ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Spatial skills are a central component of intellect and show marked individual differences. There is evidence that variations in the spatial language young children hear, which directs their attention to important aspects of the spatial environment, may be one of the mechanisms that contributes to these differences. To investigate how play affects variations in language, parents and children were assigned to 1 of 3 conditions: free play with blocks, guided play, or play with preassembled structures (Study 1). Parents in the guided play condition produced significantly higher proportions of spatial talk than parents in the other two conditions, and children in the guided play condition produced significantly more spatial talk than those in the free play condition. Study 2 established baselines of spatial language during activities not involving spatial materials. Proportions of spatial words were lower than those in any of the conditions of Experiment 1. In sum, interaction with blocks naturally elicits elevated levels of spatial language, especially in the context of guided play, suggesting simple-to-execute educational interventions.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Block Talk: Spatial Language
During Block Play
Katrina Ferrara1, Kathy Hirsh-Pasek1,NoraS.Newcombe
1, Roberta Michnick Golinkoff
Wendy Shallcross Lam1
ABSTRACT—Spatial skills are a central component of intel-
lect and show marked individual differences. There is evidence
that variations in the spatial language young children hear,
which directs their attention to important aspects of the
spatial environment, may be one of the mechanisms that con-
tributes to these differences. To investigate how play affects
variations in language, parents and children were assigned to
1 of 3 conditions: free play with blocks, guided play, or play
with preassembled structures (Study 1). Parents in the guided
play condition produced significantly higher proportions of
spatial talk than parents in the other two conditions, and
children in the guided play condition produced significantly
more spatial talk than those in the free play condition. Study 2
established baselines of spatial language during activities not
involving spatial materials. Proportions of spatial words were
lower than those in any of the conditions of Experiment 1. In
sum, interaction with blocks naturally elicits elevated levels
of spatial language, especially in the context of guided play,
suggesting simple-to-execute educational interventions.
Spatial skills are a crucial component of human intellect. They
allow us to encode information about small and large-scale
objects—such as the location of our watch under a book, or
which way to turn to reach a destination. They also allow
us to mentally transform this information, such as imagining
what we might see if approaching an intersection from an
alternative direction. Spatial skills provide a foundation for
learning in the disciplines of science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) (Burnett, Lane, & Dratt, 1979;
Casey, Nuttall, & Pezaris, 1997; Casey, Nuttall, Pezaris, &
Benbow, 1995; Tracy, 1987). For example, mental rotation and
1Department of Psychology, Temple University
2School of Education and DepartmentsofPsychologyandLinguisticsand
Cognitive Science, University of Delaware
Address correspondence to Katrina Ferrara, Johns Hopkins University,
Room 237 Krieger Hall, 3400North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218;
spatial visualization are related to geometric problem solving
in high school (Battista, 1990; Delgado & Prieto, 2004; Kersh,
Casey, & Mercer Young, 2008), to mathematics achievement
(Fennema & Tarte, 1985; Guay & McDaniel, 1977; Hegarty &
Kozhenikov, 1999), and to success in chemistry (Stieff, 2007;
Wu & Sha, 2004).
How do spatial skills develop? One important answer may
lie in the relationship between human spatial cognition and
the symbol systems we use to describe spatial concepts.
In particular, the representational system afforded by
spatial language may provide an accessible introduction
to spatial concepts, such as the relationship between
objects, as illustrated by words like under and next to.By
directing children’s attention to spatially relevant aspects of
their environment, language highlights patterns that might
otherwise go unnoticed, for example, how one block is
situated under another is a tower. This spatial language
offers a categorical label that emphasizes qualitative divisions
in what is otherwise continuous space. As such, spatial
language might support spatial reasoning ability. The role
of vocabulary as a guide for future behavior and learning
has already been demonstrated in the area of literacy
(Christie & Enz, 1992; Christie & Roskos, 2006). With
regard to early spatial development, Casasola (2008) suggests
that, as infants acquire spatial terms, they form more
perceptually diverse spatial categories. In addition, individual
differences in children’s spatial language production predicts
performance on a variety of spatial skills assessments (Pruden,
Levine, & Huttenlocher, 2010). Gentner and colleagues
(Gentner, 2003; Gentner & Loewenstein, 2002) suggest that
spatial vocabulary may prove central for developing spatial-
relational understanding; ‘‘...relational language fosters the
development of representational structures that facilitate
mental processing—that is, that relational language provides
tools for thought (p. 316).’’
Despite its relevance to the development of spatial skills,
little is known about the contexts in which children may
be exposed to rich spatial language, or the settings in which
they are prone to use spatial language on their own. Research
suggests that the amount of exposure to different words
2011 the Authors
Volume 5—Number 3 Journal Compilation 2011 International Mind, Brain, and EducationSocietyandBlackwellPublishing,Inc. 143
Block Talk
predicts vocabulary development (Hart & Risley, 1995; Hoff,
2006; Huttenlocher, Haight, Bryk, Seltzer, & Lyons, 1991),
especially when the words are used in a way that helps the
child understand their meaning (Weizman & Snow, 2001).
But when are spatial words used, and in what contexts?
Block play is one common spatial activity in which spatial
language might naturally occur. Blocks have been frequently
mentioned as contributing to the development of spatial skills
(Brosnan, 1998; Caldera et al., 1999; Ginsburg, 2007; Ness &
Farenga, 2007). During the second and third years of life,
children pile blocks on top of one another (Shutts, Ornkloo,
von Hofsten, Keen, & Spelke, 2009). As their play becomes
moresophisticated, children pay specialattention to the colors,
shapes, and sizes of blocks. They may also compare the relative
sizes of the towers they create (Leeb-Lundberg, 1996). Reifel
(1984) suggests that blocks allow children to play directly with
spatial concepts, which in turn could assist their developing
representations of spatial relationships between objects in the
physical world (e.g., into, out, together, on top, beside, etc.).
In an analyses of open-ended forms of block play, researchers
concluded that the inherent geometric properties of blocks
encourage logico-mathematical thinking in young children
(Kamii, Miyakawa, & Kato, 2004). A relationship has also
been found between 3- and 5- year-olds’ block building skill
and their spatial visualization abilities (Caldera et al., 1999).
Furthermore, Wolfgang, Stannard, and Jones (2003) identified
a significant relationship between complex LEGO building
during preschool years and later achievement in middle and
high school mathematics. Most recently, in an experimental
study that incorporated a story-telling context, Casey et al.
(2008) concluded that block building interventions have
an impact on spatial visualization and block building
Review of the current literature highlights the point that
there are several kinds of block play. Children sometimes
engage in free play with blocks, but they may also strive
to copy a structure depicted on a box or follow step-by-
step instructions. Does the context of block play significantly
impact the amount of spatial language that children and
parents are apt to use in joint play sessions? It seems likely
that block play will encourage the use of more spatial language
than simple free play, but free play with blocks may still
elicit more spatial language than playing with materials that
do not involve construction of any kind. To investigate this
question, in Experiment 1, we focused on three common
contexts of play. In the free play condition, parents and children
played with blocks without any form of guidance. In the
guided play condition, the parent and child were given five
numbered photographs that pictorially depicted the steps
to build a particular final structure. In the preassembled
play condition, a glued-together model was given to the
pair, and the prefabricated structure served as a prop for
Thirty-six, 3- to 4.5-year-old children (18 females, mean age
46 months, range 36.5–69 months) and 36, 4.5- to 5-year-
old children (18 females, mean age 63, range 54–71 months)
participated, with either a parent or a guardian. Two of the
parents who participated in the study were fathers and 74 were
mothers. Data from 10 additional children had to be discarded
due to failure to complete the task (8) or experimental error
(2). Potential participants were identified through a direct
marketing list and were contacted by an introductory letter,
followed by a phone call. Additional participants responded
to advertisements or heard about the study through word
of mouth. As the area in which recruitment was targeted
is predominantly middle to upper-middle class Caucasian,
the majority of children who participated came from families
belonging to this demographic group.
