Content uploaded by Lynn E. Cohen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lynn E. Cohen on Feb 26, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gecd20
Download by: [LIU Libraries] Date: 23 September 2016, At: 17:40
Early Child Development and Care
ISSN: 0300-4430 (Print) 1476-8275 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gecd20
Block play: spatial language with preschool and
school-aged children
Lynn E. Cohen & Janet Emmons
To cite this article: Lynn E. Cohen & Janet Emmons (2016): Block play: spatial language
with preschool and school-aged children, Early Child Development and Care, DOI:
10.1080/03004430.2016.1223064
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1223064
Published online: 29 Aug 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 21
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Block play: spatial language with preschool and school-aged
children
Lynn E. Cohen
a
and Janet Emmons
b
a
Special Education & Literacy, Long Island University, Brookville, NY, USA;
b
Blockspot, Southampton, NY, USA
ABSTRACT
Implementing a play-based curriculum presents challenges for pre-service
and in-service teachers given the current climate of standards and didactic
pedagogies. This study highlights the value of playful learning and its
rightful place in early childhood classrooms for children of all ages. The
purpose of the present study was to investigate the use of spatial words
with children aged between three and nine years. The benefits of the
use of spatial words in a playful venue to advocate block play for not
only preschool children, but elementary-school-age children were
examined. This article suggest that industry and academia need to
collaborate to provide play venues for children, and unit blocks need to
be brought back into early childhood programmes.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 31 May 2016
Accepted 8 August 2016
KEYWORDS
Block play; spatial language;
guided play; preschool
children; school-age children
Throughout the decades, the area of childhood education has grown by leaps and bounds. A class-
room 50 years ago would be barely recognizable to parents and pre-service teachers today. Many
states are removing blocks and block play from their programmes to provide more drill and didactic
instruction. Educators struggle to maintain the accelerated pace associated with application of
Common Core Standards, standardized tests, scripted reading programmes, and new technologies.
This research provides an alternative form of assessment by demonstrating the value of block play
and spatial language with preschool and school-aged children. Children’s block play naturally
enhances skills of observation, communication, experimentation, as well as the development of con-
struction skills. While playing, children develop social, language, math, artistic, creative, and academic
skills (Hanline, Milton, & Phelps, 2009). Research (Bairaktarova, Evangelov, Bagiati, & Brophy, 2011)
also attests to block building as a starting point for architecture and civil engineering skills.
From a theoretical perspective, Vygotsky’s(1978) sociocultural theory can be applied to the
current study. For Vygotsky, the social context includes social, as well as cultural levels that influence
a child’s language and learning. Vygotsky (1978) argued that there are a number of acquired and
shared tools, ‘cultural tools’that aid in human thinking and behaviour. These skills help us think
more clearly and better understand our own thinking processes. Vygotsky’s(1978) sociocultural
theory rejects an individualistic view of the developing child in favour of a socially formed mind.
Bodrova and Leong (2015) clearly state that Vygotsky’s theory about play describes ‘only one kind
of play, namely socio-dramatic or make-believe play typical for preschoolers and children of
primary age’(p. 205). Although Vygotsky (1978) did not specifically include block play, it can be
argued that additional principles of Vygotsky’s cultural-historical theory can be applied to block
play (Rogoff, 1995; Wertsch, 1991,1998). A principle illustrating the importance of the social
context in children’s block play is Vygotsky’s ideas of internalization and the zone of proximal devel-
opment (ZPD).
© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Lynn E. Cohen lynn.cohen@liu.edu Special Education & Literacy, Long Island University, C.W. Post Campus, 720
Northern Blvd., Brookville, NY 11548-1300, USA
EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1223064
According to Vygotsky (1978) internalization occurs when knowledge moves from a social level
(external) to an individual plane (mental), from a state of knowing with assistance with others to a
state of knowing for oneself. Vygotsky coined the term the ZPD to refer to the conditions under
which children’s understanding is furthered as a result of social interaction and language. A child
will display a particular level of performance when building a structure alone as opposed to a
higher level when building with a peer or given direction by a teacher. In a block play context, chil-
dren’s efforts are supported not by deliberate instruction, but through language, perspective taking,
and problem-solving skills. Vygotsky’s(1978) sociocultural theories are conceptualized as they relate
to block play in the present research. The purpose of this research is to describe and examine the use
of spatial words in a playful venue to advocate block play for all ages.
