Content uploaded by Miriam Leuchter
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Miriam Leuchter on Mar 08, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 80 (2022) 101400
Available online 2 March 2022
0193-3973/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Fostering children’s block building self-concepts and stability knowledge
through construction play
Anke Maria Weber
*
, Miriam Leuchter
Institute for Children and Youth Education, University of Koblenz-Landau, Landau, Germany
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Academic self-concept
Guided play
Science learning
Free play
Scaffolding
ABSTRACT
The study investigated preschool children’s block building self-concepts in relation to their stability knowledge
acquisition as implied by the reciprocal effects model and possible effects of different forms of play. We inves-
tigated three types of construction play: (a) guided play with verbal and material scaffolds, (b) guided play with
material scaffolds, and (c) free play. We examined the effects of the different play forms on block building self-
concept and stability knowledge acquisition as well as the reciprocal effects model’s t to preschool children. We
implemented a pre-post-follow-up design, N =183 German 5- to 6-year-olds (88 female). Block building self-
concept declined in the free play group, but not in the guided play groups. Both guided play groups out-
performed the free play group in stability knowledge acquisition. The reciprocal effects model was not supported.
Guided play may be effective in fostering children’s block building self-concepts and stability knowledge.
Introduction
Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (1976) dene self-concept as a
person’s perception of themselves shaped by their experiences with their
environment. They claim that a person’s actions are inuenced by their
self-concept and that their self-concept is expressed through behavior.
Academic self-concept is the evaluative component of one’s ability in a
domain (Jansen, 2017) and one of the most frequently investigated
constructs in developmental and educational psychology, because it is a
mediating factor for many desirable outcomes such as a person’s
choices, persistence, intrinsic motivation, energy that is spent on a
subject as well as accomplishments (Marsh, Xu, & Martin, 2012; Wig-
eld & Eccles, 2000). Many researchers view academic self-concept as
an important pillar of children’s development (Marsh et al., 2012; Pat-
rick & Mantzicopoulos, 2015).
There has been extensive research on school children’s and adoles-
cents’ academic self-concepts in language and mathematics (e.g., Guo,
Marsh, Parker, Morin, & Yeung, 2015; Helmke, 1999; Marsh, Byrne, &
Shavelson, 1988). However, research on children’s academic self-
concepts in science before they enter formal education, e.g., preschool
children, has been sparse (Arens et al., 2016).
Studying young children’s block building self-concepts as a sub-facet
of their science self-concepts is worthwhile for two reasons. (1) Pre-
school children’s academic self-concepts might differ from school
students’, because they have not yet gained as many experiences, e.g.,
through formal education as well as peer and teacher feedback (Harter,
2015). (2) Research suggests that preschool children perceive them-
selves as less able in science than in language or mathematics (Patrick &
Mantzicopoulos, 2015). However, their academic self-concepts still tend
to be unrealistically positive in preschool and decline during the early
school years (Harter, 2015). For example, Helmke (1999) found that
most preschool children rate themselves as being the best in their class in
mathematics and language, and that their rating declines during pri-
mary school and becomes more realistic. Educational contexts in pre-
school may affect children’s academic self-concepts through play
(Trawick-Smith, 2012), which is considered to maintain motivation and
promote academic development (Zosh et al., 2018). Thus, their inves-
tigation adds to the knowledge of children’s academic self-concepts.
The present study focuses on preschool children’s block building self-
concepts and the related science domain of stability. Stability is con-
cerned with objects that are either at rest or in motion (Riley & Sturges,
1993) and children have a rudimentary understanding that objects need
to be supported to remain stable in infancy (Baillargeon & Hanko-
Summers, 1990). Moreover, we investigate possible reciprocal effects
with stability knowledge, i.e., block building self-concept and stability
knowledge affecting each other over time, as well as its development in
different playful educational contexts. Moreover, the study investigates
the effect of play on children’s stability knowledge, meaning children’s
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: weber-a@uni-landau.de (A.M. Weber).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jappdp
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2022.101400
Received 10 September 2021; Received in revised form 1 February 2022; Accepted 23 February 2022
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 80 (2022) 101400
2
knowledge whether different constructions remain stable or tumble.
Structure and development of self-concept in preschool children
Marsh et al. (1988) conceptualize the structure of self-concept as
hierarchical with academic and non-academic facets. Moreover, aca-
demic self-concept has been separated into domain-specic facets. Thus,
a child’s block building self-concept refers to their trust in their block
building abilities (Pintrich, 2003). Additionally, academic self-concept
has been construed as comprising motivational and competence be-
liefs subsumed under one respective domain-specic factor (Marsh,
Ellis, & Craven, 2002). However, other theories model motivational
beliefs and competence beliefs as separate constructs, which are
considered to be related and to inuence knowledge acquisition (e.g.,
Eccles, 2009). The motivational belief component can be conceptualized
as the value a person attributes to a task, while the competence belief
component functions as an expectancy.