A set of MegaBloks containing various sized blocks, as well
as vehicles and figures, was used. From these blocks, two
critical structures could be created (a garage or a helipad).
A full set contained 114 building blocks, 8 flat block panels
that could create ground surfaces, 2 window-shaped blocks, a
lamp-shaped block, a ladder-shaped block, 4 figures depicting
different occupations (a firefighter, a pilot, and 2 civilians),
and 2 vehicles (a fire truck and a helicopter). A video camera
set unobtrusively in the corner of the room, approximately 5 ft
from where parent and child were seated, was used to record
the session and to later transcribe the footage.
The study contained two 10-min phases. Participants were
randomly assigned to one of three conditions in Phase 1. In
the free play condition, parents and children were told to play
with the set of blocks as they would at home. In the guided
play condition, the parent and child were given five numbered
photographs depicting the steps to build either the garage
or the helipad (much like the instructions one receives for
IKEA furniture assembly). In Step 1, the picture illustrated
the placement of the board upon which to build. Step 2
portrayed the first ground layer of blocks, and so forth, up to
Step 5 which showed the finished structure, complete with
placement of the figures around or in the building. Parents
and children were encouraged to build the structure using
the pictures for guidance. In the preassembled play condition, a
glued-together model of the garage or the helipad was given to
the dyad, as well as the vehicles and figures. No extra blocks
were provided for building. The dyad was instructed to play
as they naturally would. Thus, all three play conditions in
144 Volume 5—Number 3
Katrina Ferrara et al.
Phase 1 offered parents and children an opportunity to play
with blocks. However, each differed in terms of the structure
of the play situation. Children in each of the conditions had
access to the same number of blocks, figures, and vehicles. The
experimenter left the room during building times.
After 10 min of play, Phase 2 began. In this phase, all dyads
were assigned to the guided play condition. The purpose of
this manipulation was to assess whether spatial language is
affected positively or negatively by prior styles of interaction
with block materials. Participants were given a picture of the
structure that they had not played with or attempted to build
during Phase 1 (e.g., those who had built the heliport were
now asked to build a garage). The order of which structure
the groups built and played with first was counterbalanced.
Parents were told that they could help, but that the goal was
for the child to build. After 10 min, the experimenter returned
and told the children that they could keep playing or stop.
All videotaped interactions were transcribed for Phases 1
and 2. The transcripts were analyzed for child and parental
spatial language using the spatial categories of the University
of Chicago spatial language coding system (Cannon, Levine,
& Huttenlocher, 2007). Specifically, coders identified terms
and phrases that described the following spatial categories:
(1) spatial locations (up, down), (2) deictic terms (here, there),
(3) dimension (long, tall), (4) spatial features or properties
(curvy,straight), (5) shapes (rectangle,square), and(6) spatial
orientations or transformations (‘‘turn it around,’’ ‘‘the man
is facing the block’’). Coders only identified words that were
spatial in context and avoided idioms and/or spatial terms
that were used in a metaphorical way (e.g., ‘‘that building is on
fire,’’ ‘‘the doctor performs surgery on the patient’’). Repetitive
statements were only considered once, such that if the parent
of child repeated the same exact statement twice in a row,
only the first would be included in the analysis.
For each building phase, the total number of individual
spatial words (e.g., down) and phrases (a collection of words
that describe a single spatial meaning, e.g., in the middle,on each
side) were tallied. A ratio of spatial terminology to non-spatial
talk was calculated for each parent–child dyad. The ratio is
represented as:
Spatial words +Spatial phrases
Spatial words +Spatial phrases +Nonspatial ndividual words
To take into account the variation in verbosity across
different pairs, this ratio captures the proportion of total
utterances in each phase that were spatial in nature.
Spatial words and spatial phrases were independent of one
another—no spatial content was counted more than once.
Proportions of child and parental spatial language were
calculated and averaged separately for Phase 1 and Phase 2.
Three independent coders followed the criteria of the coding
system and coded transcripts from identical participants (7%
of the total transcripts included in the dataset) and were in
high agreement (r=.89) concerning the proportion of spatial
language present in both phases. A third coder second-coded
17% of the 72 transcripts and was in high agreement with both
primary coders (r=.87 and r=.95).
Results and Discussion
As is shown in Table 1, individuals varied a great deal in both
verbosity and use of spatial language. To elucidate the degree
to which block play in the three play contexts elicited spatial
language from parents, a repeated measures ANOVA was
performed. Spatial language in both phases (2) was the within-
subject variable, and condition (3), sex (2), and age (2) were
the between-subjects variables. The dependent variable was
the proportion of parent spatial language in Phases 1 and 2.
A significant effect was found for condition, F(2, 60)=10.62,
p<.05, η2=.26, as well as a significant phase by condition
interaction F(2, 60)=13.99, p<.05, η2=.32. Post hoc
comparisons (Tukey HSD) indicated that parents in the
guided play condition demonstrated significantly higher
proportions of spatial talk than those in the free play (mean
difference =.025, p<.001), or preassembled conditions
(mean difference =.022, p<.001). The preassembled and
free play conditions showed no significant difference from
one another (mean difference =.003, p=.866). To clarify
the main effect for play condition in Phase 1, independent
sample ttests were conducted. Parents in the guided play
condition (M=.096) demonstrated significantly more spatial
language than parents in the free play condition (M=.057),
t(46)=5.454, p<.05, or parents in the preassembled
condition (M=.057), t(46)=5.77, p<.05. No significant
differences were found between parents in the free play and
preassembled play condition, t(46)=.062, p=.95.
An additional question was whether children’s spatial lan-
guage would differ with the condition assigned. An ANOVA
analogous to the one above was conducted with the propor-
tions of child spatial language in Phases 1 and 2. A significant
main effect was found for condition, F(2, 60)=4.65, p<.05,
η2=0.90. Independent sample ttests showed that children
in the guided play condition (M=.067) demonstrated signif-
icantly more spatial language than children in the free play
condition (M=.046), t(45)=2.13, p<.05. Just as with the
parents, no significant differences were found between the pre-
assembled(M=.059) and free playconditions, t(46)=1.86,
p=.07. However, children in the guided play condition did
not significantly differ in their spatial talk from those in
Volume 5—Number 3 145
Block Talk
Table 1
Mean, Standard Deviation, and Range of Total Word and Spatial
Word Counts for Parents and Children in Phases 1 and 2, Shown for
the Guided, Free Play, and Preassembled Conditions of Study 1
M(SD) Range
Condition: Guided
Phase 1 Total words 724(197) 415–1220
Spatial words 71(32) 27–145
Phase 2 Total words 638(188) 318–1025
Spatial words 58(22) 24–112
Phase 1 Total words 197(91) 32–428
Spatial words 14(9) 2–38
Phase 2 Total words 234(118) 84–441
Spatial words 15 2–34
Condition: Free play
Phase 1 Total words 496(165) 191–899
Spatial words 29(15) 11–69
Phase 2 Total words 578(188) 180–947
Spatial words 45(22) 12–95
Phase 1 Total words 252(81) 115–403
Spatial words 12(7) 4–29
Phase 2 Total words 231(81) 88–367
Spatial words 12(6) 1–26
Condition: Preassembled
Phase 1 Total words 567(272) 128–1164
Spatial words 32(16) 7–66
Phase 2 Total words 582(248) 207–1120
Spatial words 15(7) 3–28
Phase 1 Total words 253(95) 68–428
Spatial words 51(28) 8–102
Phase 2 Total words 240(78) 42–401
Spatial words 17(8) 2–29
the preassembled condition, t(45)=.88, p=.38. Post hoc
comparisons (Tukey HSD) indicated that children in the
free play condition demonstrated significantly lower propor-
tions of spatial talk than those in the preassembled (mean
difference =.017, p=.023) and guided conditions (mean
difference =.016, p=.033). The difference between guided
play and preassembled conditions was not significant (mean
difference =.0011, p=.98). Overall, the observed differences
in child spatial talk indicate the beginnings of a trend similar
to that demonstrated by parents, but does not significantly
follow through to the assembled and guided play conditions.
