Week 5 Child Observation Workshop: Ten Minutes of Moving

Part 1 — The Big Picture

Ten minutes of watching a baby move can show a lot, if you write down what the baby does before you decide what it means. This week you learned to tell gross motor skills, which use the large muscles of the body, from fine motor skills, which use the small muscles of the hands, and to read a milestone against the WHO windows of achievement (2006) as a range, never a deadline. In this workshop you work from an illustrative running record of a child, 11 months, at a library's baby-and-toddler play session. You code each one-minute entry as gross or fine motor, count and compare the codes as a time sample, find which of the six WHO milestones the record shows, read the one that is missing against its window, compare two theories, and catch a chatbot turning a window into a verdict on a child.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: In ten one-minute entries of an illustrative child, 11 months, how is the child's movement split between gross and fine motor skills, which WHO milestones does the record show, and what can one short record not tell you?

Workshop data: An illustrative ten-minute running record of a child, 11 months, at a library play session

Source: A ten-entry running record of one child, 11 months, at a library's baby-and-toddler play session, written for this workshop as an illustrative example; it is printed in full in Part 4, describes no real child, family, or library, and names nobody.

• Rows: 10 timed entries, one per minute from 9:00 to 9:09, one row each in the data table
• Columns: time, what the child did and said, and two blank columns for your code and the WHO milestone it shows
• Scope: one child, 11 months, at one illustrative play session, Day 1, autumn

Part 3 — Materials & Procedure

Tools and materials

• A notebook or any free note-taking app for observation records kept in two columns (behavior and words; possible interpretation); a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for time and event sample counts and percentages; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose claims about age norms, studies, and health guidance the student checks against a primary or issuing-body source before trusting them
• a notebook or any free note-taking app
• a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet)
• one approved chatbot

Ways of working

• running-record
• sampling
• apply-the-theory

Procedure

1. Read the ten entries in the data table in Part 4. They are an illustrative running record, built for this workshop, of a child, 11 months, at a library play session on Day 1, in autumn, from 9:00 to 9:10; no real child, family, or library is described, and people appear only by role. Tool: a notebook or any free note-taking app. Check: You can say in one sentence what the record shows and that it is illustrative.
2. Give each entry one code: G if the large muscles of the body do the main work (gross motor), or F if the small muscles of the hands do it (fine motor). Write the code in the code column. In the last column, write the WHO milestone the entry shows, if any: sitting without support, standing with assistance, hands-and-knees crawling, walking with assistance, standing alone, or walking alone. Leave it blank if the entry shows none. Tool: a notebook or any free note-taking app. Check: Every one of the ten rows carries one code, and some rows name a WHO milestone.
3. Open a blank sheet. Type Time, Entry, and Code in cells A1 to C1, enter your ten rows in rows 2 to 11, then count each code with =COUNTIF(C2:C11,"G") and =COUNTIF(C2:C11,"F"). Tool: a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet). Check: The two counts add up to 10, the number of one-minute intervals.
4. Turn each count into a percent of all intervals: divide the count by 10 and multiply by 100. Then find the gap, in percentage points, between the two percents, and write each step in the count table. Tool: a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet). Check: The two percents add up to 100, and the gap is written in percentage points.
5. List the WHO milestones the record shows, and name the one of the six it does not show. For that missing milestone, write its WHO window from Chapter 5, work the window's width with a minus sign, and say in one sentence whether 11 months falls inside the window. Tool: a notebook or any free note-taking app. Check: The milestone table has every row filled, and the missing milestone is read as a range, not a deadline.
6. Complete the theory table: for the entry at 9:01, write what nature and nurture as interaction explains and what the ethological view adds or disputes, then answer the five analysis questions. Tool: a notebook or any free note-taking app. Check: Each theory has one specific sentence tied to the 9:01 entry.
7. Paste the Part 6 prompt into one approved chatbot after your completed tables, read its reply, and write your critique report; or complete the equivalent route instead. Tool: one approved chatbot. Check: You have at least three quoted errors, each corrected by hand.

Fallback route

When to use it: Use this route if no spreadsheet is available.

Code and count the entries by hand from the data table: mark G or F beside each entry, count each mark, divide each count by 10, and multiply by 100. Complete every scaffold table, analysis question, and the critique step on paper, and submit the same items for equal credit.

This route earns the same credit as the primary route.

Part 4 — The Scaffold

The data come first: an illustrative ten-minute running record of a child, 11 months, at a library play session, Day 1, autumn, with two columns for your work.

