Bronfenbrenner's Classroom Observation

I visited two classes in an p-k through fifth grade elementary school. The teachers will be called Miss P for the preschool and Miss H for the first grade. I chose a four year old boy from the preschool class who will be called Pb and a six year old girl from the first grade who will be called Fg. The two were of different ethnic backgrounds with Fg being african american and Pb being white. This paper will include observations, and comparisons about the children, teachers, classroom environment and whether the naeyc code of ethical conduct was followed. using the bronfenbrenner’s model it is important to understand the environment the children were in. The first classroom was that of Miss P and Pb. Miss P is an experienced teacher having

In the guided play she would try to integrate lessons into the activity. She had the class sing dance and clap the days of the week. This uses vygotsky's theories of constructionism , by using guided play the children were able to memorise the days of the week and still enjoy the process. The class was well behaved for it’s age group, behavior was maintained be well practised use of bandura’s theories(pg. 72, Understanding child development). Miss P would would usually ignore bad behavior but verbally reward good behavior. She had a different student each day tell the class what the weather was, if the child said something different then what was happening rather than corrector him/her ahe would have the look out the window and say what they see, good use of maintaining motivation (pg 73, Understanding Child Development).As the class is mostly from poor regions of the city it was the first time many of them had been to school. Many have had little exposure to letters or math and are lacking in those areas of development. To fix this she would read out loud to them and write on the

Most importantly both teachers followed, p-1.1 “Above all, we shall not harm children. We shall not participate in practices that are emotionally damaging, physically harmful, disrespectful, degrading, dangerous, exploitative, or intimidating to children” (http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/pseth05.pdf). There were three major causes to the differences I witnessed. First was experience, Miss P had been teaching much longer and knew what to expect and how to react. Next was child to adult ratio. Miss P had a teacher's aid and a smaller class, this allows for more contact and closer supervision. The third was that Miss P included much more play into the