Access to this full-text is provided by Frontiers.
Content available from Frontiers in Psychology
This content is subject to copyright.
fpsyg-10-01626 July 11, 2019 Time: 17:36 # 1
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 12 July 2019
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01626
Edited by:
Yvette Renee Harris,
Miami University, United States
Reviewed by:
Carolyn Palmquist,
Amherst College, United States
Iris Nomikou,
University of Portsmouth,
United Kingdom
*Correspondence:
Daniel D. Suh
dan.suh@nyu.edu
Catherine S. Tamis-LeMonda
catherine.tamis-lemonda@nyu.edu
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Developmental Psychology,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Received: 30 December 2018
Accepted: 27 June 2019
Published: 12 July 2019
Citation:
Suh DD, Liang E, Ng FF-Y and
Tamis-LeMonda CS (2019) Children’s
Block-Building Skills and Mother-Child
Block-Building Interactions Across
Four U.S. Ethnic Groups.
Front. Psychol. 10:1626.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01626
Children’s Block-Building Skills and
Mother-Child Block-Building
Interactions Across Four U.S. Ethnic
Groups
Daniel D. Suh1*, Eva Liang1, Florrie Fei-Yin Ng2and Catherine S. Tamis-LeMonda1*
1Center for Research on Culture, Development, and Education, Department of Applied Psychology, New York University,
New York, NY, United States, 2Department of Educational Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong,
Sha Tin, Hong Kong
Play offers an unparalleled opportunity for young children to gain cognitive skills in
informal settings. Block play in particular—including interactions with parents around
block constructions—teaches children about intrinsic spatial features of objects (size,
shape) and extrinsic spatial relations. In turn, early spatial cognition paves the way for
later competencies in math and science. We assessed 4- and 5-year-old children’s
spatial skill on a set of block-building constructions and examined mother-child block
building interactions in 167 U.S. dyads from African American, Dominican, Mexican,
and Chinese backgrounds. At both ages, children were instructed to copy several 3D
block constructions, followed by a “break” during which mothers and children were
left alone with the blocks. A form that contained pictures of test items was left on the
table. Video-recordings of mother-child interactions during the break were coded for
two types of building behaviors – test-specific construction (building structures on the
test form) or free-form construction (building structures not on the test form). Chinese
children outperformed Mexican, African American, and Dominican children on the block-
building assessment. Further, Chinese and Mexican mother-child dyads spent more time
building test-specific constructions than did African American and Dominican dyads. At
an individual level, mothers’ time spent building test-specific constructions at the 4-year
(but not 5-year) assessment, but not mothers’ initiation of block building interactions
or verbal instructions, related to children’s performance, when controlling for ethnicity.
Ethnic differences in children’s block-building performance and experiences emerge
prior to formal schooling and provide a valuable window into sources of individual
differences in early spatial cognition.
Keywords: spatial skills, spatial cognition, STEM learning, ethnic minorities, block building
INTRODUCTION
Spatial cognitive skills involve perceiving spatial information, such as object shape and relative
location, and mentally and/or physically manipulating objects in space. Spatial skills are
foundational to later success in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
subjects and careers (Caldera et al., 1999;Assel et al., 2003;Chen, 2009;Wai et al., 2009;
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1July 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1626
fpsyg-10-01626 July 11, 2019 Time: 17:36 # 2
Suh et al. Ethnic Differences in Block Building
Uttal and Cohen, 2012;Lombardi et al., 2017). Consequently,
interest in the early development of spatial skills has grown.
Indeed, variation in preschoolers’ and even infants’ spatial skills
relates to later math and spatial cognition (Lauer and Lourenco,
2016;Verdine et al., 2017).
Everyday play with blocks provides children with valuable
opportunities to acquire spatial cognitive skills in informal
settings, well before formal exposure to science and math
subjects. During block building, children perceive and learn
about intrinsic features of objects, such as how objects
vary along dimensions of size, pattern, symmetry, and shape
(Casey and Bobb, 2003;Verdine et al., 2014). Furthermore,
block play supports children’s representations of extrinsic
spatial relations (e.g., in, behind; Reifel, 1984) and mental
rotation skills (Wexler et al., 1998) because children actively
manipulate spatial relations by aligning and rotating blocks
and placing them on top of or next to one another. Parent-
child block building can further promote children’s spatial
skill development through hands-on and verbal guidance
(Lombardi et al., 2017;Borriello and Liben, 2018) and spatial
language (Ferrara et al., 2011;Pruden et al., 2011), which
facilitate children’s attention to spatial concepts and aid
spatial learning.
Block building is not only a vehicle for children to develop
spatial skills, but block-building assessments that require children
to copy specific block constructions have been shown to reliably
index children’s spatial skill and predict later STEM performance,
including mathematics (Verdine et al., 2014, 2017).
In light of the importance of block building as an
activity that promotes spatial skill and a window into
young children’s spatial skill performance, we tested U.S.
children from African American, Dominican, Mexican,
and Chinese backgrounds on a set of block constructions
and investigated mothers’ spontaneous interactions with
children around block building. We tested children from
diverse ethnic backgrounds because of longstanding
differences in later STEM performance. By observing
children separately and together with their mothers,
we asked whether ethnic differences exist in children’s
block-building performance early in development and
if so, whether ethnic differences relate to parent-child
block-building interactions.
Block Building and Parental Supports
Block building offers children rich opportunities to learn
and practice spatial skills, and block building with parents
might further scaffold children’s spatial skill development.
Parents have been shown to use gestures and teach children
efficient spatial strategies during block building interactions
(Lombardi et al., 2017). Block building also elicits parent
spatial language, which relates to children’s spatial language
and spatial skill (Pruden et al., 2011;Miller et al., 2017).
