Research paper peer review assignment

How Cognitive Maturation Impacts Social Interaction: Toddlers and Preschool Children

Friendships offer children a variety of social and communicative skills, which help to modulate their future interactions. Building meaningful friendships and engaging in social play is a key component of a child’s development, as these social interactions teach communication, emotional regulation, and sense of self and others (Howes, 2011). As a child matures both cognitively and socially, their style of play, choice of playmate, and level of interaction with others is subject to change (Knowler, 1983). For example, a child that is more cognitively mature may understand others’ feelings and communicate themselves better, thus are inclined to have more meaningful and enduring friendships with their peers. Conversely, a child that is more cognitively premature may struggle with communicating and understanding their peers’ points of view and therefore have friendships that are more superficial and temporary (Miller, et al., 2018). Understanding the role that cognitive maturity plays in social interaction is necessary for evaluating the differences in friendships between preschool children and toddlers. 

In a 1983 observational study, Carollee Howes analyzed patterns of friendship of toddlers and preschool children by observing the various peer social interactions within the respective groups. There were several groups for both toddlers and preschool children, each group ranging between four to six children. Observations were taken in two, fifteen minute intervals every eight weeks for a year, yielding a total of six observation periods and twelve observation sessions. Initially, toddlers tended to have few, yet secure friendships which gradually became more irregular and grew in quantity by the end of the year. In contrast, preschoolers had multiple, inconsistent friendships with few stable, maintained friendships. 

Similar to Howes’s research, this paper explores the way that a child’s developing cognitive processes affect how the child interacts with others. A 2.5 year old toddler girl and a 4.5 year old preschool boy were naturally observed in the Cabrillo College Children’s Center during free play. In conjecture, a preschool child, who is more cognitively developed than a toddler will have a higher quality of social interaction with more play partners. In other words, higher cognitive maturity is hypothesized to correlate to higher quantity and quality of social interaction.

Method

Participants 

The participants in this study consist of two children in the Cabrillo College Children’s Center. The first is a 2.5 year old, English speaking girl, who will be referred to as Romee in this paper to protect her privacy. She interacts with a caregiver, who will be called in the pseudonym Mandy. Romee was in the toddler group of the facility. Upon entering the toddler observation section, I noticed Romee standing on top of a slide, watching the rest of the room and the other kids in it. This caught my eye and made me decide to observe her for the duration of my study. 

The second participant is a 4.5 year old English and Spanish speaking boy with the pseudonym Bo. Bo was in the pre-kindergarten classroom and interacted with another boy, who will be given the pseudonym Chip. As I got settled in the observation section, I could clearly hear Bo conversing with his peers, which led me to select him as the other subject of my observations, since I wanted some verbal data from conversation. 

Setting 

Observations started at 9:30 a.m. on a Tuesday morning in the Children’s Center of Cabrillo College. There are two separate classrooms for toddlers and pre-kindergarteners, both classrooms are mixed-gender and have indoor and outdoor play areas. Child-caregivers in both classrooms provided a stimulating environment for the children to freely explore. 

Romee’s observation session began at 9:30 a.m. and continued until 10:00 a.m. Romee chose to stay indoors for the duration of the observation session. The indoor toddler classroom was less crowded than the outdoor classroom, so there was about one caregiver for every three toddlers.

Unlike Romee, Bo chose to play outdoors about ten minutes into his observation session, which began at 10:00 a.m. and ended at 10:30 a.m. The outdoor playground is much bigger and offers more physical activities than the indoor classroom such as play structures and tricycles, whereas the indoor classroom consists of activities such as blocks, a play kitchen, and a lunch and snack table. The outdoor playground was more crowded than the indoor classroom. There were two caregivers outside with the children, but they were not active in the children’s play, for the most part.

Procedure 

The toddler observations began at 9:30 a.m. and lasted until 10:00 a.m. Shortly after, the preschool observations began and continued until a little after 10:30 a.m. Both the toddler and the preschool classrooms have one-way mirrors with shutters underneath, which allow sound from inside the classrooms to travel to the observation space behind the mirror. The running record technique was the selected method for observation in this study. With running record technique, I felt that I would get more detailed observations to later analyze, since the events were recorded as they were happening. I did not know what topic I wanted to focus on for this paper going prior to my observations, so I wanted to have a lot of data to analyze in order to have more flexibility for selecting my topic.