The structure of young children’s academic self-concepts, i.e., the
interaction of motivational and competence beliefs with achievement,
has been examined for preschool children (Arens et al., 2016) and
elementary school children in mathematics (Guo et al., 2015; Lauer-
mann, Tsai, & Eccles, 2017) and STEM (Ball, Huang, Cotten, & Rikard,
2017). Marsh et al. (2002) found that asking about different domains
with specic questions is crucial to obtain a valid measure of self-
concept in early childhood. They uncovered that even 4-year-old chil-
dren can differentiate between multiple domains of self-concept. Arens
et al. (2016) showed that mathematics self-concept can be differentiated
into a motivational and a competence belief component in preschool
children. This might also be the case for block building (motivational
beliefs: I enjoy building with blocks; competence beliefs: I am good at
learning about blocks).
From a developmental perspective, Harter (2015) states that 5- to 7-
year-old children typically focus on domain-specic competences,
believing they are either all good or all bad. In contrast, children from
the age of 8 integrate specic competences and acknowledge that they
can be good and bad at certain subcomponents of a domain. Accord-
ingly, children under the age of 8 face problems integrating social
comparisons into their academic self-concepts. The decline in academic
self-concept during primary school is attributed to increased external
feedback, experiences with different domains and the developing ability
to integrate both into self-evaluations (Eccles, 2009; Harter, 2015;
Helmke, 1999).
Academic self-concept and its relation to knowledge acquisition
According to the reciprocal effects model (Marsh & Craven, 2006),
academic self-concept and knowledge acquisition in a particular
domain, e.g., block building, are intertwined and inuence each other.
Thus, academic self-concept inuences later knowledge and in turn
knowledge inuences later academic self-concept (Marsh et al., 2012).
For example, children with a high self-concept in block building might
gain more knowledge in this area, because they will perceive themselves
as motivated and competent and might try more challenging tasks.
Moreover, children who have knowledge about stability might view
themselves as motivated and competent in block building.
This reciprocal relation has been demonstrated in studies on general
school achievement, mainly for primary and high school students (e.g.,
Guay, Marsh, & Boivin, 2003; Marsh & Martin, 2011). However, few
studies have examined this relation in a science domain (Jansen, 2017)
and for young children (Arens et al., 2016). Denissen, Zarrett, and Eccles
(2007) investigated the development of the relation between self-
concept and achievement in science and mathematics for children and
adolescents between the ages 6 to 17 and found that they were related
for all ages. Concerning research on young children, results by Ehm,
Hasselhorn, and Schmiedek (2019) indicate that reciprocal effects may
develop during the early school years. However, for preschool children
self-concept might be inuenced by prior knowledge, but reciprocal
effects might start to develop (Arens et al., 2016). In their study, Arens
and her colleagues (Arens et al., 2016) found that mathematics
achievement and mathematics competence beliefs were related and
mathematics achievement affected mathematics competence beliefs at
later points in time, but not vice versa. Investigating a narrow topic such
as block building and the related stability domain might lead to different
results, since children have already gained a lot of experience in this area
through their play at home or in their preschools (e.g., Borriello & Liben,
2018; Marsh & Martin, 2011). Thus, reciprocal effects might be
detectable for block building self-concept and stability knowledge.
To add to the literature on reciprocal effects in young children, it
may be of interest to investigate their emergence in a controlled envi-
ronment using an intervention study. This allows for the exclusion of
potential confounding variables. Therefore, designing interventions that
help children engage in science activities and promote positive experi-
ences and learning as well as a sense of achievement are desirable.
Samarapungavan, Patrick, and Mantzicopoulos (2011) found that an
intervention on science learning with a teacher’s verbal support pro-
moted preschool children’s biology self-concepts and their knowledge of
biological phenomena. The children in their intervention group received
guided inquiry lessons on different biological topics such as living beings
and marine life over the course of a school year during which they
investigated the mentioned topics. The control group received the reg-
ular science lessons of their preschools. Children in the intervention
group had higher biology self-concepts and had gained more biology
knowledge compared to the control group. Nevertheless, Samar-
apungavan et al. (2011) did not investigate the relation between biology
self-concept and biology knowledge acquisition, as they examined their
individual development and not possible reciprocal effects between the
two constructs. Marsh and Richards (1988) investigated whether a six-
week program would increase reading and mathematics self-concepts.
Over the course of the program, adolescents received tasks that were
too easy for all participants, but then increased in difculty. Moreover,
the students were encouraged to set learning goals for themselves sup-
ported by teachers. The researchers found that the intervention posi-
tively affected self-concepts as well as adolescents’ reading and
mathematics achievements. Craven, Marsh, and Debus (1991) con-
ducted a study in which 8- to 12-year-old children received feedback on
their reading and mathematics competences in a group as well as an
individual setting over the course of eight weeks with each session
lasting approximately 10 to 15 min per week. They found that feedback
on positive abilities and performance enhanced reading and mathe-
matics self-concepts in primary school children, but not their achieve-
ment. Despite these ambiguous results, these studies indicate that
maintaining children’s high block building self-concepts and supporting
their stability knowledge might be possible (Marsh & Richards, 1988;
Samarapungavan et al., 2011).
The search for an appropriate context and domain to maintain
children’s block building self-concepts and foster their stability knowl-
edge might consider children’s developmental constraints as well as
their motivation to learn about science phenomena by relating science to
children’s everyday activities, i.e., developmentally appropriate prac-
tice (Copple & Bredenkamp, 2009). One such activity that children
engage in at home or in preschool is construction play, e.g., block play
(Borriello & Liben, 2018). Therefore, block play might maintain chil-
dren’s block building self-concepts and increase their stability knowl-
edge, leading to an increase in the reciprocal relation between both
constructs.