In fact, playing with blocks elicits more spatial language
from parents than other everyday activities, such as drawing,
playing house, dressing up, throwing a ball, or playing with
animal figurines or food and kitchen toy sets (Ferrara et al.,
2011). Furthermore, dyadic block-building activities that center
around constructing structures from pictures prompt even
more parent spatial language than free-form block construction
(Ferrara et al., 2011;Borriello and Liben, 2018). Thus,
differences in mother-child block building may contribute to
individual and ethnic differences in children’s block building
and spatial skill.
Research Gaps: Ethnic Differences in
Block Building and Parental Supports
Ethnic differences in STEM are well-documented. Asian students
receive higher standardized test scores and average grades in
STEM high school subjects (Reardon, 2008;Nord et al., 2011)
and are twice as likely as their Black and Latino counterparts
to obtain degrees in STEM fields (Chen, 2009). The 2011
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) math
assessment revealed that 4th and 8th grade Asian students
score higher than Black and Latino students (Gonzalez and
Kuenzi, 2012). Even by school entry, Asian kindergarteners’
math performance is higher than that of Black and Latino
kindergarteners (Sonnenschein and Sun, 2017).
However, ethnic differences in children’s block-building
performance and parent-child block-building interactions
remain largely unexplored, although these skills and interactions
may be foundational to children’s later STEM performance.
A greater percentage of Chinese than Latino 4- to 6-year-olds
in the United States engaged in block building at home at least
once a week (56.4 vs. 45.9%; Sonnenschein et al., 2018). In
contrast, when Black, Latino, and Asian parents were asked
how often their children played with blocks, although in the
context of many other activities, no differences were found
(Sonnenschein and Sun, 2017). Thus, whether ethnic differences
exist between Black, Chinese and Latino children in block-
building performance and parent-child block-building behaviors
remains relatively unexplored.
Differences in parent practices and involvement in other
domains hint at potential ethnic differences around block
building as well. Chinese mothers are explicit and systematic
about teaching their children at home (Huntsinger et al.,
2000), and use concrete expectations and plans to promote
children’s learning (Sonnenschein et al., 2018). Therefore,
Chinese mothers may intentionally allot time for block building
and provide support for block-building activities and spatial
skill development. Alternatively, Chinese mothers may only
consider formal, practice-oriented (e.g., workbooks) activities as
educational (Huntsinger and Jose, 2009). If so, they may be
unlikely to engage with their children during block building.
Current Study
We examined 4- and 5-year-old children’s spatial skills and
interactions with mothers around block building. We included
U.S. dyads from African American, Dominican, Mexican,
and Chinese backgrounds to extend beyond the dominant
focus on European-American dyads (e.g., Ferrara et al., 2011;
Lombardi et al., 2017;Borriello and Liben, 2018). Three aims
guided this study.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2July 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1626
fpsyg-10-01626 July 11, 2019 Time: 17:36 # 3
Suh et al. Ethnic Differences in Block Building
First, we examined within- and between-group ethnic
differences in 4- and 5-year-olds’ block-building performance.
We tested children’s ability to replicate a set of structures an
experimenter built as children watched. We asked whether
ethnic differences in spatial skills around block building exist
already by 4 and 5 years of age. We were uncertain about
the patterns we might obtain. One possibility is that children
at young ages, prior to the onset of formal schooling, do not
differ in their block-building performance because within-group
variation swamps between-group differences. Alternatively,
Chinese children may surpass children of Latino and African
American backgrounds already by 4 years of age, or at least
by the time they reach 5 years, thereby aligning with ethnic
and racial differences in STEM that have been documented in
school-aged children.
Second, we investigated whether mothers and children from
different ethnicities differ in their block-building interactions.
To address this aim, we left dyads alone in a room with blocks
without instructions, to reduce social desirability and pressure on
mothers to encourage children’s block building or build with their
children. We left a sheet of images of test structures on the table
and visible to dyads. Based on previous findings that Chinese
parents are more intentional about teaching their children
(Huntsinger et al., 2000;Sonnenschein et al., 2018), we expected
Chinese mothers and children to engage in more block building
overall, especially test-specific constructions. Furthermore, we
expected Chinese mothers to initiate interactions and provide
instruction around block building more than Latino and
African American mothers because Chinese mothers may be
most likely to view dyadic block building as a teaching
opportunity. We also expected mothers’ and children’s building
behaviors during the interaction to covary, such that if mothers
engaged in test-specific constructions, children would do so,
and if mothers engaged in free-form constructions, children
would do the same.
Third, we examined associations between mother-child
block construction behaviors and independent assessments
of children’s block-building performance. Do mothers’
behaviors during block-building interactions relate to children’s
block-building skill? We expected mothers who provide
high instructional support and hands-on guidance during
block building to have children with high performance
in block building.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participants
Participants were 167 African American (n = 36), Dominican
(n= 43), Chinese (n= 51), and Mexican (n= 37) mothers
and their children (83 boys, 84 girls) recruited from hospitals
and clinics in the New York City metropolitan area. Criteria
for participation included: (1) mother being at least 18 years
old at the time of her child’s birth, (2) child being healthy
and full term at birth, and (3) child living with mother
since birth. African American mothers were predominantly
fourth generation immigrants (61.1%) and Dominican mothers
were first (72.1%) and second (27.9%) generation immigrants.