Narrative Observations

Romee (Toddler)

Romee is standing on top of a small slide, holding a bowl with an orange inside. She yells “Mandy, watch this! Mandy! Mandy, watch this!” and waits for Mandy, who appears to be the main caregiver in the indoor classroom. Mandy responds, “Okay! I’m watching”, which prompts Romee to slide down the slide. Romee immediately walks over to Mandy and tells her to “watch this”, while holding out the bowl with the orange for Mandy to see. Mandy smiles and directs her attention to another girl building with blocks. Romee taps on Mandy’s shoulder and says, “on top your head.” Mandy touches the top of her head and a small piece of lint falls to the ground. 

Romee seems to care about Mandy. She waits for Mandy to acknowledge that she is paying attention before proceeding to do a fun activity. Romee is aware of Mandy’s physical appearance. She notices something as small as lint in Mandy’s hair, leading me to think that she is developing social awareness. 

Romee picks up a doll with messy hair from the ground. She holds the doll up for Mandy to see and makes a “roar” sound. She fixes the doll’s hair and plays with the doll by making her walk. 

Romee notices the doll’s messy hair and recognizes that it is similar to a lion’s mane, hence her making the “roar” sound. This indicates that she is beginning to manipulate objects, which is one of the key factors of Piaget’s Preoperational Stage. Romee knows this is a doll that she is playing with, not a lion, since she has the doll walk like a human.

Another caregiver says something to Romee, which prompts her to go wash her hands and take off her jacket. Romee goes to the table to eat and calls Mandy’s name from her seat. Mandy comes to sit next to Romee and starts reading a book to her. Romee eats and glances at the book, listening to Mandy read it aloud. Romee uses her left hand to chew on a piece of bread in front of her and flips the page of Mandy’s book with her right hand once Mandy is done reading that page. Romee continues flipping the pages until the book is over. When Mandy is done reading,  she tries to return the book to its place. Romee clings to the book and places it back on the table she is eating on.

Romee is obedient to her caregivers, since she washes her hands and goes to the lunch table when she is asked to. Even though Romee is distracted by the book Mandy is reading, she is able to multitask listening and eating, indicating she is developing self control.

Romee picks up the tongs and serves herself more bread. She picks up the bread and chews on it. She is now sitting with her back to the lunch table, watching Mandy play blocks with the girl from before. Romee turns around and picks up her cup. She taps the cup on the table’s surface until another caregiver hands Romee a small pitcher of water. Romee pours herself water, but doesn’t drink it.

From the way Romee asks for water, it can be implied that her communication skills are still developing. Other than that, she is relatively independent; when she finishes her bread, she serves herself some more; when she is thirsty she pours her own water. Romee is still preoccupied with Mandy’s attention, since she keeps looking at what Mandy is doing. She is continuing to exercise her ability to self regulate by remaining seated and eating even though she is distracted.

Mandy comes back to Romee’s table and says something inaudible. Romee puts down her bread in the bowl in front of her and looks under the table. She says “I can’t see it” (unclear what “it” is). Mandy picks up a picture from under the table that seemed to have fallen from the wall. Romee sits back in her chair and puts the piece of bread on her teeth. She presses the piece of bread on her teeth.

Romee is not fully attentive to her food. As she eats, she pays attention to different things and gets distracted easily. 

Bo (Preschool) 

Bo is holding a teddy bear. He places it in the cupboard under a play sink. He closes the cupboard and then immediately opens it to take out the bear and another teddy bear. He hands the other bear to Chip and they place both bears in another cupboard. Bo says in a deep voice, “Be quiet in there, boy,” as he closes the cupboard. Chip uses a higher pitched boy and says something inaudible. Bo goes to a play stove and puts a plastic block of cheese on a play pan. After several seconds, he says, “Cheese! Warm cheese!”. 

Bo is pretending to cook cheese and father the teddy bears. In him speaking to the teddy bears in a deep voice, he may be trying to imitate someone older in his life. It seems he is applying functions from routines in his life to his play. He is engaging in pretend play. 

Bo leaves the cheese and takes a nearby stuffed monkey. He places the monkey on his face and makes screeching noises. Chip looks over at Bo and begins to make the same screeching noises as Bo, while walking over to him. Bo says, “No, no! Stay there.” Bo runs out of the gated play area, stands outside for a few seconds, and comes back to where he previously was. Chip leaves the play area and does the same as Bo. Bo watches him eagerly and waits for him to come back.

Bo is pretending the monkey is attacking him. It seems that he is leading the game, because Chip tries to imitate him and he corrects Chip.  

Bo takes a plate of plastic sushi from the counter and gives it to two other boys sitting at a play dinner table. Bo yells, “Sushi! Sushi!” while walking over to another cupboard and taking out a set of plastic plates and cups. He lays them down on that same table.

Again, Bo is engaging in pretend play as he pretends to serve the other boys food. This is likely derived from routines present in his life. 

