.

Running Record:
The student is filling a measuring cup and allowing another student to help her. She assists him in pouring stones into the funnel, which then fall into her cup. When the child next to her asks for a chair, she follows by asking for one too. Her face is neutral while speaking. She converses with others about their activity and asserts, “this is my cup.” A few seconds later, the boy tries to put stones in her container and she responds, “hey, I didn’t ask you to put that in there—I’m doing it myself,” showing a furrowed brow and glancing at the teacher. She continues filling her cup and calls out “hey!” when others try to take some of the materials. Eventually, she pulls the rocks closer to her, and the boy leaves the table.

Reflection:
1. What surprised you about the experience?

What surprised me the most about this experience was how much more detail came through during the running record. Even though both observations captured the same event, the running record helped me focus on tone of voice, facial expressions, and the timing of each interaction. It also helped me see the complexity of peer dynamics at the sensory table- how the child could be helpful and social, but also firm and self directed.

2. What were the major differences in both experiences?

The major difference between the two observation formats was the level of detail and structure. The anecdotal notes captured a general summary and key interactions, but the running record showed how behaviors unfolded second by second. This made it easier to interpret the child’s emotions and intentions in the moment.

3. How young is too young for formal assessments?

I think it depends on how we define “formal.” I believe toddlers and preschoolers are too young for standardized testing, but not too young for observational or portfolio-based assessments, which are developmentally appropriate and offer meaningful insights (Morrison et al., 2022). Assessments should fit the child, not the other way around.

4. How are the results of Child Observations useful on a school/district/state/public policy level?

Child observations are useful at every level– school, district, state, and even in shaping public policy. When collected and analyzed thoughtfully, these observations help educators plan instruction, identify early intervention needs, and advocate for appropriate supports. At a systems level, consistent observation data can inform resource allocation, staff training, and family engagement strategies. It’s a small but powerful part of data-driven decision-making in early childhood education.

Reference:
Morrison, G. S., Woika, M. J., & Breffni, L. (2022).
_Early childhood education today_ (15th ed.). Pearson.

2.
[**Viacheslav Cherniaev**](https://molloy.instructure.com/courses/38987/users/46367)

     The video recording occurred in an early childhood classroom where three-four-year-old children were playing in the classroom’s sensory center. There were four children in the video, along with a teacher. It was free play time. Four children were playing with stones on the sensory table.

     Observation: After watching the video for 3 minutes and 8 seconds, I recall the girl in the blue dress engaging actively at the sensory table with stones. She independently pulled a chair to the table, indicating initiative and autonomy. The girl in the blue dress pretended to make medicine and talked with a girl in a blue t-shirt.  She also said she needs more (stones). She interacted with a boy in a red t-shirt, expressing mild frustration when she noticed he added stones to her toy, saying, “Hey, I didn’t see you put some in there. I put some in my own.” She loudly said, “Hey, you took it from my spot!” when the boy took her stones. Her tone suggested she wanted control over her materials. At the end of the video, the girls said, “You're using mine, okay? I may use yours.”

     She appeared engaged in cooperative play but was assertive about her contributions, showing awareness of her actions and those of others. The interaction included dialogue about the activity, with phrases like “i put medicine” and “pretty medicine,” suggesting imaginative play or assigning roles to the stones (e.g., “medicine” or “baby”). Her behavior reflected social and emotional development, as she negotiated space and materials with peers.

1.
**What surprised you about the experience?**

The experience of conducting both an anecdotal and running record revealed the challenge of capturing detailed, objective observations in a dynamic, social setting like a sensory table. I was surprised by how much the girl’s interactions revealed about her social and emotional development in such a short time. Her assertiveness about her contributions (“I put some in my own”) and her imaginative play (“pretty medicine,” “baby”) highlighted her ability to navigate peer interactions and engage creatively, which I didn’t initially expect to be so prominent in a brief observation. The fast-paced nature of the children’s dialogue and actions made it challenging to recall or record everything accurately, especially without including subjective interpretations, as emphasized by Dr. Sharon Smith Sanchez in her video on keeping data “clean and objective.”