Chinese and Mexican mothers were the more recent immigrant
groups with 100% being first generation. African American
and Dominican mothers completed an average of 12.03
(SD = 1.38) and 12.57 (SD = 2.06) years of formal education,
respectively. Chinese mothers completed an average of 10.94
(SD = 2.80) years of formal education, whereas Mexican
mothers completed the fewest years of formal education with
an average of 7.97 (SD = 3.50) years. In addition, 63.5%
of the 4-year-old children were in Pre-K at the time of
their participation and by the time children were 5 years
of age, 84.4% were in kindergarten. We obtained written
informed consent from participants, parental consent for
children, and signed consent to share videos on Databrary.org,
an online open data-sharing platform for researchers to
access video data.
Mothers and children visited our lab when children (N= 167)
were age 4 (M= 4.20, SD = 0.15) and 5 years (M= 5.15,
SD = 0.15). At each age, children engaged in a block-construction
assessment that was developed by the third author, during
which children were required to replicate 3D block constructions
that were built by the experimenter as children watched.
The assessment was followed by a 5-minute “break” where
the mother-child dyad could play with the blocks. A video
camera recorded children’s performance and mother-child block-
building behaviors during the break.
Block-Building Assessment
The experimenter presented the child with two identical sets
of differently colored blocks (red and blue) that contained all
the pieces required to construct the assessment items. The child
was allowed to choose which set of blocks to use, and the
experimenter used the other set of blocks. The experimenter
then built a sample block construction before beginning the
assessment and asked the child to build the same construction
immediately following. The first easy pretest item ensured
the child understood the task before proceeding with the
actual assessment.
The experimenter then continued with the block
construction assessment, first demonstrating how to build
each block construction with her set of blocks and then
asking the child to replicate the construction with his or
her blocks. Children were tested on a set of 12 test-items
of increasing difficulty (Figures 1A,B). The experimenter
marked down the child’s performance on a scoring sheet,
and proceeded to the next item. If the child received three
consecutive items incorrect or completed all assessment
items, the test ended. Children’s performance was indicated
by the number of items they built correctly. Test items
for the 4- and 5-year assessment were tested in a pilot
study and deemed to be appropriate at each age and for
all ethnic groups.
Mother-Child Block Building
After the assessment, mothers were told that children would have
a short 5-minute “break.” The experimenter stated that “(Child’s
name)is going to have a short break now and I thought it’d
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3July 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1626
fpsyg-10-01626 July 11, 2019 Time: 17:36 # 5
Suh et al. Ethnic Differences in Block Building
be nice for you to join him/her while I go get some things done
in the other room.” We chose not to directly ask mothers to
play with their children to reduce demand characteristics and to
maximize variability. This low-demand situation was thought to
better capture what might occur in a natural home environment.
Both sets of blocks were left on the table between mothers
and children. Additionally, the scoring sheet that contained
pictures of the test-specific constructions was left on the table.
The experimenter then left the mother and child for 5 min with
the camera recording. Mothers and their children were unaware
that they were being video-recorded. After the 5-minute mother-
child “break,” the experimenter returned and continued with a
different assessment.
Coding of Mother-Child Interactions
The video-recorded mother-child block construction break was
coded using INTERACT Software (Mangold, 2015). Of the 5-
minute break, 4 min were coded, starting when mother sat
down next to the child. The full 5 min were not coded
because dyads differed in the amount of time they took
to settle down at the table. From videos, we coded the
degree to which the mother or child led the block-building
interactions; how much hands-on time child and mother
spent building with the blocks; and mothers’ verbal instruction
around block building.
The degree to which mother or child led in the block building
(termed initiation) was coded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Child
initiates and engages in building >90% of the time; 2 = Child
initiates and engages in building 70–90% of the time; 3 = Child
and mother equally initiate building; 4 = Mother initiates and
engages in building 70–90% of the time; 5 = Mother initiates
and engages in building >90% of the time.). Coding of initiation
yielded a single score for the interaction.
Children’s and mothers’ time spent block building were
coded separately based on the total duration (in seconds) each
person spent actively building. The onset of a block building
bout was defined by touching and moving a block and ended
when the child or mother stopped touching and moving a
block. We further analyzed time spent building into two types
of construction activities: test-specific construction and free-
form construction. Test-specific construction was coded when
mothers and/or children built a test item on the scoring
sheet. Mothers and children were considered as building a
test-specific item if they referred to the scoring sheet and
built something that looked exactly like or similar to an item
on the scoring sheet (mistakes were allowed). This included
time spent disassembling the item after it was built. Free-
form construction was coded when mothers and/or children
built something with the blocks other than the test items.
Mothers’ Verbal Instruction on how to build with the blocks
was coded using a time sampling approach. The block-
building interaction was divided into 10-second intervals and
coders marked each interval on whether mothers offered
instructions around building to the child or not. Ten percent
of videos were randomly selected and coded for inter-
observer reliabilities. Kappa coefficients for measures ranged
from 0.80 to 0.92.
RESULTS
Neither gender, preschool status, nor mother education related to
mother or child block building. Therefore, models collapse across
these variables.
Individual and Ethnic Differences in
Children’s Performance
Children’s performance on block building at ages 4 and 5 years is
displayed in Figures 2A,B. At both ages, children of all ethnicities
varied substantially in their performance—ranging from 0 items
correct to the maximum of 12 items correct.
To test ethnic differences in children’s performance, we
conducted a 4 (Ethnicity) ×2 (Child Age) MANOVA, with the
total number of correct items at each age serving as dependent
variables. As hypothesized, Chinese children exceeded Mexican,
Dominican, and African American children (all p’s <0.05),
as indicated by a main effect for Ethnicity, F(3,163) =23.41,
p<0.001. This pattern maintained at both ages, although
Mexican children outperformed African American children by
age 5 years, p= 0.022. The Age ×Ethnicity interaction was not
significant, F(3,163) = 0.97, p= 0.41. Because difficulty of test
items increased at the 5-year assessment, we did not examine
age-related changes.