Perhaps if the parameters of the study had been altered slightly,
such that the play session lasted for longer than 10 min, or if the
guided condition had contained more steps, children’s spatial
language would follow the pattern of parents in this respect.
To see if the condition assigned in Phase 1 bore a relationship
to the amount of spatial language demonstrated in Phase 2
(in which all dyads engaged in guided play), correlations
were computed across each of the three conditions, for
both parents and children. For each of the conditions
in Phase 1, the proportion of parent spatial language in
Phase 1 correlated with the same measure in Phase 2;
free play (r=.62, p<.001), guided (r=.66, p<.001), and
preassembled (r=.41, p<.05). This relationship was not
found for children in any of the conditions (rs<.15, ps>.05).
Proportions of parent and child spatial talk did not correlate
in the Phase 1 free play condition (r=.32, p>.05), or the
guided play condition (r=.17, p>.05) but did correlate in
the preassembled condition (r=.49, p<.05).
In recognition of the possibility that a particular type of
spatial word category could be driving the observed results for
both parents and children, separate ANOVAs were conducted
to determine whether the use of certain kinds of spatial
word categories (as defined by the coding system, such as
deictic terms, location terms, or descriptions of orientation and
transformation) varied by condition. Spatial word type (6) was
the within-subject variable, and condition (3) and sex (2) were
the between-subjects variables. The dependent variable was
the proportion of spatial language as categorized by the spatial
word categories. For parents, a significant effect was found for
condition, F(2, 60)=20.63, p<.001, η2=.385, as well as a
significant phase by condition interaction F(2, 60)=3.35,
p<.001, η2=.09. Post hoc comparisons (Tukey HSD)
confirmed that the instances of the spatial word categories
were significantly greater in the guided play condition than the
free play (mean difference =7.54, p<.001) and preassembled
play (mean difference =6.50, p<.001) conditions; the
preassembled play and guided play conditions did not
significantly differ from one another (mean difference =
1.04, p=.70). For children, a significant phase by condition
interaction was found, F(2, 60)=10.20, p<.001, η2=.236.
Tables 2 and 3 illustrate the means for each spatial category
for parents and children, for both Phases 1 and 2. As was found
in the analyses of overall proportions of spatial talk, children
do not show as dramatic an effect of condition as their parents.
Were children differentially engaged in play during these
three conditions? To answer this question, video footage was
coded for the amount of time 80% of the subjects spent
building, talking about, and generally interacting with the
block materials. On average, out of the 10-min session, children
spent 9 min, 37 s engaged with the blocks in Phase 1, and 9 min,
25 s in Phase 2. To asses whether condition had an effect
on levels on engagement, an ANOVA was conducted with
time spent playing in Phases 1 and 2 as the within-subjects
variable, gender (2) and condition (3) asthe between-subjects
variables. No significant differences were found among the
conditions assigned in Phase 1 (Mfree play =9.75, Mguided =
9.81, Mpreassembled =9.43), F(2, 55)=0.43, p=.84, η2=.001.
In summary, the analyses demonstrate that play context
(free, guided, and preassembled) impacts the spatial
vocabulary that children are apt to hear. The strength of
146 Volume 5—Number 3
Katrina Ferrara et al.
Table 2
Means for Spatial Word Categories Demonstrated by Parents in
Phases 1 and 2
Spatial word category Free play Guided Preassembled
Phase 1
Location 13.58 22.88 18.25
Deictic 6.67 17.59.58
Dimension 5.33 10.67 1.88
Feature/property 4.17 15.67 5.2
Shape 0.33 4.83 0.75
Phase 2
Location 17.75 24.17 19.71
Deictic 11.38 14.92 13.13
Dimension 4.71 7.25 5.29
Feature/property 12.58 13.42 13
Shape 1.04 1.79 1.04
the effect of construction contexts on parental talk is further
evidenced by the fact that no explicit instructions to use
spatial language were given. The guided play context in
particular elicited the most spatial language from parents,
perhaps because the dyad was most influenced by the shared
goal of the condition. For parents, the guided play condition
was also shown to elicit significantly higher amounts of spatial
words per category. Child data indicated the beginnings of
this trend, in that the free play context contained significantly
lower proportions of spatial talk; however the guided play and
preassembled play conditions did not differ from one another
in spatial proportions of speech or spatial word categories.
Study 1 leaves open the question of what baseline levels of
spatial language might be present when children and parents
interact in situations without blocks or other types of spatial
materials. We therefore sought to analyze the language of
Table 3
Means for Spatial Word CategoriesDemonstratedbyChildrenin
Phases 1 and 2
Spatial word category Free play Guided Preassembled
Phase 1
Location 5.29 3.21 9.58
Deictic 3.08 5.63 6.04
Dimension 2.13 3.67 0.46
Feature/property 1.58 1.83 1.33
Shape 0.13 1.33 0.04
Orientation/transformation 1.75 0.75 2.25
Phase 2
Location 4.52 5.292 6.25
Deictic 3.75 5.36.67
Dimension 2.17 2.63 2.42
Feature/property 2.54 2.33 2.88
Shape 0.17 0.38 1.08
Orientation/transformation 1.58 1.08 1.38
parents and children during other everyday non-spatial play
activities. In order to capture a naturalistic and heterogeneous
array of language in diverse non-spatial contexts, Study 2 used
the CHILDES database to investigate the quantity of spatial
language demonstrated by parents and children in other types
of play and daily life activities that do not involve construction.
Recruitment Method and Materials
To remain consistent with the methods of Study 1, transcripts
from the CHILDES database were selected to fit the following
criteria: (1) children were within the age parameters of Study 1
(3 through 5 years of age), (2) the transcribed interaction
was restricted to one caregiver speaking to one child (e.g.,
avoided group dialogue), and (3) the interaction involved
task(s) that did not involve play with construction toys.
Furthermore, when time information was included, 10-min
interactions were used to parallel the methods of Phase
1 in Study 1. If no time information was given, efforts
were made to closely match total word counts to those
demonstrated in Study 1. Ultimately, the collection of
transcripts represented the following activities (which were
not mutually exclusive across transcripts): lunch with parent,
play with puppets, drawing, playing house, playing store,
dressing up, playing ‘‘zoo’’ with animal figurines, pretending
to talk on a telephone, playing tea party with dolls, playing
with pretend food and kitchen utensils, playing ‘‘school,’’ and
throwing a ball.
Thirty-one transcripts were gathered and analyzed. In keeping
with the age groups of Study 1, 14 transcripts were obtained for
children approximately between the ages of 3 and 4.5 (6 males,
8 females, mean age 43 months, range 31–43 months) and 17
from children approximately between the ages of 4.5 and 5 (7
males, 10 females, mean age 63 months, range 54–71 months).
Procedure and Coding
Transcriptswereanalyzed according to the codingsystemused
in Study 1. Two reliable coders from Study 1 calculated the
proportions of parent and child spatial language demonstrated
in the CHILDES transcripts.