The present study
An investigation was implemented at Blockspot® (www.blockspotlearning.com), a retail business that
invites children to visit, play, and learn outside of the classroom. At Blockspot® opportunities are pro-
vided that put the children (age: 2–12) in charge of their own block-building outcomes. Previous
research has investigated spatial language and block play with preschool and kindergarten children
(Caldera et al., 1999; Casey et al., 2008) and parent–child dyads (Ferrara, Hirsh-Pasek, Newcombe,
Golinkoff, & Lam, 2011; Pruden, Levine, & Huttenlocher, 2011), but there is little research that exam-
ines wooden unit block play with school-age children. Two research questions were examined in the
present study:
(1) In what ways do children (4–12-year-old) use spatial words in guided block play? Specifically, do
they use spatial words when teachers verbally scaffold block play?
(2) Is there evidence that older children will use more spatial words than younger children in block
play?
Thus, we begin with the literature related to the notion of guided play in the context of block play.
Vygotskian theories believe that teachers’observations and verbal scaffolding in a child’s ZPD can
create learning experiences that build upon the child’s existing understanding. Next, the literature
related to spatial skills, language and blocks is discussed. Finally, age differences between younger
and older block builders are presented.
Guided play with blocks
Two pedagogical methods of play that are often contrasted are free play and guided play. Free play is
child-initiated and child-directed; children decide what to play and how. Several researchers have
provided evidence of the value of free play for children’s development (Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff,
Berk, & Singer, 2008; Singer, Golinkoff, & Hirsch-Pasek, 2006). There is evidence that free play sup-
port’s children’s social development (Hyson, 2004), cognitive development (Bergen, 2002), and
imagination and creativity (Brown, 2009). Guided play is a blend of adult-scaffolded learning objec-
tives but is child-directed. In guided play, adults initiate the learning process, constrain the learning
goals and maintain focus on these goals as the child guides his or her discovery (Weisberg, Hirsh-
Pasek, & Golinkoff, 2013). This perspective embodies a sociocultural view on play that supports scaf-
folding and guidance in discovery learning (Honomichl & Chen, 2012). The adult’s role is to follow the
child’s lead and guide the child in the context of the environment by suggesting, not directing impor-
tant learning goals. Honomichl and Chen (2012) summarized three approaches to facilitate discovery
learning that have proven to be effective: (1) strategic presentation of materials, (2) sequential feed-
back, and (3) probing questions and self-explanation. Several researchers have used guided play in
the context of block-building activities (Ferrara et al., 2011); Gregory, Kim, & Whiren, 2003; Ramani,
Zippert, Schweitzer, & Pan, 2014) For example, Vygotsky’s theories of scaffolding and guided block
2L. E. COHEN AND J. EMMONS
play is illustrated in a study by Gregory et al. (2003), who trained adults to recognize degrees of com-
plexity in block constructions and then had them observe children at block play and offer verbal
support for creating increasingly complex structures. While the adults did not interfere in the play
and took a supportive rather than a directive role, they engaged in verbal scaffolding such as
asking open-ended questions, posing problems (e.g. What would happen if …, How could …),
making leading statements (e.g. sometimes people use a block to join a structure …), and thinking
of possibilities out loud (e.g. I wonder if …). The result was an increase in the complexity of the chil-
dren’s block structures. Symbolic play recreated an experience in which knowledge and skills were
transmitted to children to help him or her better understand reality. In that sense, play lead to the
development of complex block structures (Vygotsky, 1978).
Similarly, in the present study, adults scaffolded block play for both prekindergarten and school-
age children by presenting challenges, posing problems, and asking open-ended questions. A few
examples of open-ended questions were: How are you planning to make your airport? How’s your
house coming? Examples of problems posed: With these blocks what can you build? Would some
small blocks like this one (holding up a unit block) help to complete your structure? Which blocks
are you thinking about to enhance your idea?
In sum, from a cultural-historical tradition, play does not develop spontaneously in all children
once they reach preschool age. For play to be a leading activity, adult mediation or having older chil-
dren acting as play mentors for younger children can facilitate the quality of block-building skills
(Bodrova & Leong, 2015). Although, we do not want adults to take over children’s play and turn it
into educational lessons that destroy children’s freedom, joy, and passions. Children need to be
able to initiate their own learning and adults need to know when to intervene and pose questions
and problems to support new skills.
