Blog 1 -Edpsych
- gsorayah
- Oct 13, 2014
- 2 min read
Module 2 in Epsych talks about friendships and peer groups. It explains the different levels of peer statuses that vary from popular, rejected, to neglected. When I analyze my classroom, I realize that my fourth graders based their peer relationships on similar interests rather than moment-to-momment interactions of children younger or more complex shared interests like aspirations, beliefs, etc of children that are older than them. This means that my fourth graders base their friendships on shallow interests like sports, cheerleading, or tv shows. I see this during recess when all the girls that are interested in cheerleading unite together and play, while all the boys who are interested in sports or physical activities all play together. I saw once on the playground that none of the boys let a particular girl play with them because they did not feel as though she was competent enough to play along side them. It bothered me but I did not know how to explain to the boys that the girl was capable of playing with them despite what they percieved her interests should be. In this situation, I question whether or not the boy didn't allow the girl to play with them due to their set peer group of just boys or if it had to do with peer status?
In reference to peer status, I do not feel as though the fourth graders have organized themselves in social heirarchy yet. They all seem to be at the same level when it comes to popularity. The levels popular, rejected, and neglected only seem to be clearly defined through situational experiences rather than long term identity in the class. Some students are not as social as other but they still maintain strong friendships with one or two students in the class. There are no set cliques that I have noticed at this point, just boys playing with boys and girls playing with girls. Seeing how these students interact with each other now, how will they later break off into peer statuses later in life?
Comments