To compare the spatial content of the language that preschool
children hear from caregivers when participating in other
types of play (CHILDES control) to that of the language
elicited when playing with construction toys like blocks, a
one-way ANOVA was conducted. As illustrated in Figures 1
Volume 5—Number 3 147
Block Talk
and 2, significant differences were found between the spatial
language proportions in Study 1 and the proportions calculated
from the set of CHILDES transcripts, F(1, 102)=55.02, p<
.001. A series of independent samples ttests were performed
to probe the difference between the block construction play
groupsand the general play group.Itwas found that in the three
block play contexts, parents used significantly more spatial
language than those depicted in the CHILDES transcripts
(MCHILDES =.03, SE =.003): in the preassembled condition
(Mpreassembled =.057, SE =3.32), t(53)=6.29, p<.001, the
guided play condition (Mguided =.096, SE =6.46), t(53)=
10.59, p<.001, and the free play condition (Mfree play =.057,
SE =3.15), t(53)=5.71, p<.001.
Similarly, children themselves used spatial language
more frequently in the conditions of Study 1 than
those depicted in the CHILDES transcripts, F(1, 101)=
23.15, p<.001 (Figure 2). As with parents, independent
t-tests revealed that, when broken apart, each block play
condition elicited significantly more child language than
the selected CHILDES activities (MCHILDES =.03, SE =.003):
preassembled (Mpreassembled =.059, SE =5.79), t(53)=5.65,
p<.001; guided (Mguided =.067, SE =1.79), t(52)=4.23, p<
.001; and free play (Mfree play =.047, SE =4.53), t(53)=3.00,
p=.005. These results lead us to conclude that introducing
blocks to a play context is likely to elicit conversation
containing a host of spatial vocabulary above and beyond
what is used in other types of play.
The purpose of these studies was to explore whether children’s
learning of spatial language might be enhanced in settings
Proportion of spatial language
Free play Guided Preassembled CHILDES
Phase 1
Phase 2
Fig. 1. Proportions of parent spatial language in Phases 1 and 2 as a
function of play condition group (Study 1), in comparison to parent
spatial language proportions demonstrated in selected CHILDES
transcripts (Study 2).
Free play Guided Preassembled CHILDES
Phase 1
Phase 2
Proportion of spatial language
Fig. 2. Proportions of child spatial language in Phases 1 and 2 as a
function of play condition group (Study 1), in comparison to child
spatial language proportions demonstrated in selected CHILDES
transcripts (Study 2).
involving play with blocks, paying particular attention to the
role of verbal descriptions of spatial concepts. The first study
revealed that parents and children do use spatial language
in block play, and even more importantly, that different play
contexts were more or less supportive of the use of spatial
language. In particular, the guided play context in Study 1
promoted more spatial talk from parents than the other two
Child spatial language followed a similar trend, in that
children in the guided play condition demonstrated more
spatial language than those in the free play condition, but not
in the assembled condition. Based upon what was observed in
the play conditions, it seems that the preassembled structure
afforded play that involved different types of spatial relations
apart from those used in construction contexts, for example:
‘‘Mommy let’s drive the cars in and out of the garage,’’ or, ‘‘The
fireman is climbing all the way up to the top of the building.’’
Parents and children often elicited and commented on spatial
actions with the figures and vehicles provided. In contrast, in
the free play condition, children would put blocks together
somewhat randomly and seemed to not pay as much attention
to the figures and vehicles. This was also observed in the guided
play condition at times. If parents played less of an assertive
role, children would sometimes became more absorbed with
the activity of building, rather than building in a way that
followed the prescribed steps (it should be noted that in the
guided play condition, no strict rules were imposed such that
the building would have to be finished by the end of the play
session.) When children became absorbed with the materials,
not as much conversation about spatial configurations was
elicited as in the preassembled condition. We hypothesize
that stretches of this type of play may have contributed to
the lack of a difference between proportions of children’s
148 Volume 5—Number 3
Katrina Ferrara et al.
spatial talk in the preassembled and guided play conditions.
It may be that with a slightly older age group of children
who have a wider range of conversational and block building
skills (perhaps 6–7 year olds), the guided play condition would
show significantly higher proportions of spatial talk for both
parents and children alike.
The second study allowed us to conclude that ordinary,
everyday interactions of parents and preschoolers do not
necessarilyinvolve spatial talk toas great an extentasplay with
construction materials. In these forms of play, it is notable that
the mean proportions of spatial phrases and words were found
to be the same for parents and children alike (MCHILDES =.03).
Thus, it seems likely that block play confers an advantage for
children’s exposure to spatial language and encourages them
and their parents to use spatially relevant terms.
These findings hold substantial educational implication
for the enhancement of spatial instruction. Many current
organizations have recognized the need to bolster this area in
the classroom. In 2006, the National Research Council’s report
entitled Learning to Think Spatially, outlined the importance of
developing spatial skills not only for success in the STEM
disciplines, but also for normal functioning in everyday life.
Despite its fundamental role, spatial learning is not specifically
addressed in many preschool and kindergarten curriculums
(National Research Council, 2006). The Council’s report
specifically advocated for greater inclusion of direct spatial
ability training, and defined spatial ability as the ability to
process, manipulate, and visualize spatial information. A
recent meta-analysis of the efficacy of such spatial ability
training showed that it is malleable and can benefit from
training (Hand, Uttal, Marulis, & Newcombe, 2008). As set
forth in their Geometry Standards for Pre-K to Grade 2, the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000) highlight
the following spatial reasoning objectives: Describing spatial
relationships (e.g., the ability to use words such as top and
bottom), and creating mental images of geometric shapes.
Blocks may be one such educational tool that provide
young children with an accessible and playful introduction to
these spatial concepts and abilities. It has been demonstrated
that words embedded in playful contexts are learned better
and faster (Neuman & Roskos, 1992). The current study
indicates that play with blocks in a semi-structured guided
play context, in the company of a more experienced partner,
is especially beneficial for children’s exposure to spatial
language. The particular benefits of a guided play approach
have additionally been demonstrated in children’s learning of
the properties of shapes (Fisher et al., 2009). This hearkens
back to Vygotsky’s classic theory of scaffolded learning within
the zone of proximal development, in which a novice’s learning
is facilitated by an expert instructor (Vygotsky, 1978). Block
play in the preschool years may be additionally appropriate as
an educational tool in that it coincides with observed trends
in language development. It is between the ages of 2 and 5 that
children begin to express and understand relational concepts
such as big/little, wide/narrow, tall/short, in/on, high/low,
and here/there (de Villiers & de Villiers, 1979, 1992). Around
the age of 3, children use these terms to make appropriate
judgments of function (Gelman & Ebeling, 1989). With the
guidance of an adult partner, children will be exposed to
new and more sophisticated forms of spatial language to add
to their growing lexicons, granting them opportunities to
elaborate and expand upon their developing knowledge of
spatial relations and corresponding categorical labels.
The fact that no gender differences were found in the
current study additionally speaks to the educational validity
of blocks as a tool in the classroom. Although prior research
has typified a greater male preference for play with blocks
(Farrell, 1957; Farwell, 1930; Saracho, 1994, 1995), it seems
that girls may be just as motivated to play with construction
materials. Indeed, for all of the conditions in the current study,
it was found that girls and boys did not differ from one another
in the amount of time spent engaging with the blocks. In
assessments of competency in block building skills, boys have
been shown to have no advantages over girls (see review by
Kersh et al., 2008). Thus, teachers may incorporate blocks
into their pedagogical techniques without overt concern for
alienating female members of the class.