Spatial skills, language, and play
There is some evidence that constructive play is related to spatial skills (Caldera et al., 1999; Ness &
Farenga, 2007). According to the scientific literature, constructive play activities such as Legos and
blocks exert the most influence on children’s spatial skills. Most of the studies with older children
(Brosnan, 1998; Nath & Szücs, 2014; Pirrone, Nicolosi, Passanisi, & Di Nuovo, 2015) have focused on
the relationship between Lego building blocks, mathematics, and spatial skills (Nath & Szücs, 2014;
Pirrone et al., 2015). Brosnan (1998) asked mixed-gendered nine-year-olds to follow instructions to
build a bridge with Lego blocks. Results found that those that completed the Lego model scored sig-
nificantly higher in spatial ability than those who did not. There were no significant sex differences as
both sexes played with Lego blocks. Caldera et al. (1999) examined 51 preschoolers’play preferences,
performance on standardized measures, and skills building with blocks. Structured and unstructured
block play was videotaped and coded. They found no preference between structured or unstructured
play. Play with art materials and reproduction of complex block structures were interrelated to tests of
spatial visualization.
Fewer studies have examined communication skills during block building with preschool children.
Cohen and Uhry (2007) observed individuals, dyads, and small groups of children in the block area in
a preschool classroom. The dyads and small groups talked more than children building by them-
selves. Sluss and Stremmel (2004) observed preschool dyads and found that girls communicated
more when paired with an experienced partner. The girls’block building, communication skills,
and understanding were further developed by socially interacting with another peer.
In view of findings that show spatial thinking is an important predictor of Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (Wai, Lubinksi, & Benbow, 2009), it is important to explore how
language in a context of constructive play is related to spatial thinking. Spatial words that refer to
spatial features and block-building properties (e.g. big, little, tall, fat), or the shapes of blocks (e.g.
circle, rectangle, octagon, triangle,), and the spatial properties of blocks (e.g. bent, curvy, flat, edge,
pointy) are commonly used as children build and talk about their structures. Although
EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 3
communication among peers during play could support spatial skills as well as spatial language skills,
the majority of the research on play and spatial language has focused on preschool (Casey et al., 2008;
Ramani et al., 2014) and parent–child dyads (Ferrara et al., 2011; Pruden et al., 2011). Casey et al.
(2008) used a guided play intervention using unifix cubes and storytelling with kindergarten children.
They found teaching block building improved spatial abilities and the story telling provided a context
for teaching spatial language. Ramani et al. (2014) used guided play to investigate four- and five-year
old’s communication and building behaviours using cardboard blocks. They found the dyads
engaged in spatial talk about math-related concepts, such as number and spatial relations, and
matching the size and relations between blocks.
Parental spatial language input has been compared to children’s use of spatial language when
playing with blocks (Ferrara et al., 2011; Pruden et al., 2011) using the same spatial language
coding system, A System for Analysing Children and Caregivers’Language about Space in Structured
and Unstructured Contexts (Cannon, Levine, & Huttenlocher, 2007), used in the present research.
Ferrara et al. (2011) investigated MegaBloks with preschool, kindergarten, and parents in three con-
ditions: (a) guided play, (b) free play, and (c) play with preassembled structures. Parents in the guided
play condition produced significantly higher proportions of spatial talk than those in the free play
condition. Similarly, Pruden et al. (2011) found that the amount of parental spatial language input
predicted the amount of spatial language preschool children used as parents played alongside
their child. The work by Pruden et al. (2011) was an experimental study with children aged 14 to
46 months in a sample of 52 parent–child dyads as they engaged in everyday activities in the
context of the home. Three categories of spatial terms were coded: (a) shape terms (e.g. circle, tri-
angle, octagon), (b) dimensional adjectives (e.g. big, little, tall), and (c) spatial features (e.g. bent,
curvy, side). The amount of spatial words used by children and parents was assessed when children
were 46 months. There was variability in the amount of children and parents’spatial words but overall
the results found when parents produced a lot of spatial words, children also used large percentages
of spatial words.