Concerning the science domain, children have intuitive knowledge
about physics from an early age (e.g., Baillargeon & Hanko-Summers,
1990) and knowledge about stability is a part of physics that can be
fostered as early as preschool (Greeneld, Alexander, & Frechette, 2017;
NGSS, 2021). Stability knowledge as an understanding that objects need
to be supported to remain stable is a familiar concept for infants (Bail-
largeon & Hanko-Summers, 1990). Further research on preschool
A.M. Weber and M. Leuchter
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 80 (2022) 101400
3
children shows that they consider an object’s geometrical center when
estimating its stability, thus rating symmetrical objects’ stabilities
correctly (Krist, 2010). However, preschool children face problems with
estimating asymmetrical objects’ stabilities (Krist, 2010; Weber, Reuter,
& Leuchter, 2020), overgeneralizing the geometrical center and
ignoring an object’s center of mass. Additionally, Krist and colleagues
found that the form of presentation is irrelevant, as children between 4
and 8 years showed the same performance when actively balancing
symmetrical and asymmetrical objects on a beam scale (Krist, Horz, &
Sch¨
onfeld, 2005) or when being presented with photographs (Krist,
2010). Children can investigate the underlying reasons for stability and
therefore acquire stability knowledge through their everyday play, e.g.,
when they play with building blocks (Borriello & Liben, 2018; Weber
et al., 2020). Thus, developmentally appropriate practice, e.g., block
play, might offer experiences that allow children to maintain their
positive block building self-concepts and at the same time foster their
stability knowledge (Copple & Bredenkamp, 2009; Fisher, Hirsh-Pasek,
Newcombe, & Golinkoff, 2013; Trawick-Smith, 2012; Zosh et al., 2018).
Play
Play as a developmentally appropriate practice is considered
voluntary, intrinsically motivating, child-directed, process- rather than
goal-oriented, and as containing elements of choice (Pellegrini, 2013;
Rubin, Fein, & Vandenberg, 1983; Trawick-Smith, 2012). Some re-
searchers conceive play as a category (Pellegrini, 2013), while others
consider play a continuum in which the above aspects might be realized
to a greater or lesser extent (e.g., Borriello & Liben, 2018; Fisher et al.,
2013; Rubin et al., 1983).
Pellegrini (2013) claims that certain types of play such as block play
should not be considered play because construction is goal-oriented and
not mainly concerned with the process. However, the view of play as a
continuum suggests that an activity might be considered play even if
some aspects are only partly fullled (Zosh et al., 2018). Accordingly,
Rubin et al. (1983) questioned if construction play, e.g., block play, is
necessarily concerned with the end product rather than the process of
building. We follow the continuum denition for the present study and
consider block play as play.
Extending the continuum-view, Zosh et al. (2018) dene play as a
spectrum with different types of play such as free play, which satises all
characteristics named earlier, and guided play, which has goals but can
also be process-oriented. Accordingly, guided play can be dened as a
playful activity initiated by an adult with a learning goal, but the activity
itself is directed by a child and thus might maintain children’s positive
block building self-concepts. Accordingly, Leibham, Alexander, and
Johnson (2013) found that preschool children’s science play was posi-
tively correlated with their block building self-concepts in primary
school.
Concerning the adult’s role in guided play, an adult’s scaffolding
might maintain children’s motivational and competence beliefs
(Guthrie, Wigeld, & Perencevich, 2004; Samarapungavan et al., 2011)
and may help children master challenging tasks and acquire new in-
sights (Fisher et al., 2013; van de Pol, Volman, & Beishuizen, 2010;
Weisberg, Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff, Kittredge, & Klahr, 2016). Based on
the idea of scaffolding as an effective way of support, we focus on two
elements: (a) material scaffolds, e.g., in the form of structured learning
materials such as photographs of block constructions that children can
rebuild, and (b) scaffolding through verbal support (Guthrie et al., 2004;
Martin, Dornfeld Tissenbaum, Gnesdilow, & Puntambekar, 2019; van de
Pol et al., 2010).
Material scaffolds are effective if they link new content to prior
knowledge and draw attention to specic aspects essential for under-
standing (Leuchter & Naber, 2019). They may invoke a sense of purpose
and might challenge the children to try and succeed in building complex
constructions, increasing their block building self-concepts and stability
knowledge (Leuchter & Naber, 2019; Martin et al., 2019). Verbal
support can foster motivational and competence beliefs (Belland, Kim, &
Hannan, 2013; Guthrie et al., 2004) and promote the learning process
(van de Pol et al., 2010). It is also important for heterogeneous groups of
preschool children (Weisberg et al., 2016). Verbal support can be
implemented through verbal scaffolding techniques, such as promoting
perceptions of challenge, competence, and success as well as modeling,
activation of prior knowledge, explanations, encouraging comparisons,
and asking for reasoning (e.g., Belland et al., 2013; van de Pol et al.,
2010). These techniques have been successfully implemented in various
studies on science motivation and learning and might therefore foster
young children’s motivational and competence beliefs as well as their
stability knowledge during a guided play (e.g., Britner & Pajares, 2006;
Hsin & Wu, 2011; Kaplan & Maehr, 2007; Leuchter & Naber, 2019;
Pintrich, 2003; Richey & Nokes-Malach, 2013). Moreover, in combina-
tion with material scaffolds, they might increase children’s block
building self-concepts and stability knowledge even further.