Individual and Ethnic Differences in
Mother-Child Block-Building Activities
Initiation
At both ages, mothers and children were balanced in leading
the block-building interaction, as seen in the normal distribution
around the mid-point of the 5-point scale (M= 3.18, SD = 1.05
and M= 3.20, SD = 1.12 at 4- and 5-year assessments,
respectively). At the 4-year assessment, 39.4% of parent-child
dyads were balanced on initiation (scores of 3); children led
sometimes or all the time in 23.1% of dyads (scores of 1 and 2);
and mothers led sometimes or all the time in 37.5% of dyads
(scores of 4 and 5). At the 5-year assessment, 34% of parent-
child dyads showed balance, 25.6% had children leading all the
time or sometimes, and the remaining 40.4% were characterized
by mother leading. A 4 (Ethnicity) ×2 (Child Age) MANOVA
indicated no ethnic or age differences, as seen in non-significant
main effects of Ethnicity, F(3,145) = 0.56, p= 0.65, and Age,
F(1,145) = 0.002, p= 0.96. The Ethnicity ×Age interaction was
also not significant, F(3,145) = 1.06, p= 0.37. Thus, distribution
of initiation ratings replicated across age and the four ethnicities.
Mothers’ Block Building
Mothers varied in the time they spent building with their
children during the break, ranging from 0 to 204 s. A minority
of mothers did not engage in any construction activities at
the 4-year assessment (10.8%) and 5-year assessment (18.0%).
Figures 3A,B display individual mothers’ construction activities
at the two child ages.
We tested ethnic differences in mothers’ overall time in
block building in a 4 (Ethnicity) ×2 (Child’s Age) MANOVA.
Counter to hypotheses, Chinese mothers spent significantly
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5July 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1626
fpsyg-10-01626 July 11, 2019 Time: 17:36 # 6
Suh et al. Ethnic Differences in Block Building
FIGURE 2 | Number of correct items for children from each ethnic group at the (A) 4-year assessment, and (B) 5-year assessment. Each dot represents a child, and
horizontal lines denote averages.
less time building than did Dominican mothers collapsing
across the two ages, as revealed in an Ethnicity main effect,
F(3,163) = 3.74, p= 0.012. An Ethnicity ×Age interaction,
F(3,163) = 2.67, p= 0.049, revealed that when children were age 4,
Chinese mothers spent less time building than all other mothers,
p’s <0.02. However, when children were 5 years of age, Chinese
mothers were the only group to increase time spent on building,
and consequently no longer differed from the other mothers,
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6July 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1626
fpsyg-10-01626 July 11, 2019 Time: 17:36 # 7
Suh et al. Ethnic Differences in Block Building
FIGURE 3 | Overall time spent on construction activities by mothers from each ethnic group at the (A) 4-year assessment, and (B) 5-year assessment. Each dot
represents a mother, and horizontal lines denote averages.
p’s >0.05. African American mothers spent significantly less time
than Dominican mothers in overall building when children were
5 years of age, p= 0.024.
Most centrally, we tested age and ethnic differences in the two
types of mothers’ construction activities in a 4 (Ethnicity) ×2
(Construction Type: test-specific vs. free-form) ×2 (Child’s Age)
MANOVA. Mothers spent more time on free-form construction
than test-specific construction overall, F(1,163) = 11.60, p= 0.001.
However, mothers of the 4 ethnicities differed in how they
distributed time between the two construction types, as seen in
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7July 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1626
fpsyg-10-01626 July 11, 2019 Time: 17:36 # 8
Suh et al. Ethnic Differences in Block Building
a Construction Type ×Ethnicity interaction, F(3,163) = 9.35,
p<0.001. African American and Dominican mothers spent more
time building free-form structures than test-specific structures,
p’s <0.001, and spent more time on free-form construction than
Mexican and Chinese mothers collapsing across the two ages,
p’s <0.01, although African American mothers decreased their
time on free-form construction over child age, p= 0.021.
In contrast, Mexican mothers spent more time building
test-specific structures than free-form structures, p= 0.05,
and exceeded mothers of the other ethnicities on this type
of construction, all p’s <0.01. Further, Mexican mothers
increased their time spent on test-specific structures between
the two ages, p= 0.009. Like Mexican mothers, Chinese
mothers engaged in more test-specific structures than free-form
structures with their 4-year-olds; although, they built more free-
form structures when children were 5 years of age, p= 0.032.
Ethnic differences in patterns of change were confirmed in a 3-
way Ethnicity ×Construction Type ×Child Age interaction,
F(3,163) = 4.31, p= 0.006.
Children’s Block Building
Figures 4A,B display individual children’s construction activities
at the two ages. Children, varied dramatically in their time spent
building, ranging from 0 to 240 s.
Ethnic differences in children’s overall construction was tested
in a 4 (Ethnicity) ×2 (Child’s Age) MANOVA. Children
of the four ethnic groups marginally differed in their overall
block building across both ages, F(3,163) = 2.59, p= 0.055.
Overall, African American children spent significantly less time
building than did Dominican and Chinese children, and Mexican
children spent less time building than did Chinese children, all
p’s <0.05. An Ethnicity ×Age interaction, F(3,163) = 3.02,
p= 0.032, revealed that although ethnic differences were not
seen at the 4-year assessment, F(3,163) = 0.71, p= 0.55, ethnic
differences emerged by the 5-year assessment, F(3,163) = 4.94,
p= 0.003. Like their mothers, Chinese children were the only
group to increase time spent on block building between the two
ages, p= 0.005.