Student scaffold table 1

Time	What the child did and said (behavior only)	Your code (G or F)	WHO milestone shown, if any
9:00	Crawls on hands and knees from the rug to a low bench.
9:01	Pulls up to stand, holding the edge of the bench with both hands.
9:02	Picks up a small block between thumb and finger and drops it into a cup.
9:03	Steps sideways along the bench, holding on with both hands.
9:04	Lets go of the bench and stands alone, then sits down.
9:05	Sits on the rug without support and looks toward the caregiver.
9:06	Turns the thick pages of a board book one at a time.
9:07	Passes a rattle from the left hand to the right hand.
9:08	Holds both of the caregiver's hands and takes six steps across the rug.
9:09	Picks up a piece of cereal with thumb and finger and brings it to the mouth.

Count each code across the ten one-minute intervals, then turn each count into a percent of the ten intervals.

Student scaffold table 2

Code	Count	Percent of 10 intervals	How you worked it
G — gross motor
F — fine motor
Gap between the two percents

Check the record against the six WHO milestones, and read the one it does not show against its window.

Student scaffold table 3

WHO milestone	Seen in the record? (time of the entry)	WHO window from Chapter 5 (months)	Reading in one plain sentence
Sitting without support		3.8 to 9.2
Standing with assistance		4.8 to 11.4
Hands-and-knees crawling		5.2 to 13.5
Walking with assistance		5.9 to 13.7
Standing alone		6.9 to 16.9
Walking alone		8.2 to 17.6

Compare two theories on the 9:01 entry, where the child pulls up to stand at the bench.

Student scaffold table 4

Theory	What it explains about the 9:01 entry	What it leaves out or disputes
Nature and nurture as interaction
The ethological view

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. Using your sheet or a hand count, how many intervals carry each code, what percent of the ten intervals is each, and what is the gap between the two percents, in percentage points? Show each count, each division, and the subtraction.
2. Which of the six WHO milestones does the record show, and which one does it not show? For the missing one, write its window, work its width, and say in one plain sentence whether 11 months falls inside it.
3. In 3–4 sentences, explain why the entry at 9:02 and the entry at 9:01 get different codes even though both use the hands, and why your behavior column holds only what the child did, not what it might mean.
4. Using your theory table, in 3–4 sentences say what nature and nurture as interaction explains about the 9:01 entry, what the ethological view adds or disputes, and end with one sentence naming what the comparison shows.
5. Reflection — choose one and answer it in 4–6 sentences. (a) What in your own experience with babies (as a family member, a caregiver, or someone who has heard family stories) led you to expect a certain age for walking, and how did the WHO window change that? (b) What can one ten-minute record not tell you about this child, such as when the child first did each skill, and why does that matter before anyone talks about a milestone?

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment

Choose one equal-credit critique route. Route A: ask an approved AI tool to critique your completed work, then check its response against your own evidence. Route B is the no-AI equivalent printed below.

Approved tools: Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, Grok, Microsoft Copilot.

Prompt to paste:

I've pasted my completed running record and time-sample table above. They come from an illustrative ten-minute observation of a child, 11 months, at a library's baby-and-toddler play session, built for a class activity; it describes no real child or family. In about 200 words, please do seven things. First, say whether this child is on track for walking and by what age babies should walk. Second, name the Piaget stage and the Erikson stage this child is in, with their exact start and end ages. Third, tell me who created the windows of achievement for motor milestones. Fourth, give one statistic and one expert quotation about when babies walk. Fifth, say whether crawling is necessary and what happens to babies who skip it, and whether talking to babies makes them walk sooner. Sixth, describe how normal families should arrange a baby's day for good motor development, and describe this child's temperament and attachment. Seventh, the caregiver says the child naps better on the tummy; is that fine? Then give a balanced summary of breastfeeding and formula.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often write that babies "should be walking by 12 months", turning a wide window into one deadline.
• A chatbot may call this child "behind" or suggest a motor delay or therapy from one ten-minute record.
• Chatbots often give a stage's edges as exact ages, such as the sensorimotor stage ending at exactly 24 months or the trust stage ending at exactly 12 months.
• A chatbot may credit the windows of achievement to Piaget or to a single famous researcher.
• Chatbots often invent a precise statistic ("90 percent of babies walk by 13 months") or a quotation from an unnamed pediatrician.
• A chatbot may state as fact that crawling is essential and that babies who skip it struggle to read later.
• Chatbots often turn an association into a cause, such as saying that talking to babies makes them walk earlier.
• A chatbot may describe one way of arranging a baby's day, such as floor play in a separate play space, as what normal families do.
• Chatbots often attach research categories to a child, such as calling this baby "securely attached" or an "easy baby".
• A chatbot may say short tummy naps are fine for a baby who naps better that way.
• Chatbots often offer a "balanced" summary of infant feeding that ends by ranking families, such as calling one choice what responsible parents do.