Guided play may be an effective way of supporting preschool chil-
dren’s block building self-concepts and their knowledge acquisition
through a combination of child-directed activities and an adult’s scaf-
folds (Fisher et al., 2013; Samarapungavan et al., 2011). Therefore, we
chose block play in combination with scaffolds to support children’s
block building self-concepts and their stability knowledge as a part of
children’s science knowledge. However, it remains unclear whether
guided play is more effective in maintaining young children’s block
building self-concepts and promoting their stability knowledge than free
play and whether the effectiveness of guided play varies with the
implementation of either material or material and verbal scaffolds.
Given this research gap, we focus on studying the impact of play on
changes in block building self-concept and the acquisition of stability
knowledge.
Drawing from these ndings, three major research gaps on the
relation between children’s academic self-concepts and their knowledge
can be derived. Research is sparse on (1) children younger than 6 years;
(2) the relation between block building self-concept and stability
knowledge; and (3) how to maintain children’s high academic self-
concepts while promoting their knowledge in a science domain.
Research questions
This study investigates two research questions with three different
types of construction play: guided construction play with material and
verbal scaffolds, guided construction play with material scaffolds, and
free construction play. We investigate the effect of construction play on
children’s block building self-concepts and their stability knowledge.
Research question 1: Do 5- to 6-year-old children’s block building
self-concepts, i.e., their motivational and competence beliefs, and their
stability knowledge acquisition differ between the three different play
settings (Borriello & Liben, 2018; Leuchter & Naber, 2019; Marsh &
Richards, 1988; Samarapungavan et al., 2011)?
Hypotheses:
(1) Children in the guided play group with material and verbal
scaffolds have higher (a) motivational beliefs, (b) competence
beliefs, and (c) stability knowledge gains than the guided play
group without verbal scaffolds.
(2) Children in both guided play groups have higher (a) motivational
beliefs, (b) competence beliefs, and (c) stability knowledge gains
than the free play group.
Research question 2: Are there reciprocal effects between block
building self-concept and stability knowledge (Denissen et al., 2007;
Guay et al., 2003; Jansen, 2017)?
Hypotheses:
(1) There are reciprocal effects between stability knowledge and (a)
motivational beliefs as well as (b) competence beliefs.
A.M. Weber and M. Leuchter
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 80 (2022) 101400
4
(2) There are group differences in the reciprocal effects.
Method
Participants
In total, 183 children from Germany (88 female), aged 5 to 6 years,
M =5.55, SD =0.50, participated in the study. A total of 172 children
were of European descent, 1 of Central American descent, 2 of African
descent, and 9 of Asian descent. Standard ground value of children’s
residences as an indicator for their socioeconomic background was
collected via municipal documentation. The children lived in areas with
standard ground value ranging from 83
€
/m
2
to 460
€
/m
2
with a median
of 230
€
/m
2
, which indicates that a broad socioeconomic spectrum is
represented in the sample.
The participants visited 23 preschools (N =2 to 13 per preschool),
which were located either in villages (700 to 3000 inhabitants; N =83
children), small (less than 20,000 inhabitants; N =10 children) or me-
dium sized cities (approximately 50,000 inhabitants; N =91 children).
Seven of the preschools were public, 13 Catholic and 3 Protestant. In
Germany, free play is emphasized in preschool, regardless whether they
are public or private (Anders, 2015). The sample was randomly
collected, all children who were recruited participated voluntarily and
with their parents’ consent, which was obtained in written form. The
children had not received any formal education. The sample showed an
average language capacity as measured by the German version of the
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT; Dunn et al., 2015), M =52.67,
SD =8.67, with a mean T-value of 50 representing an average language
capacity in the norm sample. This indicates that the sample in this study
showed a similar distribution as the norm sample for the PPVT.
Measures
Block building self-concept. Motivational beliefs for learning how to
balance blocks and competence beliefs concerning building block
structures were assessed with a standardized single interview adapted
from the German version of the Young Children’s Science Motivation
scale, validated for preschool age (Y-CSM; Oppermann, Brunner, Eccles,
& Anders, 2017). The children were rst introduced to two nger
puppets that looked exactly alike (Kiki/Kora for girls, Bodo/Momo for
boys). The experimenter explained that the two puppets went to the
same preschool and had the same preschool teacher, but that they have
different interests and are good at different things. The experimenter
proceeded to explain that this was perfectly ne, because they are
different children. Next, the child was familiarized with the test pro-
cedure with two example questions, e.g., Kiki/Bodo is good at painting.
Kora/Momo is not so good at painting. What about you? Are you good at
painting or not so good at painting? Please show me how good you are at
painting. Not at all, a little, much, very much. The question was followed by
prompting the children to indicate how much they agreed with the
question on a separate sheet of paper showing a diagram of increasing
size from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much). The second introductory question
referred to playing soccer and followed the same procedure. However,
this time Kora/Momo was good at it and Kiki/Bodo was not.