We further tested age and ethnic differences in the two types
of children’s constructions in a 4 (Ethnicity) ×2 (Construction
Type) ×2 (Child’s Age) MANOVA. Paralleling the behaviors of
mothers, children spent more time building free-form structures
than test-specific structures overall, F(1,163) = 34.07, p<0.001,
but increased in test-specific structures between the two ages,
Age ×Construction Type, F(1,163) = 7.06, p= 0.009.
Children of the four ethnicities differed in how they
distributed their time across the two construction types, with
patterns mirroring those seen in mothers, as revealed by a 2-
way Construction Type ×Ethnicity interaction, F(3,163) = 11.43,
p<0.001. Like their mothers, Mexican (p’s<0.01) and
Chinese children (p’s<0.05) spent more time building
test-specific structures compared to Dominican and African
American children, and Mexican children specifically spent
more time on test-specific structures than free-form structures
overall, p’s <0.01. Reciprocally, Dominican children spent more
time building free-form structures than Mexican and Chinese
children, p’s <0.05, but did not differ from African American
children on this type of construction. The 3-way interaction was
not significant, F(3,163) = 1.09, p= 0.354.
Mothers’ Verbal Instructions
Mothers varied in how often they verbally instructed children
around block building, ranging from 0 to 24 intervals (M= 3.06,
SD = 4.12 and M= 4.10, SD = 5.98, at 4- and 5-year assessments,
respectively). Ethnic differences in mothers’ instruction was
tested in a 4 (Ethnicity) ×2 (Child’s Age) MANOVA. Mothers
of the four ethnic groups differed on their instruction, as seen
by a main effect of Ethnicity, F(3,163) = 30.32, p<0.001. Again,
counter to hypotheses, Chinese mothers provided less instruction
to their children (M= 0.91, SE = 0.46) than did Dominican
(M= 4.22, SE = 0.50) and Mexican (M= 7.45, SE = 0.54)
mothers when collapsing across ages, p’s <0.001, and marginally
less instruction than African American mothers (M= 2.63,
SE = 0.54), p= 0.10.
Mexican mothers provided their children with the most
instruction compared to African American, Dominican, and
Chinese mothers, p’s <0.001. Furthermore, an Ethnicity ×Age
interaction, F(3,163) = 6.96, p<0.001, revealed that Mexican
mothers were the only group to significantly increase their
instruction to children from the 4-year assessment (M= 4.97,
SD = 4.96) to the 5-year assessment (M= 9.92, SD = 7.84),
p<0.001. The increase in Mexican mothers’ instruction was
confirmed in a main effect of Age, F(1,163) = 6.88, p= 0.01.
Mother-Child Associations During Block
Building
We next examined associations between mothers’ and children’s
behaviors during block building, with focus on initiation,
instruction, and the two forms of block building (test-specific and
free-form structures).
Initiation and Child Block Building
At the 4-year assessment, high initiation, representing mothers
leading the block-building interaction, did not relate to children’s
time spent on test-specific construction, r= 0.13, p= 0.10,
or free-form construction, r=−0.076, p= 0.34. However,
when associations between initiation and children’s building
were investigated by ethnicity, initiation related to children’s
time spent building test-specific items for Dominican, r= 0.35,
p= 0.028 and African American children, r= 0.53, p= 0.001,
at the 4-year assessment. At the 5-year assessment, mothers’
initiation of block building related to children’s time spent
building test-specific structures, r= 0.17, p= 0.039, and negatively
related to children’s time spent building free-form structures,
r=−0.21, p= 0.01. However, both associations were only seen
in Chinese dyads, r= 0.52, p<0.001, and r=−0.44, p= 0.002.
Mother Construction Type and Child Construction
Type
As hypothesized, mothers’ and children’s block-building activities
correlated in specific ways at both ages. Mothers’ time spent
building free-form structures related to children’s time spent
building free-form structures at the 4-year assessment, r= 0.52,
p<0.001, and 5-year assessment, r= 0.65, p<0.001.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8July 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1626
fpsyg-10-01626 July 11, 2019 Time: 17:36 # 9
Suh et al. Ethnic Differences in Block Building
FIGURE 4 | Overall time spent on construction activities by children from each ethnic group at the (A) 4-year assessment, and (B) 5-year assessment. Each dot
represents a child, and horizontal lines denote averages.
Similarly, mothers’ time spent building test-specific structures
related to children’s time building test-specific structures at
the 4-year assessment, r= 0.57, p<0.001, and the 5-
year assessment, r= 0.56, p<0.001. Associations were
consistent and significant across all four ethnicities. At both
assessments, mothers’ time spent building free-form structures
related inversely to children’s time spent building test-specific
structures, just as mothers’ time spent building test-specific
structures related inversely to children’s time spent building free-
form structures.
Instruction and Child Block Building
Instruction by mothers related to children’s time spent building
test-specific structures at the 4-year assessment, r= 0.34,
p<0.001. This association was seen across Dominican children,
r= 0.46, p= 0.002, African American children, r= 0.43,
p= 0.009, Chinese children, r= 0.35, p= 0.01, and Mexican
children (marginally), r= 0.29, p= 0.08. Similarly, at the 5-year
assessment, Instruction related to children’s time spent building
test-specific structures, r= 0.39, p<0.001. This association
again maintained across Dominican children, r= 0.49, p= 0.001,
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9July 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1626
fpsyg-10-01626 July 11, 2019 Time: 17:36 # 10
Suh et al. Ethnic Differences in Block Building
African American children, r= 0.62, p<0.001, and Mexican
children, r= 0.39, p= 0.018, and Chinese children (marginally),
r= 0.26, p= 0.069.