The delivery of spatial language through block play may also
prove particularly powerful as an educational tool for children
of low-SES (socioeconomic status) households, who may face
specific contextual challenges in acquiring language (Case,
Griffin, & Kelly, 2001; Whitehurst, 1997). It has been found
that although low- and high-SES children start out with the
same number of spatial words at 30 months of age, the linear
rate of growth of spatial words is slower for low-SES children
when compared to middle- and high-SES children (Pruden
et al., 2010). Block play may also prove to be a particularly
useful and accessible tool in introducing at-risk children to
fundamental mathematical concepts (Park, Chae, & Foulks,
2008), and address differences in mathematics achievement
scores(Jordan, Huttenlocher, & Levine,1992; Saxe, Guberman,
Blocks offer one play context that may enhance learning.
Here, we examined block play between parents and children,
and found that, in comparison to many other types of play
activities, blocks encourage parents and children to use
significantly more spatial terms in conversations with one
another. The fact that the guided play condition elicits more
spatial language suggests that experimental and educational
interventions may follow such a model to increase the
frequency of spatial language children hear and come to
use on their own. Pre-K and kindergarten teachers may not
fully recognize the educational value of block play (National
Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC]
1997; Park, Chae, & Foulks, 2008; Wellhousen & Keoff, 2000;
Zacharos, Koliopoulos, Dokomaki, & Kassoumi, 2007). These
Volume 5—Number 3 149
Block Talk
finding bear direct relevance to implementation in classrooms,
in which a teacher may use goal-directed block play as a
means of introducing and acting out spatial concepts and
A recent meta-analysis (Alfieri, Brooks, Aldrich, &
Tenenbaum, 2010) of discovery-based learning speaks to this
issue. The authors define discovery learning as occurring when
‘‘the learner is not provided with the target information or
conceptual understanding and must find it independently and
with only the provided materials....there is an opportunity
to provide the learners with intensive or conversely, minimal
guidance, and both types can take many forms’’ (p. 2). The
guided condition of this study fits within this approach, in
which the end product of a complete structure is obtained
by sequential stages at which children receive guidance and
feedback from their parents as needed. Based upon their
findings in the meta-analysis, Alfieri et al. (2010) suggest that
pedagogical approaches that employ scaffolded tasks with
predefined objectives confer particular benefits for learners.
Teachers may adopt this strategy in the context of guided play
with blocks, providing children with explanation and support,
yet also allowing them the space to build and discover on
their own.
Because of the unique language it elicits, playing with
blocks may be one of the means by which young children
begin to develop the spatial abilities that have been found
to be linked to a number of academic achievements later in
life (Humphreys, Lubinski, & Yao, 1993; Shea, Lubinski, &
Benbow, 2001). These data are among the first to show that
naturalistic interactions between parents and children can
build a foundation for important spatial concepts and the
means of expressing them through language. Future research
will further elucidate the way in which block play may be
utilized as a mode that fuses together playful learning and
spatial education.
AcknowledgmentsThis research was supported in part by
funding from the National Science Foundation Science of
Learning Center (Grant #SBE 0541957) to Nora S. Newcombe,
the National Institutes of Health Stimulus Grant (Grant
#1RC1HD0634970-01) to Roberta Michnick Golinkoff and
Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, as well as a gift from MEGA Brands.
We are grateful to the contributions to this work made by the
members of the Temple Infant Lab and the Research in Spatial
Cognition Lab.
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2010).
Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 80,424436.
Battista, M. T. (1990). Spatial visualization and gender differences in
high school geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
21(1), 47–60.
Brosnan, M. J. (1998). Spatial ability in children’s play with Lego
blocks. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87,1928.
Burnett, S. A., Lane, D. M., & Dratt, L. M. (1979). Spatial visualization
and sex differences in quantitative ability. Intelligence, 4,233242.
Caldera, Y. M., C ulp, A. M., O’Brien, M., Truglio, R. T., Alvarez, M., &
Huston, A. C. (1999). Children’s play preferences, construction
play with blocks, and visual-spatial skills: Are they related?
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 23,855872.
Cannon, J., Levine, S., & Huttenlocher, J. (2007). A system for analyzing
children and caregivers’ language about space in structured and
unstructured contexts. Spatial Intelligence and Learning Center
(SILC) technical report.
Case, R. Griffin, S., & Kelly, W. M. (2001). Socioeconomic differences
in children’s early cognitive development and their readiness
for schooling. In S. L. Golbeck (Ed.) Psychological perspectives on
early childhood education: Reframing dilemmas in research and practice.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Casasola, M. (2008). The development of infants’ spatial categories.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(1), 21–25.
Casey, B. M., Andrews, N., Schindler, H., Kersh, J. E., Samper, A.,
involving block building activities. Cognition and Instruction, 26,
Casey, B. M., Nuttall, R., Pezaris, E., & Benbow, C. P. (1995). The
influence of spatial ability on gender differences in mathematics
college entrance test scores across diverse samples. Developmental
Psychology, 31,697705.
Casey, M. B., Nuttall, R. L., & Pezaris, E. (1997). Mediators of
gender differences in mathematics college entrance test scores:
Acomparison of spatial skills with internalized beliefs and
anxieties. Developmental Psychology, 33, 669–680.
Christie, J. F., & Enz, B. (1992). The effects of literacy play
interventions on preschoolers’ play patterns and literacy
development. Early Education and Development, 3,205225.
Christie, J., & Roskos, K. (2006). Standards, science, and the role of
play in early literacy education. In D. Singer, R. M. Golinkoff,
&K.Hirsh-Pasek(Eds.),Play = learning: How play motivates and
enhances children’s cognitive and social- emotional growth (pp. 57–73).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Delgado, A. R., & Prieto, G. (2004). Cognitive mediators and sex-
related differences in mathematics. Intelligence, 32(1), 25–32.
de Villiers, P. A., & de Villiers, J. G. (1979). Early Language. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
de Villiers, P. A., & de Villiers, J. G. (1992). Language development. In
M. H. Bornstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental psychology:
An advanced textbook (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Farrell, M. (1957). Gender differences in clock play in early childhood
education. Journal of Educational Research, 51,279284.
Farwell, L. (1930). Reactions of kindergarten, first-and-second grade
children to constructive play materials. Genetic Psychology
Monographs: Child Behavior, Animal Behavior, and Comparative
Psychology, 8,431469.
Fennema, E., & Tartre, L. A. (1985). The use of spatial visualization in
mathematics by girls and boys. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 16,184206.
Fisher, K., Ferrara, K., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Newcombe,N., & Golinkoff, R.
(2009, October). Transforming preschoolers’ geometric shape
150 Volume 5—Number 3
Katrina Ferrara et al.
knowledge: Exploring verbalizations and behaviors during a
categorization task. Poster presented at the Biennial Cognitive
Development Society Conference, San Antonio, TX.
Gelman, S. A., & Ebeling, K. S. (1989). Children’s use of nonegocentric
standards in judgments of functional size. Child Development, 60,
Gentner, D. (2003). Why we’re so smart. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-
Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language
and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gentner, D., & Loewenstein, J. (2002). Relational language and
relational thought. In E. Amsel & J. P. Byrnes (Eds.), Language,
literacy, and cognitive development:Thedevelopmentandconsequencesof
symbolic communication (pp. 87–120). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ginsburg, H. (2006). Mathematical play and playful mathematics:
K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play =Learning: How play motivates and
enhanceschildren’scognitive andsocial- emotional growth (pp. 145–165).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Guay, R. B., & McDaniel, E. D. (1977). The relationship between
mathematics achievement and spatial abilities among elemen-
tary school children. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
Hand, L. L., Uttal, D. H., Marulis, L., & Newcombe, N. S. (2008).
AMeta-analysis oftraining effects onspatialskills. Presented
at the annual meetings of the Association for Psychological
Science, Chicago.
Hart, B.,&Risley, T.(1995).Meaningfuldifferences intheeverydayexperience
of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Hegarty, M., & Kozhevnikov, M. (1999). Types of visual-spatial
representations and mathematical problem solving. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 91,684689.