After that, the experimenter proceeded to ask about the child’s
motivational and competence beliefs. Motivational beliefs were assessed
with 5 items by asking, e.g., Do you enjoy learning about building with
building blocks or not? Please show me how much you enjoy building with
blocks. Not at all, a little, much, very much. Competence beliefs were
assessed with 6 items, e.g., Do you know much or not so much about
building with blocks? Please show me how much you know about building
with blocks. Nothing at all, a little, much, very much. The children received
a value of 0 for each item they disagreed with, 1 if the agreed a little, 2 if
they agreed much and 3 if they agreed completely.
Stability knowledge. The Center-of-Mass Test (COM Test) assesses
children’s stability knowledge with 16 items and was developed by
Pl¨
oger (2020) and validated with preschool children by Weber and
Leuchter (2020). The test consists of asymmetrical block constructions
(Fig. 1) that can only be rated correctly by applying stability knowledge.
Children with center knowledge will rate all or most items incorrectly, as
the geometrical center of the red blocks is always supported, when the
center of mass is not supported, and vice versa.
First, the children received a small booklet. The experimenter
introduced the test setting by rebuilding the warm-up picture, which
was a symmetrical block construction. Next, the response format was
introduced to the children, and the children were asked to rate the block
constructions’ stabilities by circling a stable construction and crossing
out an unstable construction. The block constructions were either stable
or unstable, so that the children’s ratings could either be correct or
incorrect. Children who solved all items correctly received a score of 16
and children who rated all items incorrectly received a score of 0.
Language capacity. Language capacity was assessed with the German
version of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test 4 (PPVT; Dunn et al.,
2015) at pretest. It is a picture-based standardized single interview that
consists of 19 sets with 12 items per set. Each item consists of four
pictures and the children receive a word and point to the corresponding
picture until they answer 8 out of 12 items in one set incorrectly (please
refer to the PPVT handbook for more information). The PPVT served as a
control variable in order to match children in the three different play
groups according to their language capacity, as this might affect chil-
dren’s ability to prot from the verbal scaffolds.
Procedure
The study adopted a pre-post-follow-up design with two guided play
groups and a free play group. The pretest (T1) was administered
approximately two weeks before the one-hour play session and the
posttest (T2). The follow-up (T3) took place approximately ten weeks
after the posttest. For each of the three measurement points, the children
completed a single interview assessing block building self-concept and
the PPVT as well as a test for stability knowledge assessed in a group of
up to six children. The single interview lasted 40 min at pretest and 10
min at posttest and follow-up, the group test lasted 5 min. For the group
procedure, the children were either seated back-to-back, or a screen was
placed between them to prevent them from copying from one another.
During testing, breaks were permitted whenever a child or the experi-
menter considered them necessary.
The children were assigned to one of three different intervention
groups by matching them according to their language capacity as
measured by the PPVT, resulting in triplets with the same language
capacity. For example, a child with a language capacity of T =50 was
paired with two other children with a language capacity of T =50 and
then each of the children was assigned to one of the play groups. Thus,
one was sorted into the Verbal, one into the Material and one into the
Free play group. Age of the participating children did not differ between
the three play conditions, F(2, 179) =0.47, p =.625. The two guided
play groups differed in the scaffolding they received. The Verbal group
(N =64; 27 girls; age, M =5.60 years, SD =0.54) played a guided
construction play with provided materials and additionally received
verbal scaffolds, the Material group (N =59; 32 girls; age, M =5.53
years, SD =0.49) played with the same materials, and the Free play group
(N =61; 29 girls; age, M =5.53 years, SD =0.49) played with blocks
freely. A control group was not implemented, because children play with
blocks in preschool or at home and it would be impossible to prevent
them from doing so. Thus, the free play group was implemented to
ensure that all children played with blocks during the intervention.
Moreover, we decided against a direct instruction group, because in
Germany direct instruction is not implemented in preschool classrooms
and instead play is emphasized (Anders, 2015).
In most German preschools, preschool teachers will not teach
learning contents over an extended period of time. Thus, we attempted
to take rst steps to achieve ecological validity through implementing
A.M. Weber and M. Leuchter
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 80 (2022) 101400
5
the play for each group during approximately one hour. Since many
studies on fostering self-concept and knowledge acquisition were
implemented in laboratory settings, we decided to let experimenters
play with a group of children in their preschool. This approach repre-
sents an intermediate step between research in a laboratory setting and
in a classroom context, as demanded by Klahr and Li (2005). According
to the participating preschools’ demands, the same persons functioned
as experimenter and administered the tests, so that the participating
children could get to know the experimenters. The guided construction
play and the free play were led by one of six female experimenters, who
were blind to the study’s hypotheses. To avoid experimenter effects,
experimenters led all intervention groups according to a systematic
intervention plan (Weber, Reuter and Leuchter, 2020). For the Verbal
group, the experimenters received a script with scaffolds that they used
during the intervention (for example sentences, please see Table 2). The
experimenters were trained to use all of the presented scaffolds, but
were free to apply them exibly when they played with the children and
had to ensure that the activity remained playful. In addition, the play
sessions were video or audio recorded as a manipulation check with the
permission of parents and children. The manipulation check revealed
that the experimenters applied the verbal scaffolds in the Verbal group
according to the script (Weber, Reuter and Leuchter, 2020).