Associations Between Block-Building
Interactions and Child Performance
Regressions next tested associations between the independent
variables of mothers’ initiation, instruction, test-specific
construction, and free-form construction in relation to children’s
performance during the independent block-building assessment
at each assessment age (Table 1). Ethnicity variables (with
Chinese as referent group) were included in each model. The
independent variables explained 26.3% of the variance in
children’s block-building performance at the 4-year assessment,
R2= 26.3, F(7,152) = 7.76, p<0.001. African American,
Dominican, and Mexican ethnicity status negatively related to
children’s block-building performance compared to the Chinese
reference group, B=−0.34 to −0.43, p’s <0.001. Furthermore,
mothers’ time spent building test-specific structures related
positively with children’s block-building performance when
holding other independent variables constant, B= 0.17,
p= 0.038. In contrast, neither initiation, B = −0.11, p= 0.16,
nor mother’s instruction, B=−0.13, p= 0.13, related to child
performance. For the 5-year assessment, independent variables
accounted for 24.2% of the variance in children’s block-building
performance, R2= 24.2, F(7,148) = 6.76, p<0.001. Ethnicity
variables were significant for the African American group,
B=−0.46, p<0.001, and Dominican group, B=−0.37,
p<0.001 (but not Mexican, B=−0.19, p= 0.067), relative to the
Chinese referent group at the 5-year assessment. By the 5-year
assessment, mother’s time spent building test-specific structures
no longer related to children’s performance, B= 0.023, p= 0.78,
nor did initiation or instruction.
DISCUSSION
Informal opportunities to play with blocks arm children with
spatial-cognitive skills that are foundational to school readiness.
Ethnic differences in children’s block-building performance were
already seen when children were 4 and 5 years of age; mothers’
and children’s block-building behaviors corresponded in highly
specific ways; and mothers’ and children’s block building differed
by ethnicity, with U.S. Chinese and Mexican dyads, the most
recent immigrant groups, being more likely to emphasize task-
specific construction than free-form construction compared to
U.S. Dominican and African American dyads.
A first aim was to test ethnic differences in children’s spatial
skills based on a block-building assessment. Block building
offers children opportunities to manipulate object relations, and
has been shown to support later STEM performance in math
cognition (Verdine et al., 2017). Chinese children showed higher
performance relative to other children even before beginning
formal schooling, a finding that mirrors the Asian advantage in
early math skill prior to school entry (Sonnenschein and Sun,
2017), and extends work to an informal, yet cognitively important
activity in early childhood—building 3D block constructions.
Still, within-group variation was striking, with children in every
ethnic group ranging from failing most items to mastering the
entire set of items. Thus, attention to within-group heterogeneity
is critical to any investigation of cultural differences.
When examining mothers’ and children’s block-building
interactions, dyads of the four ethnicities did not differ in
terms of who initiated and led the block building, although
they differed on how mothers and children distributed their
time between building task-specific and free-form structures.
Mexican and Chinese mothers built more test-specific structures
than other mothers, whereas African American and Dominican
mothers built more free-form structures. These recent immigrant
mothers may have spent relatively more time on test-specific
construction because of Mexican mothers’ high endorsement of
children’s achievement (Suizzo, 2007) and belief that children
learn by following parents’ directions (Keels, 2009), and Chinese
mothers’ emphasis on teaching (Huntsinger and Jose, 2009) and
view of themselves as active facilitators of children’s learning
(Sonnenschein et al., 2018). In contrast, the 3+generation
African American mothers and longer-resident U.S. Dominican
mothers may have favored free-form construction because of
acculturation to cultural messages around the importance of
children’s choice in play and sense of agency (Keller, 2003),
and avoidance of drill and practice-oriented teaching methods
(Huntsinger and Jose, 2009).
However, Mexican and Chinese mothers diverged in their
use of instruction around block building. Although Mexican
immigrant mothers used high instruction with their children,
Chinese immigrant mothers did not, perhaps because Chinese
children already demonstrated high proficiency on block
building and needed little further support. In fact, by the
time children were 5 years of age, Chinese mothers pulled
back from their initially high emphasis on building test-specific
structures to building free-form structures with their children,
whereas Mexican mothers remained relatively high on test-
specific constructions.
A final question concerned whether and how mother-
child block building interactions relate to children’s block-
building performance. When investigating associations between
mother and child block-building behaviors and children’s block-
building performance at an individual level, beyond ethnicity,
mothers’ time spent building test-specific items related to
children’s block-building performance at the 4-year assessment
specifically, whereas verbal instruction and initiation did not.
The association between mothers’ task-specific construction and
children’s performance suggests that visually-perceptible, hands-
on-guidance by adults may aid children’s block-building skill and
understanding of spatial relations more than verbal instruction
at young ages. Indeed, how people use their bodies and hands
reflects what the mind is doing (Kita et al., 2017); draws children’s
attention to where to look and how to act (Zukow-Goldring
and Arbib, 2007); and plays a functional role in spatial and
mathematical cognition specifically (Hostetter and Alibali, 2019).
Notably, this research contains limitations that suggest
promising avenues for future inquiry. First, children’s block-
building performance for each test item was coded as correct
or incorrect, with no attention to how close children came
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 July 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1626
fpsyg-10-01626 July 11, 2019 Time: 17:36 # 11
Suh et al. Ethnic Differences in Block Building
TABLE 1 | Summary of Multiple Linear Regressions Analyses for Variables Predicting Children’s Performance.
