SFL 210 second draft of second section

Honest
In my observations none of the children portrayed dishonesty, and I assumed from this observations that the children were developing honesty. The children did not try to sneak a toy into their backpack, take something from the shelf without asking, or lie to a teacher. The lack of dishonesty caused me to concluded that the children were all developing and capable of being honest.
Develop Intimate Friendships
The children interacted with one antoher but none of the children seamed to have intimate or personal, but playful friendships. While on the playground Child C knew the other children's names. Child C raced the other children around the sidewalk on a tricycle and followed the other children around the playground equipment. Child C played in the group, with the girls, with the boys, with the children on the tricycles and with the children on the slide and did not express a strong personal connection with any particular child. This leads me to believe that Child C is developing the ability to have friendships but that ability is not fully developed.
Turn-about
Turn-about seemed particularly immature in all of the children. Although Child C communicated the most with peers Child C used short sentences such as: “hurry,” “I don’t want to play that,” or “let’s go”. In contrast Child A was observed during snack time and although that did not allow for many opportunities to communicate when Child A’s guardian came Child A did not answer a single question verbally but with head nods and by pointing his finger. Although all of the children understood what was being said: went to the rug, got coats, sat down, and so on none of the children seemed capable of turn-about.
Delay Gratification
I observed times that the children were capable of delayed gratification, but only in very minimal examples. When it was time to go outside and play for recess Child A was the second child in line. It was apparent that Child A wanted to go out a play, but instead of rushing out of the door Child A waited patiently until the teacher opened the door and said that it was alright to go out.
Emotional Self-regulation
The children were capable of self-regulation for short periods of time, and none of the children had tantrums or needed to be soothed. When Child A was listening to the teacher read a story Child A sat quietly, with legs crossed, and did not speak to the other children. The story time was relatively short; the snack time was short; the recess was long; and the teachers were very involved in making sure that the preschool kept moving throughout the day. I believe that the preschool’s schedule helped the children to develop self-regulation because it took into account the children’s short attention spans.
Distribution of Justice
When the children divided snacks or toys among themselves it was because they were prompted by a teacher. I wonder if the children are capable of distributing justice or if the children are simply obeying. At snack time Child B ate the gram-cracker and all the children got the same size of gram-cracker. Although Child B was content with the way the gram-crackers were distributed Child B was not involved in the distribution, and I was unable to observe a situation when the Child would need to be the distributor. There were many opportunities for the teacher to be the distributor. The children obeyed the way the teacher distributed the gram-crackers, but this could be obediance and not the distribution of justice.
Share
The children were able to share when prompted. Child B was playing with the balls while outside on the playground even though there were children around Child B did not pass the ball until the teacher asked if the children wanted to play catch. Once prompted Child B enjoyed playing catch, and that leads me to believe that the children were capable of sharing but still developing the ability to iniciate sharing.
Compromising
The children did not compromise, because there did not seem to be a desire to compromise. While playing Child C wanted to play in the sandbox and called a friend over Child C when the friend did not responsed Child C gave up and joined the friend. This was the only occasion for a possible compromise, because the remaining time the children interacted with each other until something new appeared. Instead of attempting to compromise the children moved on. The lack of this development could be linked to the inability to develop intimate friendships, because the children did not seem to care enough about specific relationships to desire a compromise.

The Most compotent Child
From my observations I would say that Child C was the most socially comptoent child. It was really interesting to see that because Child C was social with the other children Child C had more opertunities to work on developing positive social behavior. When Child C was on the playground interacting with the other children there were opertunities to build vocabulary, share, compromise, and interact. In contrast Child B prefered to play with the teacher even when there were children near by.Child B did not go out and interact with the other children.
I also realized how important play time is because I observed Child A when it was snack time and reading time. In these times there were really not a lot of opertunites for Child A to portray pro-social behavior because the snack time was structured, and the reading time was struckered. It also made me realize how biased my observations could be because of the simple times that I observed each child.