The Affect Of Classes On A Child’s Mood And Energy

Kevin Hou

IB Psychology HL Y1

9/27/09

Around 1,470 Words

Abstract:

We hypothesized that different classes gave children different amounts of energy, as well a different moods depending on which class they just had. PE, for example, would potentially give more energy than Math, which we had predicted. We set out to measure the amount of energy children had after certain classes, but our data conflicted. In one case, PE provided more energy than Math, while in another; Math provided more energy than PE. With this confliction of data, we cannot make any specific statements about individual classes accurately, but we can conclude that different classes provided children with different amounts of energy.

Introduction:

Our aim is to observe the mood and energy of a child after they have a certain class. A study done in 2007 showed that children who had a bad day at school would bring their negative energy and mood back home. School events, then, especially good and bad ones, would affect a child’s mood.

Lehman, Barbara J., Repetti, Rena L. (2007). Bad Days Don't End When the School Bell Rings: The Lingering Effects of Negative School Events on Children's Mood, Self-esteem, and Perceptions of Parent–Child Interaction [Electronic version]. Social Development. Retrieved 9/23/09 from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pbh&AN=26253105&site=ehost-live

We hypothesize, then, that classes would affect a child’s mood even after they leave the class. The more ‘enjoyable’ classes that promote positive energy and mood, PE, for example, would leave a child in a better mood than a work focused class like Math. Of course, we do not know whether PE would generate more energy and better moods than a Math class – which is why we are doing the observation. The experiment is naturalistic, and we would be simply observing them.

Method:

Design: We will simply observe 3rd grade students as they come out of their classes and rate their general moods using a rubric shown below, from a scale of 1 to 5. I doubt there are any ethnical issues with this study, as we will not be directly interfering with the children, though we have received informed consent from Ms McVean.

Action / Rating
Smiling (Or looking happy) / 1
Laughter (Volume and quantity) / 2
Noise (Physical noise e.g. Footsteps, banging on walls, etc.) / 3
Talking (In particular excited or energetic talking) / 4
Jumping (Includes skipping) / 5

We simply observed the children and noted the frequency of the above stated actions from a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being the lowest and 5 being most or all. The chosen actions reflect the amount of positive energy a child has – for example, a child in a good mood would most likely smile and laugh more than a child who is unhappy. A child with energy would jump and make a lot of noise than a child who is tired after class.

We found schedules of the 3rd grade students and went over to their classes shortly before they were let out. We would find somewhere to unobtrusively sit where we can observe them and take notes of their behavior without interfering with them before they left the class. We would then rate the group using the rubric shown above from a scale of 1 to 5 with good old pencil and paper, taking notes on why we chose that rating for the behavior. Nathan and I both observed two Math classes and two PE classes, as well as an Art class and an English class for comparism.

Discussion, Data, and Conclusion:

The children we observed, the sample population, were all 3rd graders, mostly white but with some Asians as well. There were a balance of male and female, neither gender was overrepresented in any group. The target population is 3rd graders in general, but hopefully it could possibly be applied to other grades as well, though not with any large change in grade level. The environment varied depending on the class – math and language, for example, would be done in the hallways while PE would possibly be observed near the gym or even outside. The data collected is shown below.

September 22, 2009. 10:25 AM. Day 2 - PE (Kevin)

Action / Rating
Smiling / 3 (Some)
Laughter / 3 (Around half of group)
Noise / 5 (Lots of noise)
Talking / 5 (Most were talking)
Jumping / 2 (Three skipping)

September 22, 2009. 10:25 AM. Day 2 – PE (Nathan)

Action / Rating
Smiling / 1
Laughter / 1
Noise / 3
Talking / 4 (over 80% of the crowd was chattering)
Jumping / 2 (three to four people)

September 22, 2009. 9:20 AM. Day 2 – Math, Ms Toa (Nathan)

Action / Rating
Smiling / 3
Laughter / 2
Noise / 2
Talking / 3
Jumping / 1

September 22, 09. 9:20 AM. Day 2 – Math, Mr Harder (Kevin)

Action / Rating
Smiling / 1
Laughter / 1
Noise / 5 (Squeaky feet from rain)
Talking / 2
Jumping / 1

September, 24 2009. 1:25 PM. Day 4 – Art (Kevin)

Action / Rating
Smiling / 2
Laughter / 2
Noise / 3 (Feet, walking noise)
Talking / 4 (Quite a few talking)
Jumping / 1

September 23, 2009. 11:35AM. Day 3 – English, Ms Toa (Nathan)

Action / Rating
Smiling / 2 (A few)
Laughter / 1
Noise / 2 (Walking sounds)
Talking / 4 (A lot of chattering about the class)
Jumping / 1

Surprisingly, there weren’t a lot of children who smiled or laughed after class, the most coming from PE and, strangely, Math. The PE class Nathan looked at had no smiling children while the English class he observed did. Talking showed more difference, as there was a noticeable difference in Math and for PE (3 and 2, as opposed to 5 and 4). Jumping was quite rare, as the only class which displayed jumping came from PE. In general, though, very very few children jumped or skipped around, and the ones that did jump we had observed outside. And while we had judged noise to be a measure of energy (e.g. A child banging on nearby lockers as they walked past), there were too many outside factors like wet shoes that threw it off, so it was not a good measure of energy or mood.

While smiling and laughter seems to be arbitrarily dispersed, the amount of talking and the occurrence of jumping points to the fact that children coming out of PE seemed to have more energy than those coming from Math. Art and English we had included so that we could compare the results to another class, and we found that Art and English gave similar results to Math, except that there was a high degree of talking in both Art and English. Apparently, Math, English, and Art had similar amounts of smiling and laughter while Art, English, and PE had similar amounts of people talking. Jumping was unique to PE only, while noise should be disregarded as an untrustworthy value.

I realized that there were many flaws and problems in this observational experiment. The first and foremost one is that of observer bias. Nathan and I would judge values in vastly different manners, and would give different scores to the same class. When we attempted to grade our psychology class, we both graded different values, and the bias most likely would have carried onto the observational experiment. Because we based the rubric on how much of a group is displaying a certain trait, the amount that equals a certain number varies from person to person, as we did not set a number requirement (e.g. Five people talking rates a 3, Eight or more rates a 4, etc.) because class sizes varied. We also observed different classes with different students, which would have affected our results. More children would like PE in one class, for example, than another. Without multiple tests on every group, we would not be able to make accurate assumptions of the effects of one class on a child. If we had followed the same class, though, through all of their classes, we would probably be able to find more accurate results, but for that class only. The most accurate method would be to follow each 3rd grade class through each of its classes for at least two to three observations per class. A more specific, quantitative rubric, rather than a qualitative one, would yield more consistent results.

The reliability of our tests is low, as our rubrics do not agree. Smiling and laughing are displayed in seemingly random amounts through the classes, and are most likely affected by other variables, such as a kid who had just told a joke, or is looking forward to a lunch next period. Talking gave more data, as there was less talking for math than the other classes. Noise was not a factor in positive mood and energy, and should be looked at with a skeptic eye. Jumping is probably the most reliable piece of data, as it was the most noticeable and easiest to note how many were doing it.

With our conflicting data, we cannot make any clear conclusions. The data clashes and disagree with each other – the PE and Math classes rated by me showed that PE provided more energy, while the PE and Math classes rated by Nathan showed that Math gave more energy. However, from the jumping data (possibly the only accurate area) and personal observations, PE did seem to provide more energy and happier moods, though the change may be neither slight nor constant. Relating back to the psychological article, we can however conclude that different classes have different effects on a child’s mood and energy. However, we cannot conclude the exact amount of energy provided by specific classes.