2.
**What were the major differences with both experiences?**

     Anecdotal Observation: This method, as described in Chapter 3 (Morrison et al., 2019, p. 97), involves recording observations after the event, relying on memory. It allowed me to summarize the girl’s key behaviors and interactions, but risked missing details due to recall limitations. The focus was on significant moments, like her frustration with the boy and her imaginative play, but it lacked a precise sequence of events.

     Running Record: As outlined in Chapter 3 (Morrison et al., 2021, p. 98) and Dr. Sanchez’s video, this method requires real-time documentation in the present tense, capturing a continuous flow of actions and dialogue. It provided a more detailed, chronological account of the girl’s behavior, including specific phrases and actions (e.g., “I want a chair,” “Yes, put it (about medicine)". However, it was more demanding, as I had to write quickly while observing, which could lead to missing subtle cues if not practiced regularly.

     Key Difference: The anecdotal record is retrospective and concise, focusing on notable events, while the running record is immediate and detailed, capturing the full sequence of behaviors. The running record aligns more closely with Dr. Sanchez’s emphasis on real-time, objective data collection to inform outcomes-driven systems.

3.
**How young is too young for formal assessments?**

     Chapter 3 (Morrison et al., 2021, p. 117) highlights the challenges of assessing young children due to their rapid, uneven development and the need for age-appropriate methods. Formal assessments, such as standardized tests, are often inappropriate for children under 5 because their cognitive, social, and emotional abilities are still emerging, and test results may not accurately reflect their potential. For example, the chapter notes that high-stakes testing for young children can be unreliable and may lead to misplacement or undue pressure (Morrison et al., 2021, p. 117). Instead, authentic assessments like observations, portfolios, and performance-based tasks (e.g., the sensory table activity) are more suitable for preschoolers (ages 3–5), as they align with natural learning processes and developmental stages, as supported by theorists like Piaget and Vygotsky (Morrison et al., 2021, p. 116). Dr. Sanchez’s focus on observation-based data collection reinforces this, suggesting that even very young children can be assessed informally through methods like anecdotal and running records to guide instruction without the rigidity of formal tests. Thus, children under three may be too young for structured formal assessments, but informal, observation-based assessments are appropriate at any age.

4.
**How are the results of child observations useful on a school/district/state/public policy level?**

     Child observations, as discussed in Chapter 3 (Morrison et al., 2021) and Dr. Sanchez’s video, provide critical data for outcomes-driven systems, impacting various levels:

     School Level: Observations like those of the girl in the blue dress reveal individual needs, strengths, and developmental progress (e.g., her assertiveness and imaginative play indicate social and cognitive skills). Teachers can use this data to tailor instruction, adjust classroom environments (e.g., providing more sensory materials), and support peer interactions, aligning with Chapter 4’s emphasis on child-centered education (Morrison et al., 2021, p. 144).

     District Level: Aggregated observation data can inform curriculum development and resource allocation. For instance, if many children show similar social negotiation skills, districts might invest in cooperative learning programs, as seen in the City and Country School example (Morrison et al., 2021, p. 138).

     State Level: Observation data can support advocacy for universal preschool or full-day kindergarten, as Chapter 4 (Morrison et al., 2021, p. 124) notes the benefits of early education for disadvantaged groups. States can use this to justify funding, as seen in programs like Georgia’s Pre-K (Morrison et al., 2021, p. 118).

     Public Policy Level: Observations provide evidence for policies like the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) or Head Start, which prioritize early intervention (Morrison et al., 2021, p. 131). Data showing positive outcomes (e.g., HighScope’s $17.07 return per dollar, Morrison et al., 2021, p. 140) can influence federal funding for inclusive, high-quality early education programs, addressing inequities highlighted during the COVID-19 era (Morrison et al., 2021, p. 132).

     By collecting objective data through observations, as Dr. Sanchez advocates, educators and policymakers can create evidence-based, child-centered systems that promote equity and long-term educational success.

References:

Focused Observations Chapter 4 Video 9"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdZJiWnxhg0Links to an external site.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdZJiWnxhg0)

Dr. Sharon Smith Sanchez
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHGL4rxxzY4Links to an external site.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHGL4rxxzY4)

Morrison, G. S., Breffni, L., & Woika, M. J. (2021).
_Early childhood education today_ (15th ed.). Pearson.

## image1.png