Week 12 Child Observation Workshop: Ten Minutes at Soccer Practice

Part 1 — The Big Picture

Ten minutes at a soccer practice can show a lot about a school-age child's friendships and reasoning, if you write down what the child does before you decide what it means. This week you learned how friendship shifts toward loyalty and trust in middle childhood, how friendship differs from peer acceptance, stopbullying.gov's three-element definition of bullying, Kohlberg's three levels of moral reasoning, and Gilligan's critique that his scheme undervalued an ethic of care. In this workshop you work from an illustrative running record of a child, 10 years, at a recreation center's youth soccer practice. You code each one-minute entry with the week's concepts, count and compare the codes as a time sample, check one argument against the bullying definition, read two moral reasons by what they are about, compare two theories on one entry, and catch a chatbot turning one practice 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, 10 years, at soccer practice, how much of what the child does shows peer relationships and how much shows social comparison and moral reasoning, and what can one short record not tell you?

Workshop data: An illustrative ten-minute running record of a child, 10 years, at a youth soccer practice

Source: A ten-entry running record of one child, 10 years, at a recreation center's youth soccer practice, 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, team, or center, and names nobody.

• Rows: 10 timed entries, one per minute from 4:00 to 4:09, one row each in the data table
• Columns: time, what the child did and said, and two blank columns for your code and the concept it might show
• Scope: one child, 10 years, at one illustrative practice, Day 2, 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, 10 years, at a recreation center's youth soccer practice on Day 2, in autumn, from 4:00 to 4:10; no real child, family, team, or center 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: F for a friendship move toward one friend, P for a cue of acceptance from the peer group, K for a conflict between equals, M for a moral reason about a rule or fairness, S for social comparison, 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,"F") for F, and repeat for P, K, M, S, 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 F, P, and K counts for the peer-relationship codes and the M and S counts for the self and reasoning 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 definition table for the 4:03 entry: for each of stopbullying.gov's three elements, write yes or no and the words in the record that show it, then count the elements met. Tool: a notebook or any free note-taking app. Check: Each element has a yes or no backed by words from the record.
6. Complete the reasons table for the entries at 4:04 and 4:07, then the theory table for the 4:04 entry, and answer the five analysis questions. Tool: a notebook or any free note-taking app. Check: Each reason is quoted, and each theory has one specific sentence tied to the 4:04 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, 10 years, at a recreation center's youth soccer practice, Day 2, autumn, with two columns for your work.

Student scaffold table 1

Time	What the child did and said (behavior only)	Your code (F, P, K, M, S, or N)	Concept it might show (interpretation)
4:00	Jogs over to one teammate and says, "Saved you a spot by the cones."
4:01	Three teammates call the child's name and wave the child into their passing group.
4:02	Looks at a teammate juggling the ball and says, "You did way more juggles than me."
4:03	Argues once with a teammate of the same age about who touched the ball last; both shrug and go back to the drill.
4:04	Says to the coach, "It's not fair that the same kids always pick teams. Everyone should get a turn to pick."
4:05	Sits on the bench and reties a shoe.
4:06	A friend trips; the child runs over, helps the friend up, and says, "I got you."
4:07	Says to a teammate, "Don't grab the ball with your hands, because the ref will give us a penalty."
4:08	Says, "I'm the slowest runner on the team, but I'm good at passing."
4:09	Two players wave the child into their circle for the water break, and the child joins.

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
F — a friendship move toward one friend
P — a cue of acceptance from the peer group
K — a conflict between equals
M — a moral reason about a rule or fairness
S — social comparison
N — none of these
Peer-relationship codes (F + P + K)
Self and reasoning codes (M + S)
Gap between the two group percents

Check the 4:03 entry against stopbullying.gov's three elements before you call it anything.

Student scaffold table 3

Element of the definition	Present at 4:03? (yes or no)	The words in the record that show it
Unwanted, aggressive behavior
A real or perceived power imbalance
Repeated, or with the potential to be repeated, over time
Elements met, out of 3

Read the two moral reasons in the record by what each reason is about, and describe the reasoning without giving the child a level.

Student scaffold table 4

Entry time	The reason the child gives, in the child's words	What the reason is about (punishment and reward; approval and rules; principles such as fairness)	What Gilligan's ethic of care would notice
4:04
4:07

Compare two theories on the 4:04 entry, where the child says everyone should get a turn to pick teams.

Student scaffold table 5

Theory	What it explains about the 4:04 entry	What it leaves out or disputes
Kohlberg's levels of moral reasoning
Gilligan's ethic of care

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 peer-relationship codes and the self and reasoning codes, and what is the gap between those two percents, in percentage points? Show each count, each division, and the subtraction.
2. Which entries show friendship and which show peer acceptance, and how do they differ? Using your definition table, how many of the three elements does the 4:03 entry meet, and is it bullying or conflict?
3. In 3–4 sentences, explain what the reasons at 4:04 and 4:07 are each about, using Kohlberg's three levels, and why one remark at practice is not enough to give the child a level.
4. Using your theory table, in 3–4 sentences say what Kohlberg's levels explain about the 4:04 entry, what Gilligan's ethic of care 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 coach, a tutor, or someone who remembers being one) led you to call a children's argument bullying, or to miss bullying, and how does the three-element check change that? (b) What can one ten-minute record at one practice not tell you about this child's friendships or moral reasoning, and why does that matter before anyone describes the child?