Age differences
As indicated earlier, a goal of the study was to examine the differences in spatial language between
younger and older block builders. This question is of interest because although the literature has not
examined the differences in the use of spatial language and unit block play between preschool and
elementary students, early research has described how spatial relations within children’s block-build-
ing structures become more complex with age. Toddlers and young preschoolers are limited in their
language and spatial dimensionality, building structures with one or two blocks in rows or towers.
Later, preschool children start to arrange structures in arches or build bridge structures. Ness and
Farenga (2007) found differences between four-year-old and five-year-old structures. They analysed
videotapes of children’s block play to observe and record cognitive abilities of the relationship
between space and architectural relationships. Thirteen codes were associated with 90 young chil-
dren’s engagement in spatial, geometric, and architectural thinking based on The Assessment for
Measuring Spatial, Geometric, and Architectural Thinking of Young Children. The buildings for five-
year-old children included more symmetry and patterns. Reifel (1984) suggests that child’s block con-
structions, age’s four years and younger, result in the vertical structures by placing blocks on top of
one another or creating horizontal structures by placing blocks next to one another. This early frame-
work by Reifel (1984) shed important information for examining block complexity with four–seven-
year-old children. Reifel (1981) and Reifel and Greenfield (1982,1983) examined block play complex-
ity with children aged between four and seven years. Reifel and Greenfield (1982) found that con-
struction becomes more structurally complex with age. Seven-year-olds were able to label and
discuss finished block structures at a higher rate than four-year-old children.
Review of the literature highlights the point that preschool and kindergarten children in guided
play produce more spatial words when parents are playing and talking about block building
4L. E. COHEN AND J. EMMONS
alongside their children. Additionally, the literature has reported significant findings related to Lego
play, mathematics, and spatial skills with elementary children, but the findings do not necessarily
capture children’s spatial language during their building interactions with peers. Although early
research found children’s block structures became more complex and they talked more about
their structures with increased age, these studies did not investigate the use of spatial language
with unit blocks. Thus, the goal of the present study was to examine the use of spatial words in
guided block play and if older children would use more spatial words than younger children.
Methods
Setting
Data were collected at Blockspot® a retail business in Southampton, New York for children of all ages
to play with unit blocks. It was developed by a certified teacher, the founder (co-author), and run by
certified teachers. The goal is to get unit blocks back in the hands of children of all ages. The founder
(co-author) believes that as children mature their play will become more complex. Block play classes
are held mornings for preschool children and after school for elementary children. Multiage drop-in
play is offered every Saturday morning. Recently, local public school districts serving Pre-K to fifth
grade leave the classroom and take field trips to Blockspot®. It is in this setting that classroom curri-
cula are transformed into block-building experiences and play for children of all ages. The children
and teacher work together to create block-building plans before the trip; so learning has been scaf-
folded and guided by an adult or a peer. Onsite, children use their block-building plans to build struc-
tures related to a curricula theme. For most classes, these experiences are tied to an English Language
Arts or Social Studies concept. Many are linked to the children’s writing either through their writers’
workshop selections, linked to a book read in class or a unit of study such as Colonial Times. For
example: some classes may select to build structures related to their reading writing workshop
stories by showcasing the characters and setting. Other classes may demonstrate their full under-
standing of an urban/suburban/rural unit of study and replicate characteristics of each. While
others may select between three significant stories read in class and have to choose the one they
wish to represent through their block structure. For all of the options mentioned …the details
both in structure and material selection are purposeful and powerful indicators of thought and
understanding. The transference of the experience comes full circle in the return to the classroom
where images of student work are used in a variety of ways to bring the experience to fruition.
The teachers in this study supported the children’s work by observing the way the children inter-
acted, planned, engineered, and selected materials. Comments would be observational ‘I see you
are planning to build a large structure’‘I see you are building the interior. Are you planning to do
a second story or a roof? How will you support that?’This type of observational scaffolding is
dually important as it validates the process in place and encourages thoughtful next steps. For
optimal student-driven block building, it is crucial that the teachers scaffold and pull back with
the correct balance. Thus allowing the children to drive the process and result in the completed struc-
ture as intended by their minds’eye.