Construction play
In all three play groups, the experimenters praised children’s efforts
and encouraged them to try again when they encountered problems. In
the guided play groups, children could choose which construction they
wanted to build rst and if they wanted to build with a friend or on their
own. Furthermore, the children were allowed to stop playing completely
or take a break as they desired (Rubin & Smith, 2018; Weisberg et al.,
2016). Thus, the children were free to decide on the play conditions to a
large extent. Analyses of the videos and the experimenters’ written re-
cords revealed that only four children, two in the Verbal and two in the
Material group, played completely on their own, while all other children
spent time building alone as well as collaboratively with others. More-
over, approximately 95% of the children played for the provided amount
of time.
Children in the Verbal group and the Material group received iden-
tical materials for the guided construction play (Martin et al., 2019), i.e.,
photographs of different block constructions, which varied in the
number of blocks and complexity. Each photograph came with a small
box with the corresponding building blocks inside. The blocks varied in
shape (cuboids, triangles, etc.), size, and color (brown, black, yellow,
red, and green). The materials were developed prior to the study and
tested in play sessions with children to ensure that they could rebuild the
structures shown on the photographs and had fun playing with the
materials.
Five different activities were played in a standardized order, and the
children received the instructions presented in Table 1. The Material
group did not receive additional instructions.
The Verbal group received verbal scaffolds in German to evoke
children’s observing, testing of their presumptions, interpreting and
generalizing evidence, and reasoning about stability as well as to
support their motivational and competence beliefs. Motivational and
competence beliefs were targeted by promoting perceptions of chal-
lenge, competence and success; the cognitive processes were fostered
through modeling, activating prior knowledge, encouraging compari-
sons, providing explanations, and asking questions or asking for
reasoning (Table 2; Belland et al., 2013; van de Pol et al., 2010). If a
child asked for help, the experimenter helped with building in the Verbal
group through stabilizing the child’s building by holding a block in
place. In the other two groups, the experimenter did not assume a
teaching role and declined in a friendly manner by stating that she un-
fortunately could not help the children and suggested that the child
could ask another child for help with building. For a complete presen-
tation of all material and verbal scaffolds, please see Weber, Reuter and
Leuchter (2020).
The Free play group received the same blocks as the other two
groups; however, the building blocks were unstructured and provided in
a large wooden box. The children received the instruction to play with
the blocks freely. During play, the experimenters did not intervene.
Data analysis
The statistics program R, version 4.0.3 (R Core Team, 2021), was
used for data analyses. First, we investigated descriptive statistics and
correlation patterns between the three measurement points, and the
structure of block building self-concept and its motivational and
Unstable 1a Unstable 1b Stable 1a Stable 1b
Fig. 1. Example items of the COM Test. From left to right: Unstable 1a, Unstable 1b, Stable 1a, Stable 1b.
Table 1
Material scaffolds in both guided play groups.
Play Instruction Example
Black block (11
photographs)
You can build the building shown on the
photograph. Build the building and
guess if the blocks remain stable or
tumble.
Add-a-block (8
photographs)
The blocks on the photos were
bewitched so they would remain stable.
Can you rebuild the building, so that it is
stable? (If a child did not succeed, the
experimenter provided a green block:)
Look, here is a green block. Try to
stabilize the building with it.
Sliding (9
photographs)
First, you may rebuild the building on
the photograph. Then you slide the
upper block along the lower one, until it
falls (experimenter models it). That
makes noise.
Rebuild (11
photographs)
You can just rebuild the building on
these photographs and see how well you
are doing. Some buildings are very easy
to rebuild; others are more difcult. But
every single one will remain stable if
built correctly.
Stable/Tumble (8
photographs)
The buildings on the photographs will
remain stable sometimes, but at other
times, the blocks were bewitched. Look
at the photograph and say “Stable” or
“Tumble” and then try out to see
whether you were correct.
A.M. Weber and M. Leuchter
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 80 (2022) 101400
6
competence facets. Then, we investigated changes in motivational and
competence beliefs and stability knowledge as well as possible group
differences from T1 to T3 with mixed-effects growth models. Finally, we
specied two cross-lagged panel models to examine the longitudinal
relations between motivational and competence beliefs and stability
knowledge, respectively. According to Hox (2010), a sample of 183
children is sufcient to uncover cross-level interactions.
Missing values in the data set were caused by children missing testing
dates due to illness or because they had moved. Of the 183 children who
took part in the study, 134 have complete data sets. The 49 children with
incomplete data sets only had missing values on a few items or one
subtest at one point of measurement. Missing values do not pose a threat
to the results of mixed-effects models, as they do not use listwise dele-
tion but use all available data for model specication. Therefore, mea-
sures to handle missing data are not necessary, which is why we did not
take specic measures to handle missingness for the mixed-effects
models (Singer & Willett, 2003). For the CFA and cross-lagged panel
models, we used the full information maximum likelihood (FIML) esti-
mation to deal with missingness.