A caregiver walks into the play area and speaks to Bo in Spanish. Bo looks at her but does not respond, he is fidgeting with his fingers. She says, “If you want to eat, you better clean up.” Bo takes the plates and places them back in the cupboard. The caregiver and Bo begin putting things in cupboards. Bo stops to play with a play cash register. Chip walks in and stands near the register that Bo is playing with. Chips walks out of the gated play area and Bo follows him excitedly. They are skipping to the outdoor play area.

Bo is obedient to the caregiver, since he does as he is told and puts the plates back in their place. He gets distracted by the cash register and Chip and stops cleaning up, which suggests that the caregiver’s wishes are not of high importance to him. 

Bo puts on a red helmet and talks to other children outside, who already have helmets on. Bo gets on a tricycle with a small bench on the back and continues talking to the other kids. As Bo begins to pedal around the small track, Chip runs beside him (all the tricycles are in use), carrying the two teddy bears from before. Bo stops and puts his and Chip’s teddy bears on the bench of his tricycle. Another boy comes by and knocks the teddy bears off of Bo’s bicycle. Bo calmly gets off his bike and fixes the teddy bears. 

When Bo takes the time to put the teddy bears on his tricycle, he is attempting to include Chip, who has no tricycle of his own. Bo exhibits the ability to control his emotions, which becomes evident when another child knocks the teddy bears off of the bench. 

Bo continues pedaling and stops at what seems to be a play gas station. He gets off the bike, pulls out a tube, and puts it over his tricycle seat. He continues biking and continuously glances behind him. When he sees the other children on the bikes catching up to him, he pedals backwards and laughs when they crash.

Bo is pretending to fill up gas, which is likely the result of observational learning from routine. Bo thinks the collision is funny.

Bo sees Chip standing nearby and calls him to come over. Bo invites Chip to sit on the bench of his bike. Chip joins him and Bo continues making small collisions, looking at Chip after each one and laughing. 

Bo is including Chip in the game, again. This shows that he is socially aware and probably feels empathy for Chip, who has no means of joining the game. Bo cares about Chip’s reaction to the game, which becomes evident when he continuously glances at Chip after each collision.

A caregiver comes to talk to Bo and Chip, it seems as though she is trying to get them to stop. Bo looks at her, but continues pedaling forward and then backward, causing small collisions. The caregiver gets distracted and Bo continues biking forward. 

Here, Bo is disregarding what the caregiver asks of him, leading me to think that he is more preoccupied with the game than with what the caregiver says. 

Chip gets off the bike and makes sure the teddy bears are sitting upright on the bench. 

Bo begins pedaling again and continues to glance at the bench to make sure the teddy bears are okay. He also looks behind him to make sure Chip is keeping up with him. Chip is running after Bo.

The friendship between Chip and Bo seems reciprocated on both ends; Bo glancing at the teddy bears and at Chip shows that he is actively thinking about Chip. The same applies to Chip, when he runs behind Bo and makes sure the teddy bears are sitting together. 

Discussion

The purpose of this paper is to observe and understand the way cognitive development influences the social interaction of toddlers and preschoolers with others in their environment. The dynamic ways that a child interacts with others in their environment as a result of cognitive maturity sets the stage for future interactions that the child will have and affect the way that the child communicates themselves, regulates their emotions, and perceive themselves and others. Understanding the relationship between cognitive maturity and social interactions is necessary for understanding the way friendships develop and change. 

I hypothesized that the preschooler, who is more cognitively developed than the toddler, will have more social interactions and higher quality social interactions than the toddler. The results of the study support my hypothesis. Throughout the observation session, Romee only really interacted with Mandy. Most of Romee’s efforts to interact with Mandy were not equally reciprocated. Specifically, when Romee tried to get Mandy’s attention before doing certain things, Mandy would pay attention briefly before playing with another child or carrying out another function of her caregiving job. Since Mandy is an adult and not a peer, she may get tired of certain activities that correspond to Romee’s age-level (Kerns et al., 2000). In contrast, Bo interacted with multiple children in his respective observation session, engaging in pretend play and symbolic play with almost every peer interaction. For example, Bo’s pretend cheese cooking, sushi serving, and gas filling are some of the many ways he applied knowledge about the real world from his routines and experiences to play. The interactions Bo had with his peers were reciprocal, which was particularly evident when Bo was on the tricycle and continuously checked that Chip was keeping up with him, while Chip eagerly ran after Bo. In Bo’s case, there were more social interactions observed and these interactions were higher in quality than Romee’s, which lacked the deep level of play and reciprocation that Bo’s interactions had.