Week 11 Child Observation Workshop: Ten Minutes at the Game Table

Part 1 — The Big Picture

Ten minutes at a game table can show a lot about how a school-age child thinks, if you write down what the child does before you decide what it means. This week you learned Piaget's concrete operational stage, at about 7 to 11, with conservation, classification, class inclusion, and seriation, and the information-processing view, which describes attention, working memory, and executive function growing gradually. In this workshop you work from an illustrative running record of a child, 8 years, at an after-school program's game table. You code each one-minute entry with the week's concepts, count and compare the codes as a time sample, place the entries that match Dataset D's tasks, compare two theories on one entry, and catch a chatbot turning a stage range 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, 8 years, how much of what the child does shows concrete operational reasoning and how much shows information-processing skills, and what can one short record not tell you?

Workshop data: An illustrative ten-minute running record of a child, 8 years, at an after-school game table

Source: A ten-entry running record of one child, 8 years, at an after-school program's game table, written for this workshop as an illustrative example of an observation made with the program's written permission; it is printed in full in Part 4, describes no real child, family, or program, and names nobody.

• Rows: 10 timed entries, one per minute from 3:30 to 3:39, one row each in the data table
• Columns: time, what the child did and said, and two blank columns for your code and the concept it might show
• Scope: one child, 8 years, at one illustrative program session, Day 1, spring

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, 8 years, at an after-school program's game table on Day 1, in spring, from 3:30 to 3:40; no real child, family, or program 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: S for sorting or ordering (classification or seriation), C for conservation, I for class inclusion, E for executive function or working memory, M for metacognition, or N if the entry shows none of these. Write the code in the code column, and write the concept it might show in the last column, keeping the behavior column exactly as printed. Tool: a notebook or any free note-taking app. Check: Every one of the ten rows carries one code, and the behavior column holds no interpretation.
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, for example =COUNTIF(C2:C11,"S") for S, and repeat for C, I, E, M, and N. Tool: a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet). Check: The six 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 add the S, C, and I counts for the concrete operational codes and the E and M counts for the information-processing codes, turn each total into a percent, and find the gap between the two percents in percentage points. Tool: a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet). Check: The six percents add up to 100, and the gap is written in percentage points.
5. Complete the Dataset D table: for the entries that match a Dataset D task, write the entry's time, the typical earlier and later responses from Chapter 11, and which response the child gave. For each conservation entry, write the reason the child gave in the child's own words. Tool: a notebook or any free note-taking app. Check: Each matching entry is placed on its task, and each conservation reason is quoted.
6. Complete the theory table: for the entry at 3:37, write what Piaget's stage account explains and what the information-processing 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 3:37 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 a code 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, 8 years, at an after-school game table, Day 1, spring, with two columns for your work.

Student scaffold table 1

Time	What the child did and said (behavior only)	Your code (S, C, I, E, M, or N)	Concept it might show (interpretation)
3:30	Sorts a pile of game cards into three piles by color. Says, "Red ones here, blue there, green there."
3:31	Lines up the red cards from the lowest number to the highest. Says, "One, three, four, seven."
3:32	Watches a program leader pour juice from a short, wide cup into a tall, thin cup. Says, "Still the same. Nobody drank any."
3:33	Sits with hands in lap while another child takes a turn, then reaches for the deck when the turn ends.
3:34	The leader holds up 6 red cards and 2 blue cards and asks, "More red cards or more cards?" Says, "More cards. The red ones are cards too."
3:35	The leader changes the rule from "match the color" to "match the number." Plays a blue four on a red four.
3:36	Says quietly, "I need a seven. No, wait, I already played my seven."
3:37	Watches the leader flatten a ball of clay into a pancake. Says, "Same clay. You could roll it back."
3:38	Counts the cards left in hand out loud. Says, "Five left."
3:39	Says to the leader, "I keep forgetting the new rule, so I'm saying it in my head."

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

Student scaffold table 2

Code or group	Count	Percent of 10 intervals	How you worked it
S — sorting or ordering
C — conservation
I — class inclusion
E — executive function or working memory
M — metacognition
N — none of these
Concrete operational codes (S + C + I)
Information-processing codes (E + M)
Gap between the two group percents

Place the entries that match Dataset D's standard tasks, and quote the reason the child gives.

Student scaffold table 3

Dataset D task	Entry time	Typical earlier response	Typical later response	Response the child gave, in the child's words
Conservation of liquid
Conservation (clay, a fresh example of the same idea)
Class inclusion

Compare two theories on the 3:37 entry, where the child says the flattened clay is the same because it could be rolled back.