Results
Primary statistical analyses
Descriptive statistics, correlations, and group differences at pretest. First,
the original data were checked for normal distribution. The skew was <|
2| and the excess <|7| for all variables in the data set (West, Finch, &
Churran, 1995). Descriptive statistics at each measurement point are
presented by condition in Table 3. Cronbach’s
α
was good or satisfactory
for all scales.
Correlations at the sample level are presented in Table 4. The
motivational component of block building self-concept at T1 was
negatively correlated with stability knowledge at T3, r = − 0.18, p =
.040. Competence beliefs and stability knowledge were not correlated.
Then, we checked for group differences at T1. ANOVAs showed no
group differences for any of the measures at T1; motivational beliefs, F
(2, 172) =0.36, p =.698; competence beliefs, F(2, 169) =0.91, p =
.404; stability knowledge, F(2, 161) =1.11, p =.331.
To investigate whether motivational and competence beliefs can be
construed as two different facets of block building self-concept, we
computed two CFAs with FIML estimation with motivational and
competence beliefs at T1 either loading on one or two latent factors
following Arens et al. (2016). The CFA with a single latent factor showed
a poor t,
χ
2
=114.70, df =44, p <.001, CFI =0.79, SRMR =0.08,
RMSEA =0.10, p <.001. The CFA with two latent factors showed a good
t,
χ
2
=68.67, df =43, p =.008, CFI =0.92, SRMR =0.06, RMSEA =
0.06, p =.256. The latent factors motivational beliefs and competence
beliefs were correlated, r =0.60, p <.001. A model comparison implied
that the model with two latent factors explained the data better than the
model with a single latent factor, Δ
χ
2
=40.38, df =1, p <.001.
Therefore, motivational and competence beliefs were investigated as
two independent constructs.
The descriptive statistics (Table 3) suggest that the motivational and
competence beliefs in the Verbal and the Material group remained
constant over time, while declining in the Free play group. The Verbal
group experienced the highest gain in stability knowledge. To investi-
gate this further, we considered a possible multilevel structure of the
data.
Research question 1: Group differences in changes in block building self-
concept and stability knowledge
We examined the change in block building self-concept and stability
knowledge, and possible group differences from T1 to T3. First, we
investigated the intraclass correlations and found that differences be-
tween children explained 52% of the variance in changes in motiva-
tional beliefs, 52% in competence beliefs, and 22% in stability
knowledge. Preschool explained, 7% of the variance in changes in
motivational beliefs, 5% in competence beliefs, and 1% in stability
knowledge. This indicates that the points of measurement are nested in
children, but not in the preschool that the children visited. Thus, we
Table 2
Scaffolding techniques used in the Verbal group.
Technique Objective Example
Promoting the perception
of challenge (Britner &
Pajares, 2006)
Enhance learners’
expectancy of success.
This is quite difcult to
build. I am sure that you
can do it!
Competence (Kaplan &
Maehr, 2007)
Highlight learners’
achievements and
strategies.
That didn’t work out. You
need to stabilize this rst.
How could you do that?
Success (Pintrich, 2003) Invoke a sense of pride. That’s a really good
solution! Now the blocks
remain in place. Why don’t
you tell us how you did
this?
Modeling (Leuchter &
Naber, 2019)
Offer an opportunity for
imitation as a way of
learning.
Look! (Experimenter looks
very closely)
Activating prior
knowledge (Leuchter
& Naber, 2019;
Richey & Nokes-
Malach, 2013)
Support the learner in
integrating new aspects
into existing schemata.
Have you ever seen
something like this?
Encouraging comparisons
(Hsin & Wu, 2011;
Richey & Nokes-
Malach, 2013)
Help learners generalize
the underlying concepts.
Your building looks
different than [another
child’s building], doesn’t
it? What is different? Is
something similar?
Providing explanations (
Richey & Nokes-
Malach, 2013)
Help learners structure
cognitive processes and
organize knowledge.
Well done! If the heavy
side of a block hovers in
midair, the block will
tumble.
Asking for reasons (Hsin
& Wu, 2011)
Allow learners to question
and structure their prior
knowledge and thinking
processes.
Can you explain this in
more detail, so I can really
understand what you
think?
Table 3
Descriptive statistics by condition.
Verbal Material Free play Range
α
n M SD n M SD n M SD
MB T1 62 2.13 0.76 55 2.24 0.73 58 2.13 0.85 0–3 0.75
MB T2 60 2.05 0.93 53 2.14 0.81 52 1.87 0.98 0–3 0.83
MB T3 47 2.07 0.88 41 2.28 0.81 49 1.75 0.98 0–3 0.82
CB T1 61 2.17 0.65 54 2.15 0.77 57 2.31 0.69 0–3 0.78
CB T2 60 2.14 0.75 53 2.14 0.68 53 2.14 0.79 0–3 0.78
CB T3 47 2.09 0.78 40 2.30 0.73 48 1.96 0.87 0–3 0.84
StK T1 58 5.84 3.18 52 6.46 3.30 54 5.52 3.42 0–16 0.71
StK T2 55 7.84 4.10 56 7.27 3.53 49 6.14 3.58 0–16 0.78
StK T3 48 8.31 3.70 41 8.39 4.55 47 6.89 3.65 0–16 0.80
Notes.