Participants
Blockspot® serves children who are predominately from upper-middle income families with the
exception of school field trips. All participants of this study were upper-middle income and monolin-
gual English speakers. Participants were 8 beginning builders aged 4–5 years (4 girls and 4 boys) and
6 after-school builders aged 8–12 years (2 girls and 4 boys). The classes for beginning builders are
designed to support children’s emerging block-building stages: stacking, making rows, bridges, path-
ways, and enclosures, while constructing stories with block accessories. The after-school builders’
club provides children the freedom to learn and work on weekly activities planned on rotating
EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 5
topics created with blocks. Children learn physics, study architecture, solve math questions, and read
and build story elements from classroom-independent reading.
Materials
Children’s block building and conversations were videotaped by the researchers who quietly stayed
in the corner during the play session. The video camera was placed unobtrusively in a corner where
the block building took place, with full view of the children, the blocks, and the structures. An external
microphone was attached to the video camera. A digital camera was used to photograph completed
block structures.
Blocks were standard Caroline Pratt unit blocks (unit = 1⅜′′ ×2¾
′′ ×5½
′′) made of hard rock maple.
The recommended number of blocks is 100 per child and space for construction is a minimum of 25
square feet per child (Phelps, 2006). Blockspot® has over 10,000 ++ unit blocks in a 2500 space
designed for block play (See Figure 1). The number of unit blocks and space Blockspot® provides
was more than adequate for children participating in the present study.
Procedure
Videotape sessions of guided play were recorded for three weeks that culminated in three hours of
video data. The preschool children were videotaped in the morning and the after-school builders
were taped in the afternoon. Each session was approximately 30 minutes in length. The building ses-
sions included introductions, building time, share sessions, and cleanup time. Teachers began the
beginning builders (four- to five-year-olds) sessions by discussing what children were to build and
some things that their structures should include. The after-school builders were given a weekly chal-
lenge. For example, a challenge might be to build something 100′′ wide but less than 36′′ high using 5
different types of blocks or to build something that flies. The activity was a guided play activity
because the children were given a goal, but could complete the goal in multiple ways with the
Figure 1. Blockspot® provides children with 10,000 + + unit blocks in a variety of different geometric shapes for children in elemen-
tary and preschool classrooms. Ample shelving is available to allow children to classify and organize the blocks during clean-up, an
important learning experience.
6L. E. COHEN AND J. EMMONS
teacher minimally involved. Usually, the teacher(s) used strategies similar to Gregory et al. (2003)’s
verbal scaffolding of asking open-ended questions, posing problems, or making leading statements
to support children’s building process. At the end of the session children talked about their block-
building structures.
Transcription and coding
All videotape block play sessions were transcribed for children’s use of spatial words. Reliability in
transcription was achieved by having a second research assistant independently transcribe 20% of
the videotapes. The reliability criterion was set at 95%. Both transcribers were in agreement on
95% of the utterances, r> .95. For each participant, the total number of utterances in all transcripts
was calculated. To arrive at this measure, the flow of talk into utterances during block-building ses-
sions was based on conversational turn taking (Cohen & Uhry, 2007). An utterance consisted of a
single international contour within a conversational turn. This included declaratives and questions
in which there was a pause preceding and following it. An utterance could also include a single
word (e.g. bigger), a phrase (e.g. a little table) or a single or multiword sentence.
These transcriptions were then coded using the eight spatial categories of the University of
Chicago spatial language coding system, A system for analyzing children and caregivers’language
about space in structured and unstructured contexts (Cannon et al., 2007). The coders identified
terms that included the following spatial categories: (1) spatial dimensions are words that describe
the size of objects, people, and spaces (e.g. big, little, wide, narrow, size, length), (2) shapes are
words that describe mathematical names of two- and three-dimensional objects and spaces (e.g. rec-
tangle, square, triangle, circle), (3) location/direction are words that describe the position of objects,
people, and points in space (e.g. up, down, in, under, high, row), (4) spatial orientations or transform-
ations are words the relative orientation or transformation of objects and people in space (e.g. turn it
around, right side up, upside down, upright, rotate), (5) continuous amount are words that describe
amount of continuous quantities (e.g. part, a lot, all, same, more, equal, half, inch, foot), (6) deictic
terms identify spatial location and rely on the context or participants to understand their referent
(e.g. here, there, where, anywhere), (7) spatial features or properties are words that describe the fea-
tures and properties of two- and three-dimensional objects, people, and spaces (e.g. side, curvy,
straight, flat, corner, horizontal, vertical), and (8) pattern are words that indicate a person may be
talking about a spatial pattern (e.g. pattern, order, next, first, last, before, increase, decrease).