4 years of age (n= 160) 5 years of age (n= 156)
Variable B SE B βB SE B β
Constant 9.45 0.87 – 7.88 0.97 –
Dummy coding of the African American group −2.92 0.73 −0.35∗∗∗ −4.36 0.79 −0.46∗∗∗
Dummy coding of the Dominican group −3.32 0.70 −0.41∗∗∗ −3.21 0.78 −0.37∗∗∗
Dummy coding of the Mexican group −2.51 0.73 −0.30∗∗∗ −1.74 0.94 −0.19†
Mother building test-specific items 0.02 0.01 0.17∗∗∗ 0.00 0.01 0.02
Mother building free-form items −0.00 0.01 −0.05∗−0.00 0.01 −0.05
Verbal Instructions −0.11 0.07 −0.13 −0.11 0.06 −0.17†
Initiation −0.36 0.25 −0.11 −0.12 0.25 −0.04
R20.26 0.24
F7.76∗∗∗ 6.76∗∗∗
∗p<0.05; ∗∗∗p<0.001; †p<0.10.
to succeeding and which types of spatial errors led to failure.
Attention to the real-time unfolding of children’s strategies as
they work through spatial problems will help inform educational
curricula and guide interventions in informal settings such as the
home environment.
Second, the session was brief and focused on only one aspect of
parent support—mothers’ verbal and physical behaviors during
block building in a lab setting. Whether and how parental support
for spatial learning manifests in the day-to-day lives of young
children remains open to investigation. Indeed, parents’ everyday
spatial talk at home (such as naming shapes and referring to
spatial dimensions and features), relates to children’s abilities to
identify spatial relations in images and mentally transform shapes
(Pruden et al., 2011). Furthermore, many factors contribute to
what and how parents interact with their children around spatial
activities, including parents’ skills, beliefs, anxieties, and so forth.
Third, findings may not generalize to other U. S. Chinese,
Mexican, Dominican or African American samples or to
populations studied by other researchers. For example, the
current sample of recent immigrant Chinese mothers averaged
fewer than 11 years of education, which might also explain their
lower than expected rates of verbal instruction to children. We
are currently expanding focus to children’s spatial skills and
everyday experiences around spatial toy play, home literacy, and
home numeracy activities as potential contributors to children’s
spatial cognitive skills. Additionally, differences in the lexical
and grammatical structures of home languages, which varyingly
highlight spatial features, relations, and motions (e.g., Choi and
Bowerman, 1991;Choi et al., 1999), may contribute to ethnic
differences in children’s spatial skills.
The current study provides a first step toward unpacking the
potential sources of ethnic and individual differences in children’s
early STEM-related experiences and performance. Efforts to
educate parents and teachers about the cognitive benefits of block
building may go a long way in supporting children’s early spatial
skills and thus promoting their math and science understanding.
Indeed, play with blocks is compatible with learning rather than
a distraction from learning. Elucidating the home environment
factors that relate to children’s spatial cognition will help inform
parents, educators, and policymakers about ways to support the
building blocks for STEM learning in U.S. children from different
ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic backgrounds.
ETHICS STATEMENT
This study was carried out in accordance with the
recommendations of the University Committee on Activities
Involving Human Subjects of New York University with written
informed consent from all participants. The protocol was
approved by the University Committee on Activities Involving
Human Subjects of New York University.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
EL coordinated the data collection. EL and DS contributed
equally to the data analysis. EL led preparation of figures.
DS led preparation of the draft of the manuscript. FN aided
in the conceptualization, measurement, and design of the
study. CT-L supervised the work, provided critical feedback
to shape the research design and analysis, and contributed to
manuscript writing and revision. All authors read and approved
the final manuscript.
FUNDING
This research was supported by the National Science Foundation
Grants #021859, #0721383, and #1761053 at the Center
for Research on Culture, Development, and Education at
New York University.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Yana Kuchirko, Emerald Shee, Amy Seung Hee
Baeg, Irene Nga-Lam Sze, and other staff and students at
the CRCDE. We are grateful to the families who participated
in our research.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 11 July 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1626
fpsyg-10-01626 July 11, 2019 Time: 17:36 # 12
Suh et al. Ethnic Differences in Block Building
REFERENCES
Assel, M. A., Landry, S. H., Swank, P., Smith, K. E., and Steelman, L. M. (2003).
Precursors to mathematical skills: examining the roles of visual-spatial skills,
executive processes, and parenting factors. Appl. Dev. Sci. 7, 27–38. doi: 10.
1207/s1532480xads0701_3
Borriello, G. A., and Liben, L. S. (2018). Encouraging maternal guidance of
preschoolers’ spatial thinking during block play. Child Dev. 89, 1209–1222.
doi: 10.1111/cdev.12779
Caldera, Y. M., Culp, A. M., O’Brien, M., Truglio, R. T., Alvarez, M., and Huston,
A. C. (1999). Children’s play preferences, construction play with blocks, and
visual-spatial skills: are they related? Int. J. Behav. Dev. 23, 855–872. doi:
10.1080/016502599383577
Casey, B., and Bobb, B. (2003). The power of block building. Teach. Child. Math.
10, 98–102.
Chen, X. (2009). Students Who Study Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics(STEM) in Postsecondary Education. Stats in Brief. NCES 2009-161.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Choi, S., and Bowerman, M. (1991). Learning to express motion events in English
and Korean: the influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition
41, 83–121. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(91)90033-z
Choi, S., McDonough, L., Bowerman, M., and Mandler, J. M. (1999). Early
sensitivity to language-specific spatial categories in English and Korean. Cogn.
