Week 6 Discussion — What Does the Baby Know? — Traditional alternative (no AI)

Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.

Hook

A 9-month-old watches a toy go under the right cloth and then lifts the left one. A parent laughs, "She forgot!" A researcher might say she knows more than her reach shows. This week you read Piaget's schemes and sensorimotor stage, object permanence and the A-not-B error, early language, and the CDC's 2022 milestone checklists, and you read the running case's records R2 and R3.

Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.

Option A: Record R2 of the running case (illustrative) shows a 9-month-old who finds a toy twice under the left cloth, watches it hidden under the right cloth, then searches under the left cloth again. Piaget read searches like this as the A-not-B error of the fourth sensorimotor substage, while later looking-time research suggests infants may know more about hidden objects than a reach can show. When a caregiver sees a search like R2's, is it fairer to describe the infant by what the infant does or by what the infant might know? Use object permanence, the A-not-B error, and the idea of a refinement rather than a refutation, and give the strongest case for the view you did not take.

Option B: An infant-and-toddler program is writing a family newsletter about the CDC's "Learn the Signs. Act Early." checklists, revised in 2022 so that each lists what most children (75 percent or more) do by an age. Should the newsletter encourage families to use the checklists at home, keep them for conversations at checkups, or leave them out? Use the 75 percent rule, the idea that a checklist is a reason to talk with a health professional and never a diagnosis, and record R3 (illustrative: "ball", "up", and "more" at 14 months), and give the strongest case for a choice you did not make.

There is no single right answer. A reach is something you can see, and a long look is easier to misread; a checklist can start a helpful conversation, and it can also start a worry. Pick the option you care about, and show us your reasoning.

Expectations

Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.

Working on your own: this version of the discussion is written entirely from your own reasoning, in your own words.

Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):

• Say which option you chose.
• For Option A, say whether a caregiver should describe R2 (illustrative) by what the infant does or by what the infant might know, and why; for Option B, say what the newsletter should do with the checklists, and why.
• Use at least two of this week's terms (object permanence, the A-not-B error, looking-time research, receptive and expressive language, the milestone checklist) correctly.
• Give your judgment, with a reason, and give the other view or choice its strongest case. Never judge a real child as ahead or behind.
• Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.

Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):

• Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
• A substantive reply does more than agree: name a reader the classmate's description or newsletter might mislead, offer the strongest case for the view they did not take, or point to record R2, record R3, or the 75 percent rule to support or complicate their reading. "Nice point!" on its own does not count.

What a strong post looks like:

I chose Option A and would describe R2 by what the infant does first: "searched under the left cloth after watching the toy go under the right one." That keeps the record honest, and it already shows real object permanence, since the infant found the toy twice. The other side has a point: looking-time work suggests the infant may know more than the reach shows, so "she forgot" could be unfair. I would still want to know what a looking task showed for an infant this age before I wrote more.

Notice how it keeps the behavior apart from the reading, uses the week's terms, gives the other side its due, and says what it would still check. That is the bar.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.

Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com