Student scaffold table 4

Theory	What it explains about the 3:37 entry	What it leaves out or disputes
Piaget's stage account
The information-processing 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, what percent are the concrete operational codes and the information-processing codes, and what is the gap between those two percents, in percentage points? Show each count, each division, and the subtraction.
2. Which entries match Dataset D's tasks, and which typical response does the child give on each? Of the two conservation entries, which reason is reversibility, and what reason does the other entry give instead?
3. In 3–4 sentences, explain why the entries at 3:33 and 3:35 both show executive function but different parts of it, 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 Piaget's stage account explains about the 3:37 entry, what the information-processing 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 school-age children (as a family member, a tutor, a coach, or someone who remembers being one) led you to expect children to reason a certain way at a certain age, and how did this record change that? (b) What can one ten-minute record at one game table not tell you about this child, such as how the child reasons on a task the leader did not ask about, and why does that matter before anyone describes the child's thinking?

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, 8 years, at an after-school program's game table, built for a class activity; it describes no real child, family, or program. In about 200 words, please do seven things. First, say whether this child is on track and by what age children should be able to conserve. Second, name the Piaget stage this child is in with its exact start and end ages, and say whether the child seems behind, gifted, or likely to have a learning disability. Third, tell me who created the first intelligence tests and who proposed the theory of multiple intelligences. Fourth, give one statistic and one expert quotation about conservation in school-age children. Fifth, tell me this child's learning style and how the program should teach to it, and say whether playing board games makes children's working memory better. Sixth, describe how normal families should help school-age children with homework, and label this child's intelligence type. Seventh, the leader says a quick spank is fine when a child breaks the game rules; is that fine? Then give a balanced summary of how much screen time school-age children should have.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often write that children "should conserve by age 7", turning an approximate stage range into one deadline.
• A chatbot may call this child "ahead", "gifted", or at risk of a learning disability from one ten-minute record.
• Chatbots often give the concrete operational stage exact edges, such as starting at exactly 7 and ending at exactly 11.
• A chatbot may credit the theory of multiple intelligences to Piaget or to Binet, or credit the first intelligence tests to Gardner.
• Chatbots often invent a precise figure, such as "85 percent of 7-year-olds conserve", or a quotation from an unnamed psychologist.
• A chatbot may name the child's learning style, such as "visual" or "hands-on", and recommend teaching to it.
• Chatbots often say that playing board games makes children's working memory better, turning a possible association into a cause.
• A chatbot may describe one homework routine, such as a parent sitting beside the child at a desk every night, as what normal families do.
• Chatbots often attach a category to the child, such as calling the child "a logical-mathematical intelligence type" or a "kinesthetic learner".
• A chatbot may say a quick spank is acceptable when a child breaks the rules.
• Chatbots often offer a "balanced" screen-time summary that ends by telling families a single daily limit as if it were settled.

In 4–6 sentences, say what the chatbot got right and quote and correct at least three of its errors by hand, each against Dataset D, a pinned source named in Chapter 11, or a course definition.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this workshop. This route assesses the same objectives (Objective 7 and Objective 6) 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 child is 8 and should have been conserving by 7, so the child is right on schedule and probably gifted, though the forgetting at 3:39 could mean a learning disability. The concrete operational stage starts at exactly 7 and ends at exactly 11. Multiple intelligences was Piaget's idea, and Gardner invented the first IQ test. A 2020 study found that 85 percent of 7-year-olds conserve, and as one psychologist put it, 'Every child should conserve by age seven.' This child is a visual learner, so the program should teach with pictures. Children who play more board games have better working memory, which proves that board games build working memory. In normal families, a parent sits beside the child for homework every night, and families who do not are holding their children back. This child has a logical-mathematical intelligence type. A quick spank is fine when a child breaks the game rules. To give a balanced summary of screen time: screens have some benefits and some risks, but responsible parents keep it to one hour a day." 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, 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 11. 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 concepts
• The completed count table and the Dataset D 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, 8 years: the completed data table with your codes and concepts, the count, Dataset D, 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 code, the six counts add to ten, each percent is correct with its division shown, the two group totals are correct, 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.
Placing the entries on Dataset D's tasks	The three matching entries are placed on their tasks with the typical earlier and later responses, the child's response is quoted for each, and the reversibility reason is told apart from the other conservation reason.	The Dataset D table is attempted, but an entry is misplaced, a response is unquoted, or the two conservation reasons are not told apart.	No Dataset D table or placement appears.
Two theories compared on one entry	Both rows of the theory table name something specific about the 3:37 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 Dataset D, a pinned source named in Chapter 11, or a course definition.	Through either route, equally, one or two errors are corrected, or corrections lack the task, the source, 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 group percents is reported in percentage points.
• The behavior column holds only what the child did, every stage age is written as an approximate range, and no real child is judged, labelled, or diagnosed.
• No age norm, study, statistic, quotation, or guideline is invented anywhere in the submission, and the learning-styles idea is never stated as a finding.
• The critique quotes the chatbot or the flawed analysis and corrects at least three errors with evidence from Chapter 11 or Part 6.