Dev. 14, 241–268. doi: 10.1016/s0885-2014(99)00004-0
Ferrara, K., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Newcombe, N. S., Golinkoff, R. M., and Lam, W. S.
(2011). Block talk: spatial language during block play. Mind Brain Educ. 5,
143–151. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-228x.2011.01122.x
Gonzalez, H. B., and Kuenzi, J. J. (2012). Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Education: A Primer. Washington, DC: Congressional
Research Service, Library of Congress.
Hostetter, A. B., and Alibali, M. W. (2019). Gesture as simulated action: revisiting
the framework. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 26, 721–752. doi: 10.3758/s13423-018-
1548-0
Huntsinger, C. S., and Jose, P. E. (2009). Parental involvement in children’s
schooling: different meanings in different cultures. Early Child. Res. Q. 24,
398–410. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.07.006
Huntsinger, C. S., Jose, P. E., Larson, S. L., Balsink Krieg, D., and Shaligram,
C. (2000). Mathematics, vocabulary, and reading development in
Chinese American and European American children over the primary
school years. J. Educ. Psychol. 92, 745–760. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.92.
4.745
Keels, M. (2009). Ethnic group differences in early head start parents’ parenting
beliefs and practices and links to children’s early cognitive development. Early
Child. Res. Q. 24, 381–397. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.08.002
Keller, H. (2003). Socialization for competence: cultural models of infancy. Hum.
Dev. 46, 288–311. doi: 10.1159/000071937
Kita, S., Alibali, M. W., and Chu, M. (2017). How do gestures influence thinking
and speaking? The gesture-for-conceptualization hypothesis. Psychol. Rev. 124,
245–266. doi: 10.1037/rev0000059
Lauer, J. E., and Lourenco, S. F. (2016). Spatial processing in infancy predicts both
spatial and mathematical aptitude in childhood. Psychol. Sci. 27, 1291–1298.
doi: 10.1177/0956797616655977
Lombardi, C. M., Casey, B. M., Thomson, D., Nguyen, H. N., and Dearing, E.
(2017). Maternal support of young children’s planning and spatial concept
learning as predictors of later math (and reading) achievement. Early Child. Res.
Q. 41, 114–125. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.07.004
Mangold (2015). INTERACT 14 User Guide. Germany: Mangold International
GmbH. Available at: www.mangold-international.com
Miller, H. E., Vlach, H. A., and Simmering, V. R. (2017). Producing spatial words is
not enough: understanding the relation between language and spatial cognition.
Child Dev. 88, 1966–1982. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12664
Nord, C., Roey, S., Perkins, R., Lyons, M., Lemanski, N., Brown, J., et al. (2011).
The Nation’s Report Card: America’s High School Graduates. Results of the 2009
NAEP High School Transcript Study. Washington, DC: National Center for
Educational Statistics.
Pruden, S. M., Levine, S. C., and Huttenlocher, J. (2011). Children’s spatial thinking:
does talk about the spatial world matter? Dev. Sci. 14, 1417–1430. doi: 10.1111/
j.1467-7687.2011.01088.x
Reardon, S. F. (2008). Thirteen Ways of Looking at the Black-White Test Score Gap.
(Working Paper No. 2008-08). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Institute for
Research on Education Policy and Practice.
Reifel, S. (1984). Block construction: children’s developmental landmarks in
representation of space. Young Children 40, 61–67.
Sonnenschein, S., Galindo, C., Simons, C. L., Metzger, S. R., Thompson, J. A.,
and Chung, M. F. (2018). “How Do Children Learn Mathematics? Chinese
and Latina Immigrant Perspectives,” in Parental Roles and Relationships in
Immigrant Families, eds S. S. Chuang and C. L. Costigan (New York, NY:
Springer), 111–128. doi: 10.1007/978-3- 319-71399-1_7
Sonnenschein, S., and Sun, S. (2017). Racial/ethnic differences in kindergartners’
reading and math skills: parents’ knowledge of children’s development and
home-based activities as mediators. Infant Child Dev. 26, 1–21.
Suizzo, M. A. (2007). Parents’ goals and values for children: dimensions of
independence and interdependence across four US ethnic groups. J. Cross Cult.
Psychol. 38, 506–530. doi: 10.1177/0022022107302365
Uttal, D. H., and Cohen, C. A. (2012). “Spatial thinking and STEM education:
When, why, and how?,” in Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 57, ed.
B. Ross (New York, NY: Academic Press), 147–181.
Verdine, B. N., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., and Newcombe, N. S. (2017).
IV. Results—links between spatial assembly, later spatial skills, and concurrent
and later mathematical skills. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 82, 71–80. doi:
10.1111/mono.12283
Verdine, B. N., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Newcombe, N. S., Filipowicz,
A. T., and Chang, A. (2014). Deconstructing building blocks: preschoolers’
spatial assembly performance relates to early mathematical skills. Child Dev.
85, 1062–1076. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12165
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., and Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM
domains: aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge
solidifies its importance. J. Educ. Psychol. 101, 817–835. doi: 10.1037/a00
16127
Wexler, M., Kosslyn, S. M., and Berthoz, A. (1998). Motor processes
in mental rotation. Cognition 68, 77–94. doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(98)
00032-8
Zukow-Goldring, P., and Arbib, M. A. (2007). Affordances, effectivities, and
assisted imitation: caregivers and the directing of attention. Neurocomputing
70, 2181–2193. doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2006.02.029
Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was
conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2019 Suh, Liang, Ng and Tamis-LeMonda. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academicpractice. No
use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with theseterms.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 12 July 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1626
Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