Hoff, E. (2006). Environmental supports for language acquisition. In
D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy
research (Vol. 2,pp.163172).NewYork:GuilfordPress.
Humphreys, L. G., Lubinski, D., & Yao, G. (1993). Correlates of some
curious regressions on a measure of intelligence. Journal of School
Psychology, 31,385405.
Huttenlocher, J., Haight, W., Bryk, A., Seltzer, M., & Lyons, T. (1991).
Early vocabulary growth: Relation to language input and gender.
Developmental Psychology, 27,236248.
Kamii, C., Miyakawa, Y., & Kato, Y. (2004). The development of
logico-mathematical knowledge inablock-buildingactivityat
ages 1–4. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 19,4457.
Kersh, J., Casey, B. M ., &M ercerYoung, J. (2008). Research on spatial
skills and block building in girls and boys: The relationship to
later mathematics learning. In O. N. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.),
Contemporary perspectives on mathematics in early childhood education
(pp. 233–252). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Leeb-Lundberg, K. (1996). The block builder mathematician. In
E. S. Hirsh (Ed.), The block book (pp. 34–60). Washington, DC:
National Association for the Education of Young Children.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1997).
Developmentally appropriate practices in early childhood programs.
Washington, DC: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and
standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Research Council. (2006). Learning to think spatially.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Ness, D., & Farenga, S. J. (2007). Knowledge under construction: The
importance of play in developing children’s spatial and geometric thinking.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Neuman, S., & Roskos, K. (1992). Literacy objects as cultural tools:
Effects on children’s Literacy behaviors during play. Reading
Research Quarterly, 27,203223.
Pruden, S. M., Levine, S. C., & Huttenlocher, J. (2010, March).
Individual differences in children’s spatial language use predicts
later spatial cognition. Paper presented at in S. Roseberry &
T. Goks¨
un (Chairs), When representational systems collide:
Aligning space and language. International Society on Infant
Studies, Baltimore, MD.
Reifel, S. (1984). Block construction: Children’s developmental
landmarks in representation of space. Young Children, 40,6167.
Saracho, O. N. (1994). The relationship of preschool children’s
cognitive style to their play preferences. Early Child Development
and Care, 97,2133.
Saracho, O. N. (1995). Preschooler’s cognitive style and their selection
of academic areas in their play. Early Child Development and Care,
Shea, D. L., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Importance of
assessing spatial ability in intellectually talented young
adolescents: A 20-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93,604614.
Shutts, K., Ornkloo, H., von Hoftsen, C., Keen, R., & Spelke, E.
(2009). Young children’s representations of spatial and func-
tional relations between objects. Child Development, 80, 1612–1627.
Stieff, M. (2007). Mental rotation and diagrammatic reasoning in
science. Learning and Instruction, 17,219234.
Tracy, D. M. (1987). Toys, spatial ability, and science and mathematics
achievement: Are they related? Sex Roles, 17,115138.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). The role of play in development. In M. Cole, V.
John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society:
The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press. (Original work published in 1930, 1993, 1935.)
Weizman, Z. O., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Lexical output as related
to children’s vocabulary acquisition: Effects of sophisticated
exposure and support for meaning. Developmental Psychology, 37,
Wellhousen, K., & Keoff, J. E. (2000). A constructivist approach to block
play in early childhood. New York: Thomas Delmar Learning.
Whitehurst, G. J. (1997). Language processes in context: Language
learning in children reared in poverty. In L. B. Adamson &
M. A. Romski (Ed.), Research on communication and language disor-
ders: Contribution to theories of language development (pp. 233–266).
Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Wolfgang, C. H., Stannard, L. L., & Jones, I. (2003). Advanced con-
structional play with LEGOs among preschoolers as a predictor
of later school achievement in mathematics. Early Child Develop-
ment and Care, 173(5), 46–75.
Wu, H., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chem-
istry learning. Science Education, 88,465492.
Zacharos, K., Koliopoulos, D., Dokomaki, M. & Kassoumi, H. (2007).
Views of prospective early childhood education teachers,
towards mathematics and its instruction. European Journal of
Teacher Education, 30,305318.
Volume 5—Number 3 151
... Exposure to block-building activities is often deemed important for children's early development in various domains, such as cognition, socialization, motor, and fine motor skills, as well as language and literacy (Stroud, 1995;Pickett, 1998;Christakis et al., 2007;Cohen and Uhry, 2007;Hanline et al., 2010;Ferrara et al., 2011). Furthermore, many studies have demonstrated the benefits of block play on visual perception ability, mathematics learning (Pirrone and Di Nuovo, 2014;Trawick-Smith et al., 2017), mental imagery (Pirrone et al., 2015(Pirrone et al., , 2018, and other developmental domains (Verdine et al., 2014). ...
... Block play is a common activity in the early years, which has also been defined as an open-ended, creative, and valuable play and learning experience available to every setting, offering children enormous opportunities to explore their surrounding world by taking apart and putting back together any blockbased creation they can think of (Rybczynski and Troy, 1995;Ferrara et al., 2011;Cai et al., 2020). In the past decades, researchers reached a consensus that block play in the early years generates various kinds of benefits for children's development, which include but are not limited to: motor and fine-motor skills (Hanline et al., 2001), social development (i.e., peer-relationship, cooperation, prosocial behaviors, etc., see Rybczynski and Troy, 1995), cognitive development [i.e., spatial ability, see Wolfgang et al. (2001) for example; math achievement, see Hanline et al. (2010) for example; engineering potentials, etc., see Cai et al. (2020) for example], and language development (Stroud, 1995;Pickett, 1998;Christakis et al., 2007;Cohen and Uhry, 2007;Ferrara et al., 2011). ...
... Block play is a common activity in the early years, which has also been defined as an open-ended, creative, and valuable play and learning experience available to every setting, offering children enormous opportunities to explore their surrounding world by taking apart and putting back together any blockbased creation they can think of (Rybczynski and Troy, 1995;Ferrara et al., 2011;Cai et al., 2020). In the past decades, researchers reached a consensus that block play in the early years generates various kinds of benefits for children's development, which include but are not limited to: motor and fine-motor skills (Hanline et al., 2001), social development (i.e., peer-relationship, cooperation, prosocial behaviors, etc., see Rybczynski and Troy, 1995), cognitive development [i.e., spatial ability, see Wolfgang et al. (2001) for example; math achievement, see Hanline et al. (2010) for example; engineering potentials, etc., see Cai et al. (2020) for example], and language development (Stroud, 1995;Pickett, 1998;Christakis et al., 2007;Cohen and Uhry, 2007;Ferrara et al., 2011). ...
Full-text available
This study investigated the role of theme-based blocks play in enhancing Chinese children's language capacity with a quasi-experiment. Altogether 61 young children were assigned to the experiment group (M age = 5.83, SD = 0.25, 56.25% girls) and the control group (M age = 5.87, SD = 0.28, 51.72% girls). The experiment group was engaged in a 12-week theme-based block play intervention programs, whereas the control group received no interventions but free block play during the parallel time sessions. All the children were tested with the Language Assessment for Preschool Children (LAPC) before and after the intervention. The ANCOVA results indicated that the experimental group significantly improved in LAPC test, whereas the control group showed no significant change. The educational implications of these findings are discussed.
... Model PKPK menggunakan metode bermain dengan bimbingan (guided play), walaupun pada tahapan proses kreatif siswa bermain bebas (free play). Studi tentang penggunaan metode bermain dengan bimbingan dalam bermain balok dilakukan oleh (Ferrara.K. et al, 2011) (Ramani et al., n.d.), sedang pemanfaatan bermain bebas oleh (Bergen. D, 2002;Brown. ...