Reliability was also investigated on 50% of the spatial word coding. Again, the reliability criterion
was set at 95%. Research assistant one and two both were in agreement, yielding reliability for the
spatial word codes, r> .95.
Results
To address the first research question related to the use of spatial words in guided block play, the
total numbers of utterances were calculated. There were 851 utterances in the three hours of video-
tape data. Fifty-seven per cent of the utterances were elicited by the beginning builders and 43%
were spoken by the after-school builders. Next, descriptive statistics indicated both groups as a
whole used spatial words while playing with unit blocks. The category of patterning was eliminated
from the data set because the beginning builders and after-school builders did not produce a single
spatial word in this category. On average both groups produced a total of 376 spatial words during
the three hours of guided play. Both groups used spatial words but there was variability in the pro-
duction of spatial words (Table 1). In the category of location/direction the children produced an
average of 13.07 (SD = 17.70) spatial words and in the continuous amount category an average of
5.30 (SD = 5.15) words were produced. In comparison, children produced very low averages for cat-
egories of shapes (M= .36, SD = .74) and orientation words (M= .64, SD = 2.13).
EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 7
The categories of location/direction were words that described the relative position of the blocks
and their location in space. It also was the largest category of words and included terms that function
in numerous parts of speech. Frequently used words were above, top, in, and behind. The category of
continuous amount was words that describe the amount of continuous quantities. Frequently used
words were standard spatial measurement units such as inch and foot, as well as words that describe
a comparison of continuous amounts such as more, less, same, equal.
To assess differences between groups’(beginning builders and after-school builders) use of spatial
words a t-test was used. There was no significant difference (p> .05) between the beginning builders
(M= 404.37, SD = 421) and after-school builders (M= 338.5, SD = 350) on all spatial word categories.
Thus, the after-school builders did not produce more spatial words than the beginning builders.
Discussion
This study investigated the use of spatial words in the context of unit block play with preschool chil-
dren and elementary children. Two research questions were examined: (a) to examine the use of
spatial words with children 4 years to 12 years in guided block play (Caldera et al., 1999; Casey
et al., 2008) and (b) to assess if spatial language would differ with age level and older children
would use more spatial words in block play (Reifel & Greenfield, 1982). First is a discussion of chil-
dren’s use of spatial words with unit blocks during guided block play followed by an examination
of the age differences in the use of spatial words while building structures with unit blocks.
Children’s use of spatial words varied widely in the present study. Some children used many
spatial words as they were building their structures; others did very little talking and used a
minimal number of spatial words. The children were able to communicate with peers during all
videotaped sessions. While some conversed with peers, many were engaged in the process of build-
ing and both the beginning builders and after-school builders mainly discussed the task of building
(e.g. what they were going to do, what blocks they needed). This possibly suggests that children’s talk
was related to the quality of the structures. This type of communication is consistent with previous
research examining discourse strategies and meaning-making among young children in the block
centre (Cohen & Uhry, 2007).
Additionally, all guided play-building sessions were indirectly scaffolded by the teachers. The find-
ings may suggest that more direct scaffolding of spatial words may increase the frequency of spatial
language children hear and use on their own to support the use of spatial words. Ferrara et al. (2011)
examined parental scaffolding in three play conditions and found that when parents played less of an
assertive role in talking to their child, the child became more absorbed with the activity of the build-
ing and did not elicit as much conversation about spatial configurations. Perhaps teachers could
provide older builders with spatial vocabulary words; beginning builders may benefit from the use
of parents building and talking alongside their children.
The second was to examine the use of spatial words in both groups of block builders, beginning
builders, and after-school builders. Again, a review of the video transcripts and interactions indicated
that older builders appeared to be demonstrating goal-oriented design, problem-solving skills, and
engineering thinking. Older builders were more focused on language to share the initial construction
Table 1. Mean and standard deviations of spatial word categories.
Spatial word category MSD
Dimension 2.79 3.33
Shape 0.36 0.74
Location 13.07 17.70
Orientation/transformation 0.64 2.13
Continuous amount 5.30 0.15
Deictic 2.79 3.30
Feature/property 0.71 1.59
8L. E. COHEN AND J. EMMONS
goal, give input regarding the solution, or consult with a peer than the preschool builders. Addition-
ally, the use of spatial words by the after-school builders varied widely. Sutton-Smith’s(1997) defined
different types of play from different disciplines and discussed the play rhetoric of progress. Block play
cannot be examined from a lens of stages and ages, but rather examined through a lens of children’s
meaning-making and understanding of how things should be constructed and how they work.