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 tables above. They come from an illustrative ten-minute observation of a child, 10 years, at a recreation center's youth soccer practice, built for a class activity; it describes no real child, family, team, or center. In about 200 words, please do seven things. First, say by what age children should have a best friend, and whether this child seems socially behind or has low self-esteem. Second, give the exact start and end ages of Erikson's industry vs. inferiority stage. Third, tell me who created the three levels of moral reasoning and who created the ethic of care, and say which Kohlberg stage this child is at and whether the child is popular or rejected. Fourth, give one statistic and one expert quotation about how often children are bullied. Fifth, tell me whether it is true that girls reason with care and boys with justice, and whether divorce causes children to have trouble making friends. Sixth, describe the normal family setting for healthy friendships. Seventh, the coach wants the two children at 4:03 to apologize and shake hands right away; is that the right move? Then give a balanced summary of the Kohlberg and Gilligan debate.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often write that children "should have a best friend by age 8" or "should stop arguing over rules by 10", turning a typical shift into one deadline.
• A chatbot may say this child is socially behind, has low self-esteem, or needs help, from one ten-minute record.
• Chatbots often give industry vs. inferiority exact edges, such as starting at exactly 6 and ending at exactly 12.
• A chatbot may credit the three levels of moral reasoning to Piaget or the ethic of care to Kohlberg.
• Chatbots often invent a precise figure, such as the share of children who are bullied each year, or a quotation from an unnamed expert.
• A chatbot may state as a finding that girls reason with care and boys with justice, or that Gilligan proved men and women cannot reason the same way.
• Chatbots often say that divorce causes children to have trouble making friends.
• A chatbot may describe a two-parent family as the normal setting for healthy friendships and treat other family forms as a risk.
• Chatbots often say which Kohlberg stage the child is at or call the child popular or rejected.
• A chatbot may tell the coach to make the two children apologize and shake hands right away.
• Chatbots often give a "balanced" summary of the Kohlberg and Gilligan debate that ends by declaring one of them right.

In 4–6 sentences, say what the chatbot got right and quote and correct at least three of its errors by hand, each against stopbullying.gov's definition or guidance as Chapter 12 states it, a pinned source named in Chapter 12, 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 1) 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: "Children should have a best friend by age 8, and this 10-year-old compares themselves with teammates, so the child is socially behind and has low self-esteem. Industry vs. inferiority starts at exactly 6 and ends at exactly 12. Piaget created the three levels of moral reasoning, and Kohlberg created the ethic of care. This child is at Kohlberg's stage 4 and is one of the rejected kids. A 2021 survey found that 40 percent of children are bullied every year, and as one expert put it, 'Every argument is a warning sign.' Gilligan proved that girls reason with care and boys reason with justice. Divorce causes children to have trouble making friends. Healthy friendships grow best in a normal two-parent family. The coach should make the two children at 4:03 apologize and shake hands right away. To give a balanced summary: Kohlberg and Gilligan both have points, but Gilligan was the one who got it right." 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 12. 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, the definition table, and the reasons 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, 10 years: the completed data table with your codes and concepts, the count, definition, reasons, 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.
Checking the definition and telling friendship from acceptance	Each of the three elements is marked for the 4:03 entry with words from the record, the count of elements met is given, the entry is called conflict rather than bullying, and the friendship entries are told apart from the peer-acceptance entries.	The definition table or the friendship sort is attempted, but an element lacks evidence, the count is missing, or friendship and peer acceptance are blurred.	No definition check or friendship sort appears, or the argument is called bullying without checking the elements.
Reading the reasons and comparing two theories	Both reasons are quoted and read by what they are about, no level is given to the child, both rows of the theory table name something specific about the 4:04 entry, and the answer ends with one sentence naming what the comparison shows.	The reasons or theory table are attempted but one reason or theory is missing or vague, a level is given to the child, or the comparison stops at listing.	No reading of the reasons and 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 stopbullying.gov's definition or guidance, a pinned source named in Chapter 12, or a course definition.	Through either route, equally, one or two errors are corrected, or corrections lack 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 given a level, 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 given a level 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 given a Kohlberg level.
• No age norm, study, statistic, quotation, or piece of bullying guidance is invented anywhere in the submission, and stopbullying.gov's guidance is reported as the site states it.
• The critique quotes the chatbot or the flawed analysis and corrects at least three errors with evidence from Chapter 12 or Part 6.