Full-text available
Abstrak Salah satu cara mengembangkan kreativitas anak usia dini melalui permainan konstruktif (balok). Indonesia masih jarang dikembangkan teknik permainan balok. Beberapa teknik dari luar sulit diaplikasikan guru PAUD di Indonesia. Model Pengembangan Kreativitas Permainan Konstruktif (PKPK) dikembangkan tahun 2008 dan direkonstruksi 2019 pada skenario dan tahapan disesuaikan jenis balok untuk mempermudah guru dan telah diuji efektivitasnya. Penelitian menguji apakah pelatihan model PKPK berkontribusi dalam meningkatkan keterampilan guru membimbing siswa bermain. Penelitian menggunakan pre-experimental dengan one-group pretest-posttest design. Alat pengumpul data menggunakan observasi dan ceklis. Analisis data menggunakan statistik deskriptif. Temuan penelitian menunjukkan pelatihan berkontribusi meningkatkan keterampilan guru dalam: (a) menguasai prosedur, skenario, tahapan bermain; (b) melaksanakan kegiatan bimbingan bermain secara menarik dan menyenangkan; (c) kemudahan menggunakan alat main dan pengaturan waktu, (d) kemampuan menilai siswa. Peningkatan tersebut diikuti partisipasi siswa dan efektivitas bermain. Hasil penelitian berimplikasi bagi guru untuk mengikuti pelatihan sebelum mengaplikasikan model PKPK di lembaga PAUD. Kata Kunci: pelatihan guru, permainan balok, model PKPK, anak usia dini. Abstract One way to develop early childhood creativity is through constructive plays (blocks). Indonesia, the technique of playing blocks is still rarely developed. Some of the techniques introduced from outside are difficult for PAUD teachers to apply in Indonesia. The Model Pengembangan Kreativitas Permainan Konstruktif (PKPK) was developed in 2008 and reconstructed in 2019 in scenarios and stages adapted to the type of block to make it easier for teachers and its effectiveness has been tested. The study tested whether the PKPK model training contributed to improving the skills of teachers in guiding students to play. The study used a pre-experimental one-group pretest-posttest design. Data collection tools using observations and checklists. Data analysis used descriptive statistics. Research findings show that training contributes to improving teachers' skills in: (a) mastering procedures, scenarios, stages of play; (b) carry out play guidance activities in an interesting and fun way; (c) ease of use of play tools and timing, (d) ability to assess students. The increase was followed by student participation and play effectiveness. The results of the study have implications for teachers to attend training before applying the PKPK model in PAUD institutions.
... While children are making such statements, their play is influenced by a variety of social, cultural, and environmental factors (Gaskins et al., 2006;Göncü et al., 2007;Roopnarine & Davidson, 2015;Wood, 2014). For example, the involvement of teachers or parents (Devi et al., 2018;Ferrara et al., 2011;Lin & Li, 2018;Trawick-Smith & Dziurgot, 2010), play affordances and materials within the environment (Gibson, 1977;Hartle, 1996;Hartle & Johnson, 1993;Heft, 1997), and children's personal characteristics (Hartle & Johnson, 1993;Sandseter & Kennair, 2011), can contribute to the way children utilize the available play materials and features which ultimately influence their play behaviors. Particularly, the physical environment where children play, run, jump, climb, and/or slide is important not only in supporting children's growth, development, and learning but also in supporting a wide range of play types (Moore, 2006). ...
Full-text available
The aim of this study was to examine the design features of six outdoor play areas and the play preferences of children using these areas. Through the behavior mapping method, 102 preschoolers were observed for 3 days during their hour-long outdoor play time. The Playground’s Physical Characteristics Scale and Play Observation Form were utilized for observations. It was indicated that manufactured fixed equipment primarily dominated the observed play areas and play types of children. Functional/parallel play was the most commonly observed play type within areas with manufactured fixed equipment. However, different cognitive and social play types were observed in areas that included natural elements, open area, and loose materials. Thus, it was indicated that there is need for change from a traditional design mind-set regarding play areas, to more child-centered designs where the needs and inputs of children are taken into consideration during the design process.
... Baker (1989) emphasized the significance of the block play environment and argued that a wellplanned environment stimulated the child's imagination and tolerance, in other words, an environment that allowed the child to play blocks under adult guidance enabled the child to develop his/her creative skills. Ferrara, Hirsh-Pasek, Newcombe, Golinkoff, and Lam (2011) found that children used spatial words more in guided block play than in free play. Adult guidance has an important place in the formation of the child's ideas and in the development of cognitive processes and creativity, which Vygotsky (1966) also emphasized within the scope of the field of proximal development (Berk, 2013;Santrock, 2021). ...
... While some studies suggest a biological basis for differences in visuospatial skill level (e.g., Geary, 2007;Gur & Gur, 2007;Halari et al., 2005), ample evidence shows the critical impact of societal and environmental factors in spatial performance (such as parents' spatial language use, engagement in spatial play and activities, gender stereotypes, and societal expectations; Ferrara et al., 2011;Neuburger et al., 2015;Polinsky et al., 2017). Many studies demonstrated that VS skills can be greatly improved through video game play (Carbonell-Carrera et al., 2021;Choi & Feng, 2017;Milani et al., 2019) and spatial training (Gold et al., 2018;Gómez-Tone et al., 2020;Terlecki et al., 2008;Uttal et al., 2013;Wright et al., 2008). ...
Full-text available
Visuospatial (VS) skills have been shown to be a crucial foundation for success in STEM courses and careers while the impact of visuospatial self-efficacy (VSSE) has been overlooked. To address the lack of a reliable instrument to measure VSSE, we developed and validated a VSSE scale. Exploratory Factor Analysis of the initial 42 scale items (n = 179) suggested a five-factor structure with 25 items retained. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the 25 items (n = 183) demonstrated a reasonable model fit to the data. Coupled with acceptable to high levels of internal consistency, the results indicate that the VSSE scale can be used as a diagnostic and research tool in educational practice and future research.
... The amount of math-related language parents use at home is predictive of children's emerging math skills (Ramani et al., 2015), and similarly, parental use of words describing space predicts children's spatial language use and spatial reasoning skills (Ferrara et al., 2011;Pruden et al., 2011). When considering how to support families in using more STEM language, we suggest considering how to increase opportunities in which STEM language might be naturally elicited, such as measuring during shared cooking, counting pairs of socks, or gazing at the night's sky. ...
Spatial language and ability play important roles in children’s cognitive development. Spatial ability in kindergarten predicts achievement in reading, math, science, and technology in primary school and therefore constitutes an important skill set in preparation for school entrance. Good spatial thinking skills are required for learning in school. The study’s purpose was to examine the contribution of robot programming to an intervention aimed at promoting spatial language (spatial vocabulary) and spatial ability (mental rotation, visual-spatial memory) among preschool children at risk for Specific learning disability (SLD). The sample of 84 preschool children participating in the study was randomly assigned to three groups: (1) intervention group with robot programming, (2) intervention group without robot programming, and (3) a control group. The findings indicate that children exposed to the robot-based intervention exhibited the greatest improvement in spatial vocabulary and mental rotation tests when compared to the children who participated in either the intervention without robot programming or in the control group. No significant differences between the groups were found in post-intervention visual-spatial memory. The findings indicate that robot programming activity contributes unique added value in attempts to foster spatial vocabulary and mental rotation.
