| Course | PS 105 Developmental Psychology |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Early childhood observation |
| Length | About 1,050 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Psychology |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PS 105 Unit 3
Thirty Minutes at the Block Table: A Composite Early Childhood Observation Write-Up With the Record and the Inference Kept Apart, Read Through Parten and Vygotsky
Student Name
Psychology, Herzing University
PS 105: Developmental Psychology
Instructor Name
March 30, 2026
Thirty Minutes at the Block Table: A Composite Early Childhood Observation Write-Up With the Record and the Inference Kept Apart, Read Through Parten and Vygotsky
A Note on This Example
The observation in this course is fieldwork every student carries out personally, under the permission rules the classroom sets. Nobody else can observe a child for you. This example shows the shape of a finished write-up using a composite child and setting built for illustration, so that no real child appears in it.
Method
The observation took place in the children's area of a public library during an open play hour, on a weekday morning, and lasted thirty minutes, from 10:05 to 10:35. The child, identified here as Child M, was a girl aged four years and three months. Her parent gave written permission on the consent form provided by the course before the observation began, and was present in the room throughout. I sat at a table about three meters away and did not speak to Child M or the other children. I used a running record, writing down in sequence what the child did and said, with the time noted every few minutes. Afterward I rewrote my notes into the numbered entries below without adding anything. The record contains no surname, no photograph and no detail that could identify the child or her family.
The Record
1. 10:05. M walks to the block table, where two boys are building. She picks up four long wooden blocks and carries them to the empty end of the table.
2. 10:07. M lays the blocks in a square on the table. She says, quietly, "This is the wall. This is the wall. Now the door." She removes one block from the square.
3. 10:09. M looks at the two boys for about twenty seconds while holding a block. One boy is stacking blocks into a tower. M does not speak.
4. 10:11. M begins stacking blocks on one side of her square. She says, "Up, up, up. Careful." The stack falls when it reaches five blocks. She says, "Oops. Too many," and restarts with three.
5. 10:15. A boy reaches toward M's blocks. M pulls her square closer and says, "That's my house." The boy returns to his tower.
6. 10:18. M places a small plastic animal inside her square and says, "The dog lives here. He's sleeping." She lowers her voice. She moves the animal around inside the square.
7. 10:22. The second boy says, "Can my horse come?" M says, "Okay, but he has to use the door." The boy moves a horse through the gap in M's square. Both children move their animals inside the square.
8. 10:26. M says, "Now they're eating dinner." The boy says, "Horses eat hay." M says, "Dogs eat dog food." Both children hand pretend food to the animals.
9. 10:31. The first boy's tower falls loudly. M looks up, then returns to the animals. The second boy goes back to his own end of the table.
10. 10:33. M takes the dog out, rebuilds the missing wall of the square and says, "Now it's closed. Bedtime."
Inference
This section is where the developmental vocabulary appears, and every claim points to a numbered entry.
Kinds of play
Parten (1932) classified preschool children's social participation in play, from unoccupied and solitary play through onlooker behavior, parallel play beside others, associative play involving shared activity without a common goal, and cooperative play organized around shared roles. Across the observation M moved among several of these. Entries 1, 2 and 4 show solitary play near other children. Entry 3, watching the tower for twenty seconds without joining, matches onlooker behavior. Entries 7 and 8, in which M and a boy move animals in a shared space and exchange ideas about dinner, fit associative play, and the shared rule about the door in entry 7 hints at the beginnings of cooperation. Entry 9 shows the play coming apart again. Parten found that older preschool children engaged in more associative and cooperative play than younger ones, and M's movement among the categories is consistent with a child in the middle of that shift.
Talking to herself
In entries 2, 4 and 10, M speaks to no one in particular, narrating and directing her own building. Vygotsky (1978) argued that such private speech is not a sign of immaturity but a tool for guiding one's own activity, an intermediate step between talk with others and silent inner speech. Entry 4 is the clearest case: after the stack falls, M says "Too many" and changes her plan, which looks like speech used to regulate action.
Pretend play
Entries 6 and 8 show symbolic play, in which a block square stands for a house and a plastic animal for a sleeping dog. Piaget and Inhelder (1969) described symbolic play as a hallmark of the preoperational period, when children can use one thing to represent another.
Limits of the Observation
One thirty-minute session cannot show what is typical for this child. M may play differently at home, on another day or with other children. My presence, even at a distance, may have changed her behavior. Assigning entries to Parten's categories involved judgment; entry 7 could reasonably be read as associative or as early cooperative play. And because the child and setting in this example are composite, the write-up shows the form of the assignment, not findings about any real child.
What a Second Observation Would Add
If the assignment allowed a second session, three changes would strengthen it. Observing at the same time on a different day would show whether the movement between solitary and associative play is typical for M or happened to follow from who else was at the table. Using a time-sampling method alongside the running record, noting the kind of play every thirty seconds, would allow a rough count of how much time M spent in each of Parten's categories rather than relying on a few memorable entries. And recording private speech word for word throughout, rather than only when it was easy to hear, would give a fuller picture of how M uses speech to guide her building. Each change keeps the same rule as this write-up: describe first, interpret afterward, and tie every interpretation to something recorded.