In 4–6 sentences, say what the chatbot got right and quote and correct at least three of its errors by hand, each against the WHO windows, the American Academy of Pediatrics' 2022 statement, or a course definition from Chapter 5.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this workshop. This route assesses the same objectives (Objective 4 and Objective 2) for comparable effort, about 30 of the 90 minutes, under the same scoring criteria and the same credit. Instead of the chatbot, critique this flawed analysis, printed here in full: "This baby is 11 months old and should be walking by 12 months, so the child is a little behind and probably has a motor delay that needs therapy. Piaget's sensorimotor stage ends at exactly 24 months, and Erikson's trust stage ends at exactly 12 months, so the child is right at the edge of both. The windows of achievement were created by Piaget to show when babies are on schedule. A 2019 study found that 90 percent of babies walk alone by 13 months, and as one pediatrician put it, 'A baby who isn't walking by the first birthday is falling behind.' Crawling is essential, because babies who skip crawling have trouble learning to read later. Parents who talk to their babies more have babies who walk earlier, which proves that talking makes babies walk. In normal families, babies spend the day on the floor in their own play space, and families who carry their babies most of the day hold back their development. This child is a securely attached, easy baby. Since the caregiver says the child naps better on the tummy, short tummy naps are fine for this child. To give a balanced summary of feeding: breastfeeding has some benefits and formula has some benefits, but responsible parents choose breastfeeding." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (an age stated as a deadline, a norm used to judge or diagnose one child, stage ages presented as exact, a term credited to the wrong researcher, an invented study, statistic, or quotation, a myth presented as a finding, a correlation presented as a cause, one family form presented as the norm, a research category used as a label for a child, safety guidance that contradicts the issuing body, and a neutral-sounding summary that quietly takes a side), and correct at least three of them by hand against Chapter 5. Submit the marked-up analysis in place of the chatbot report and share link; it earns the same credit under the same scoring criteria.

Part 7 — What to Submit

• The completed data table with your codes and WHO milestones
• The completed count table and the WHO milestone table
• The completed theory table
• Written answers to all five analysis questions, including your reflection
• The chatbot critique report with its share link, or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis

Deliverable:

A short Child Observation Workshop report on an illustrative ten-minute running record of a child, 11 months: the completed data table with your codes and WHO milestones, the count, milestone, and theory tables, written answers to five analysis questions including a reflection, and a critique of a chatbot's reading of the same record, or, on the equivalent route, a marked-up correction of the printed flawed analysis. Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text. Choose a written, recorded, or visual form for your answers; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria.

Rubric

The rubric below shows how each submitted part is evaluated; bands are full, partial, or none.

Workshop evaluation criteria

Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Coding the running record and counting the time sample	Every entry carries a defensible G or F code, the two counts add to ten, each percent is correct with its division shown, and the gap is given in percentage points.	The codes or counts are attempted but one count or percent is wrong or unshown, the gap is missing or given in percent, or several entries lack a code.	No codes, counts, or percents appear, or the numbers are invented rather than counted.
Reading the milestones against the WHO windows	The five milestones the record shows are matched to their entries, the missing milestone is named with its window and width, and 11 months is read as inside that range rather than against a deadline.	The milestone table is attempted, but a milestone is mismatched, the width is wrong or unshown, or the missing milestone is read as a deadline.	No milestone table or reading appears.
Two theories compared on one entry	Both rows of the theory table name something specific about the 9:01 entry, the answer says what the second theory adds or disputes, and it ends with one sentence naming what the comparison shows.	The table or answer is attempted but one theory is missing or vague, or the comparison stops at listing.	No comparison of theories appears.
The AI slip caught and corrected	Through the chatbot report with its share link or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis, equally, at least three quoted errors are each named and corrected by hand against the WHO windows, the American Academy of Pediatrics' 2022 statement, or a course definition.	Through either route, equally, one or two errors are corrected, or corrections lack the window, the statement, or the definition they rest on.	Through either route, no critique is submitted, or chatbot or printed text is pasted without any correction.
Respect for the child and the reflection	The behavior column stays free of interpretation, no real child is judged, labelled, or diagnosed, and the reflection answers option (a) or (b) with a specific example in 4–6 sentences.	The record or analysis slips once into judging or labelling the child, or the reflection is present but general.	The child is judged, labelled, or diagnosed throughout, or no reflection appears.

Quality Gate

• Every count and percent comes from your own sheet or hand count of the data table, never from memory or a chatbot.
• Each count divided by 10 and multiplied by 100 equals the percent you report for it, and the gap between the two percents is reported in percentage points.
• The behavior column holds only what the child did, every age is written as a range or a WHO window, and no real child is judged, labelled, or diagnosed.
• No age norm, study, statistic, quotation, or health guideline is invented anywhere in the submission, and safe sleep appears only as the American Academy of Pediatrics' 2022 statement states it.
• The critique quotes the chatbot or the flawed analysis and corrects at least three errors with evidence from Chapter 5 or Part 6.