A corpus of nearly 150,000 maternal word-tokens used by 53 low-income mothers in 263 mother-child conversations in 5 settings (e.g., play. mealtime, and book readings) was studied, Ninety-nine percent of maternal lexical input consisted of the 3,000 most frequent words. Children's vocabulary performance in kindergarten and later in 2nd grade related more to the occurrence of sophisticated lexical items than to quantity of lexical input overall. Density of sophisticated words heard and the density with which such words were embedded in helpful or instructive interactions, at age 5 at home, independently predicted over a third of the variance in children's vocabulary performance in both kindergarten and 2nd grade. These two variables, with controls for maternal education, child nonverbal IQ, and amount of child's talk produced during the interactive settings, at age 5, predicted 50% of the variance in children's 2nd-grade vocabulary.
This chapter examines the role of mathematics in children's play and the role of play in early mathematics education. The confluence of environment and biology guarantees that virtually all children acquire major aspects of everyday mathematics (EM). Children's EM is ubiquitous, often competent, and more complex than usually assumed. It involves activities as diverse as perceiving which of two plates of cookies has "more" and reflecting on the issue of what is the largest number. It should therefore come as no surprise that EM is a significant aspect of children's play. Children use informal skills and ideas relating to number, shape, and pattern as they play with blocks or read storybooks. Indeed, EM provides the cognitive foundation for a good deal of play, as well as for other aspects of the child's life. Even more remarkably, spontaneous play may entail explicit mathematical content: young children can enjoy explorations of number and pattern as much as messing around with clay.
Knowledge under Construction is the first to examine young children's spatial and scientific thinking through their architectural constructions with Legos and blocks. The authors' coding system allows teachers and parents to observe and record children's cognitive behaviors related to spatial thinking. In challenging Piaget's thesis, the authors illuminate our conceptions of children's emergent knowledge of space and scientific inquiry, and provide new insight into alternative ways to measure cognitive abilities in children based through block play.
The balance between visual-spatial and verbal-logical thought may determine "mathematical casts of mind" that influence how an individual processes mathematical information. Thus, to investigate the role that spatial thinking plays in learning, problem solving, and gender differences in high school geometry, spatial thought was examined along with its counterpart verbal-logical thought. The results suggest that whereas males and females differed in spatial visualization and in their performance in high school geometry, they did not differ in logical reasoning ability or in their use of geometric problem-solving strategies. There was evidence of gender differences in profiles of those mental abilities that are important for geometry performance and of a teacher-by-gender interaction on geometry achievement.
This longitudinal study investigated how girls and boys who were discrepant in their spatial and verbal performance used spatial visualization skills in solving word problems and fraction problems. The subjects, 36 girls and 33 boys, were interviewed annually in Grades 6, 7, and 8. Each student was asked to read a problem, draw a picture to help solve it, solve it, and then explain how the picture was used in the solution. Students who differed in spatial visualization skill did not differ in their ability to find correct problem solutions, but students with a higher level of spatial visualization skill tended to use spatial skills in problem solving more often than students with a lower level of skill. Girls tended to use pictures more during problem solving than boys did, but this did not enable them to get as many correct solutions. Low spatial visualization skill may be more debilitating to girls' mathematical problem solving than to boys'.
The literature regarding the relationship between elementary school mathematics achievement and spatial abilities is not clear. Four spatial tests were administered to 90 children enrolled in Grade 2 through Grade 7. Two tests measured simple spatial ability, that is, visualizing two-dimensional configurations; the other two measured complex spatial ability, that is, visualizing and mentally rotating three-dimensional configurations. Scores on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills were used to classify children as high or low mathematics achievers. High mathematics achievers scored significantly higher ( $p<.05$ ) than low mathematics achievers on all four spatial tests. Additionally, males scored significantly higher ( $p<.05$ ) than females on the two tests measuring complex spatial ability.
This study examined the effects of literacy-enriched play settings on preschoolers' literacy behaviors in spontaneous free play. 91 children, ages 3-5, from two urban day-care centers participated in the study. Prior to and following the intervention, the frequency of each child's handling, reading, and writing behaviors in play was assessed through direct observation. Videotaped samples of play areas examined the nature of children's play themes and their uses of literacy objects in play. Following baseline observations, the physical environment of one of the day-care centers was enriched with literacy objects in three distinct play centers: kitchen, office, and library. Significant differences were recorded for the intervention group in the frequency, duration, and complexity of literacy demonstrations in play. Further, children in the intervention group incorporated literacy objects in more diverse and functional ways in their play, using more explicit language than the nonintervention group. /// [French] Cette etude a porté sur les effets de situations de jeu comportant des objets pour lire et écrire sur les comportements relatifs à la lecture-écriture d'enfants d'âge préscolaire en situation de jeu spontané et sans contrainte. 91 enfants, de 3 à 5 ans, provenant de deux centres d'une ville, ont participé à la recherche. On a évalué par observation directe la fréquence des comportements de saisie, de lecture et d'écriture de chaque enfant, avant et après intervention. Des échantillons vidéo des domaines de jeu portent sur les thèmes de jeu et sur l'utilisation objects pour lire et écrire. Conformément aux observations de départ, l'environnement physique de l'un des centres comporte des objets pour lire et écrire, appartenant à trois domaines différents: la Cuisine, le Bureau, et la Bibliothèque. On a relevé des différences significatives pour le groupe d'intervention en fréquence, durée et complexité des manifestations de lecture-écriture. En outre, les enfants du groupe d'intervention ont introduit les objets de lecture-écriture. En outre, les enfants du groupe d'intervention ont introduit dans leurs jeux les objets de lecture-écriture de façon plus diversifiée et plus fonctionnelle, tout en utilisant un langage plus explicite que ceux du groupe sans intervention. /// [Spanish] Este estudio examinó los efectos de medio ambientes de juegos de alfabetización enriquecidos en las conductas alfabetizadoras de niños en edad pre-escolar durante juegos espontáneos. Participaron 91 niños entre 3-5 años, de dos centros urbanos pre-escolares. Mediante la observación directa antes y durante la intervención, se verificó la frecuencia de cada niño en el comportamiento y manejo de la lectura y la escritura durante el juego. Se grabaron videos de las areas de juego que examinaron la naturaleza de los temas y los usos de objetos de alfabetización. Continuando las observaciones básicas, el entorno físico de uno de los centros urbanos pre-escolares fue enriquecido con objetos alfabetizantes de tres centros de juegos distintos: la Cocina, La Oficina, y la Biblioteca. Se registraron diferencias significativas en el grupo intervenido en lo que hace a la frecuencia, duración y complejidad de las demostraciones alfabetizantes del juego. Más aún, los niños del grupo intervenido incorporaron objetos de alfabetización durante sus juegos de formas más diversas y funcionales utilizando lenguaje más explícito que el grupo no intervenido. /// [German] Die vorliegende Studie untersucht Auswirkungen von schriftsprachlich angereicherten Spielumgebungen auf das Lese-Rechtschreib-Verhalten von Vorschulkindern im spontanen freien Spiel. 91 Kinder im Alter zwischen 3 und 5 Jahren aus zwei städtischen Kindertagesstätten nahmen an der Studie teil. Vor und nach der Intervention wurde für jedes Kind die Häufigkeiten der Objekthandhabung, des Lesens und Schreibens durch direkte Beobachtung erfaßt. Die Spielthemen der Kinder wurden anhand stichprobenartiger Videoaufzeichnungen der Spielzonen erhoben. In einer der Tagesstätten wurde nach der baseline-Beobachtung die Umgebung von drei Spielzentren (Küche, Büro und Bibliothek) mit schriftsprachlichen Objekten angereichert. In der Interventionsgruppe zeigten sich signifikante Unterschiede hinsichtlich der Häufigkeit, Dauer und Komplexität von schriftsprachlichem Verhalten im Spiel. Weiterhin bezogen die Kinder der Interventionsgruppe Leseobjekte in vielfältigerer und stärker funktionaler Weise in ihr Spiel ein und verwendeten explizitere Sprache als die Kinder der Kontrollgruppe.