References
Parten, M. B. (1932). Social participation among pre-school children. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 27(3), 243-269. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074524
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. Basic Books.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Reading the PS 105 Unit 3 instructions
The third PS 105 unit asks students to observe a real child and write up what they saw. The observation itself is your fieldwork and must follow your classroom's permission process, usually written consent from a parent or the setting. The write-up typically includes a method section stating where, when and how long, the recording approach and the permission obtained, with the child identified only by an initial or code. The record comes next, written as plain description in the past tense with no interpretation. Inference follows in its own section, where developmental terms appear and each reading points to a line of the record. Identifying details, photographs and surnames must be left out.
How the PS 105 Unit 3 example is put together
Before the method section, the example states plainly that it uses a composite child. The method covers a library play area, a thirty-minute running record, the observer's position and the parent's written consent. Ten numbered, time-stamped entries form the record, written without interpretation. The inference section applies Parten's categories of social participation, Vygotsky's account of private speech and Piaget's description of symbolic play, each tied to entry numbers. A limits section names the single session, observer effects and judgment calls in coding. The close suggests time sampling and fuller recording of private speech for a second observation. Each inference names the entry numbers it rests on, so the two voices of the document never blur together.
Where the points sit in the PS 105 Unit 3 rubric
Herzing's rubric for the observation usually rewards a complete method section, documented permission, an objective record, inference clearly separated and linked to the record, appropriate use of frameworks and honest limits. The method criterion earns credit when setting, duration and recording approach are stated. Permission is often a required element rather than a scored one. The record scores highest when it contains no interpretation at all. Separation and linking are typically weighted most heavily, rewarding inferences that cite specific entries. Frameworks earn points when credited and applied rather than named. Limits are judged on whether the student recognizes what one session cannot show.
Common PS 105 Unit 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Observation write-ups lose points most often by mixing interpretation into the record, such as writing that a child was shy rather than what the child did. Another common mistake is inference that cites no particular entry. Students sometimes forget the permission statement or include identifying details. Some apply a framework in general terms without connecting it to observed behavior. Others claim that one session reveals a child's typical development. Nobody can carry out the observation for you. What our writers can help with is understanding the structure, as in this composite example, so your own write-up keeps record and inference apart. Writing the record in present-tense commentary, rather than past-tense description, is another habit that costs marks.
Get a PS 105 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Here the offer is narrower than elsewhere: send the Unit 3 instructions and your PS 105 rubric, and we write a composite example showing the structure and register a finished write-up uses. Your own observation, permission and record stay yours to do. First custom sample free, back in 24 to 48 hours.
More PS 105 papers and psychology samples
- PS 105 Unit 1: Developmental theory overview
- PS 105 Unit 2: Prenatal and infancy paper
- PS 105 Unit 4: Middle childhood application
- PS 105 Unit 5: Adolescence paper
- PS 105 Unit 6: Theorist comparison
- PS 105 Unit 7: Adulthood and aging paper
- PS 105 Unit 8: Lifespan case analysis
- PS 130 Unit 3: Credential and licensure analysis
- PS 101 Unit 3: Biological basis short paper
- PS 210 Unit 3: Attachment and family paper
- PS 303 Unit 3: Attitudes and persuasion paper
PS 105 Unit 3 questions, answered
Can somebody write the observation for me?
No, and nobody honestly can. The record has to come from a child you actually watched, under the permission your classroom sets out, and an invented observation presented as real is both fabricated data and an integrity problem. What a sample can show is the shape: how the method section reads, where description stops, how inference is tied back. The fieldwork remains yours.
How do I get permission, and from whom?
Your classroom decides that, not us. Sections differ on whether a parent or guardian signs something, whether a setting has to agree separately, and whether public places are acceptable at all, and some supply a form. Read the instructions first and ask your instructor where anything is unclear, because a write-up that skips this is usually marked down even when the observation itself is good.
What do I have to leave out about the child?
Anything that could identify them. The name goes, and so do the setting's name, the family's circumstances, any health information and details specific enough to make the child recognizable to a reader who knows them. An initial or a code carries the record perfectly well. Nursery reports, school files and clinical notes about a child are that family's property and stay out of coursework.
Where can I find a free PS 105 Unit 3 sample paper?
At no charge you can read the PS 105 Unit 3 observation example, built on a composite child, including the method, the numbered record, the inference and margin notes. The observation itself must be your own fieldwork; for help structuring your write-up, send the prompt and we will explain the format free.
What do I have to leave out about the child in PS 105 Unit 3?
Anything that could identify the child or family. The sample uses an initial, gives only age and setting type, and includes no surname, photograph or location detail.