There were differences in spatial talk between the girls (M= 28.7) and boys (M= 22.7). Two girls
used many spatial words while building and after-school boys rarely engaged in any spatial talk. In
an examination of one videotape, the girls used 58 spatial words and the boys spoke 18 spatial
words. Gender differences and spatial talk needs further investigation.
An interesting discovery was that the current literature related to block play and spatial language
highlights the different kinds of blocks used in constructive play. Studies have used mega blocks
(Ferrara et al., 2011); pattern blocks (Casey et al., 2008); cardboard blocks (Ramani et al., 2014), and
an assortment of blocks in a box (Caldera et al., 1999). Research with elementary students
(Brosnan, 1998; Nath & Szücs, 2014; Pirrone et al., 2015) has primarily investigated Lego construction
abilities with mathematical performance, not spatial language. The use of Lego blocks is very differ-
ent from unit wooden blocks. Lego blocks require children to construct a specific three-dimensional
model. Lego blocks come with pictorial instructions that indicate which piece should be added
where, without the use of any written material. It appears that current empirical studies with
wooden unit blocks is limited and it could be argued that this lack of empirical research of the
value of unit block play and spatial language might be attributed to the disappearance of wooden
unit blocks in many prekindergarten and kindergarten classrooms.
Conclusion
Play, once a daily activity in all early childhood classrooms, has been pushed out of most elementary
public schools, and presently the trend is to also eliminate it from preschool settings (Nicolopoulou,
2010). The idea that research on early brain development implies that low-income children need
direct instruction to overcome the achievement gap, as well as Race to the Top Common Core Stan-
dards have led to more standardized tests and less play in early childhood classrooms. Teachers need
to understand the standards in place and use those standards to enhance children’s play opportu-
nities. There are no standards written that cannot be supported through play, and especially scaf-
folded play with blocks. Blockspot® has taken that challenge of using the standards and curricula
to allow children opportunities to play and create within disciplines of language arts, mathematics,
science, art, and literature.
Overall, observations of children’s unit block play suggested guided play allowed children to
develop linguistic skills. Finally, the study of spatial words is an area of inquiry with the potential to
help us better understand ways block play might promote further inquiries related to spatial skills in
mathematics and science that use unit blocks, not Legos, as a material for future investigations.
Notes on contributors
Lynn Cohen is a Professor at Long Island University at Post where she teaches courses at the master’s and doctoral levels.
Before coming to Long Island University, she was a preschool, kindergarten, and literacy teacher. Her passions span all
aspects of teaching and learning including early childhood education, play and creativity, classroom environment, and
assessment and evaluation. Publications include books Play: A polyphony of research, theories, and issues, Learning across
the early childhood curriculum, and Theories of early childhood education: Developmental, behaviorist, and critical (April,
2017), numerous book chapters, and contributions to Journal of Early Childhood Research,Early Childhood Education
Journal,Educational Studies, and International Journal of Early Childhood.
Janet Emmons, Founder of Blockspot®, has over 20 years’experience in education, research, and business. Janet’s early
childhood education background, school district leadership, and business background all culminated in the creation of
Blockspot®. Blockspot® is the first of its kind to marry education and block play within a retail concept. Blockspot® oper-
ates a 2500 square foot state of the art facility in Southampton, NY.
EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 9
References
Bairaktarova, D., Evangelov, D., Bagiati, A., & Brophy, S. (2011). Engineering in young children’s exploratory play with tan-
gible materials. Children, Youth, and Environments,21(2), 212–235.
Bergen, D. (2002). The role of pretend play in children’s cognitive development. Early childhood research and practive,4(1),
2–15. Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiiuc.edu/v4n1/bergen.html
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2015). Standing “a head taller than himself. Vygotskian and post-Vygotskian views on chil-
dren’s play (Vol. 1). In J. E. Johnson, S. G. Eberle, & T. S. Henricks (Eds.), The handbook of the study of play (pp. 215–
227). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Brosnan, M. J. (1998). Spatial ability in children’s play with Lego blocks. Perceptual and Motor Skills,87,19–28.
Brown, S. (2009). Play: How it shapes the brain, opens the imagination, and invigorates the soul. New York, NY: Penguin
Group.
Caldera, Y. M., Culp, A. M., O’Brian, M., Truglio, R. T., Alvarez, M., & Huston, A. (1999). Children’s play preferences, construc-
tion play with blocks and visual spatial skills: Are they related? International Journal of Behavioral Development,23,
855–872.
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.
Casey, M. B., Andrews, N., Schindler, H., Kersh, J. E., Sampler, A., & Copley, J. (2008). The development of spatial skills
through interventions involving block building activities. Cognition and Instruction,26, 269–309.
Cohen, L., & Uhry, J. (2007). Young children’s discourse strategies during block play: A Bakhtinian approach. Journal of
Research in Childhood Education,21, 302–315.
Ferrara, K., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Newcombe, N. S., Golinkoff, R. M., & Lam, W. S. (2011). Block talk: Spatial language during block
play. Mind, Brain, and Education,5, 143–151.
Gregory, K. M., Kim, A. S., & Whiren, A. (2003). The effect of verbal scaffolding on the complexity of preschool children’s
block constructions. In D. E. Lytle (Ed.), Play and educational theory and practice (pp. 117–133). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Hanline, M. F., Milton, S., & Phelps, P. C. (2009). The relationship between preschool block play and reading and math
abilities in early elementary school. A longitudinal study of children with and without disabilities. Early Childhood
Development and Care,180(8), 1005–1017.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Berk, L. E., & Singer, D. G. (2008). A mandate for playful learning in preschool: Applying the
scientific evidence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Honomichl, R. D., & Chen, Z. (2012). The role of guidance in chidren’s discovery learning. WIREs Cognitive Science,3, 615–
622.
Hyson, M. (2004). The emotional development of young children. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.
Nath, S., & Szücs, D. (2014). Constructive play and cognitive skills associated with the development of mathematical abil-
ities in 7-year-old children. Learning and Instruction,32,73–80.
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.
Nicolopoulou, A. (2010). The alarming disappearance of play from early childhood education. Human Development,53(1),
1–4.
Phelps, P. C. (2006). Beyond centers and circle time: Scaffolding and assessing the play of young children. Lewisville, NC:
Kaplan Early Learning.
Pirrone, C., Nicolosi, A., Passanisi, A., Di Nuovo, S. (2015). Learning potential in mathematics through imagination and
manipulation of building blocks. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6, (4 S 3), 152–159.
Pruden, S. M., Levine, S. C., & Huttenlocher, J. (2011). Children’s spatial thinking: Does talk about the spatial world matter?
Developmental Science,14,1417–1430.
Ramani, G. B., Zippert, E., Schweitzer, S., & Pan, S. (2014). Preschool children’s joint block building during a guided play
activity. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,35, 326–336.
Reifel, S. (1981). An exploration of block play as symbolic representation. Dissertations Abstracts International,42(4), (UMI
No.8121040).
Reifel, S. (1984). Block construction. Children’s developmental landmarks in representation of space. Young Children,40,
61–67.
Reifel, S., & Greenfield, P. M. (1982). Structural development in a symbolic medium: The representational use of block
constructions. In G. Forman (Ed.), Action and thought: From sensorimotor schemes to symbolic operations (pp. 203–
232). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Reifel, S., & Greenfield, P. M. (1983). Part-whole relations: Some structural features of children’s representational block play.
Child Care Quarterly,12(1), 144–151.
Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and
apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. Del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139–184). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Singer, D. G., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsch-Pasek, K. (Eds.). (2006). Play = learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s
cognitive and social-emotional growth. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
10 L. E. COHEN AND J. EMMONS
Sluss, D. J., & Stremmel, A. J. (2004). A sociocultural investigation of the effects of peer interaction on play. Journal of
Research in Childhood Education,18(4), 293–305.
Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). The role of play in development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Soubermann (Eds.),
Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 92–104). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Wai, J., Lubinksi, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psycho-
logical knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology,101, 817–835.
Weisberg, D., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. (2013). Guided play: Where curricular goals meet a playful pedagogy. Mind,
Brain, and Education,7(2), 104–112.
Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Wertsch, J. (1998). Minds in action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 11