α
=Cronbach’s
α
. MB =motivational beliefs. CB =competence beliefs. StK =stability knowledge.
A.M. Weber and M. Leuchter
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 80 (2022) 101400
7
specied three multilevel models with children on level-2 and included
time as a random effect.
Motivational beliefs remained consistent in both guided play groups
from T1 to T3, Verbal, γ
11
= − 0.03, p =.646; Material, γ
12
= − 0.05, p =
.506, but declined in the Free play group from T1 to T3, γ
13
= − 0.19, p =
.004. The group differences in change in motivational beliefs were sig-
nicant between the Verbal group and the Free play group, ΔFree
Play–Verbal, Δγ =0.16, p
one-tailed
=0.040, but not between the guided
play groups, ΔVerbal–Material, Δγ = − 0.02, p
one-tailed
=0.432, or the
Material group and the Free play, ΔFree play–Material, Δγ =0.15, p
one-
tailed
=0.064. We found group differences at T2 between the Material
group and the Free play group, ΔFree play–Material, Δγ =0.27, p
one-
tailed
=0.027, but not between the Verbal group and the Free play group,
ΔFree Play–Verbal, Δγ =0.16, p
one-tailed
=0.111, or between the guided
play groups, ΔVerbal–Material, Δγ =0.10, p
one-tailed
=0.228.
Competence beliefs remained consistent in both guided play groups
from T1 to T3, Verbal, γ
11
= − 0.04, p =.448; Material, γ
12
=0.04, p =
.550, but declined in the Free play group from T1 to T3, γ
13
= − 0.18, p =
.002. The group differences in change in competence beliefs were sig-
nicant between the guided play groups and the Free play group, ΔFree
Play–Verbal, Δγ =0.14, p
one-tailed
=0.042; ΔFree play–Material, Δγ =
0.21, p
one-tailed
=0.005, but not between the guided play groups,
ΔVerbal–Material, Δγ = − 0.08, p
one-tailed
=0.170. We found no group
differences at T2, ΔFree Play–Verbal, Δγ =0.00, p
one-tailed
=0.490;
ΔFree play–Material, Δγ =0.05, p
one-tailed
=0.348; ΔVerbal–Material,
Δγ =0.04, p
one-tailed
=0.355.
Children in both guided play groups gained stability knowledge from
T1 to T3, Verbal, γ
11
=1.28, p <.001; Material, γ
12
=1.02, p =.008. The
Free play group did not improve their stability knowledge from T1 to T3,
γ
13
=0.68, p =.065. Group differences in change were nonsignicant,
ΔFree Play–Verbal, Δγ =0.60, p
one-tailed
=0.121; ΔFree play–Material,
Δγ =0.34, p
one-tailed
=0.259; ΔVerbal–Material, Δγ = − 0.26, p
one-tailed
=0.310. However, we found group differences at T2, directly after the
intervention between the guided play groups and the free play group,
ΔFree Play–Verbal, Δγ =1.21, p
one-tailed
=0.008; ΔFree play–Material,
Δγ =1.21, p
one-tailed
=0.009, but not between the two guided play
groups, ΔVerbal–Material, Δγ = − 0.01, p
one-tailed
=0.493.
Research question 2: Testing reciprocal effects
To address the second research question concerned with the relation
between block building self-concept and stability knowledge, we spec-
ied two cross-lagged panel models (Figs. 2 and 3). A single cross-lagged
panel model integrating both components of block building self-concept
might face problems with multicollinearity and thus results might be
unreliable. Since motivational and competence beliefs can be construed
as two distinct facets of block building self-concept, we tested the
reciprocal effects between motivational or competence beliefs and sta-
bility knowledge in separate models following Arens et al. (2016).
To test for group differences in cross-lagged panel models, the model
with the reciprocal and auto-regressive effects constrained across groups
was compared to a model with the same parameters estimated freely
with a Δ
χ
2
-test. This analysis involved two steps. First, autoregressive
and reciprocal effects between motivational or competence beliefs and
stability knowledge were compared across groups. Then, the model with
the best t to the data was specied. All variables were z-standardized.
The autoregressive effects show high consistency estimates for
motivational and competence beliefs as well as stability knowledge for
all three play groups. Consistency of motivational beliefs (Fig. 2) from
T1 to T2 was lower in the Material than in the Verbal group, p =.010,
and in the Free play group, p =.011. Furthermore, the consistency of
competence beliefs (Fig. 3) from T1 to T2 was lower in the Material
groups than in the Free play group, p =.027. There were no group
differences in consistency of stability knowledge between T1 and T2,
however, the consistency between T2 and T3 was lower for the Free play
group than the Material group, p =.026.
The reciprocal analyses indicate no evidence for reciprocal effects
between motivational or competence beliefs and stability knowledge,
except for the effect of stability knowledge at T2 on competence beliefs
at T3 in the Free play group, β =0.25, p =.044.
Table 4
Correlations between the constructs at each time of measurement.
MB T1 MB T2 MB T3 CB T1 CB T2 CB T3 StK T1 StK T2
MB T2 0.58***
MB T3 0.39*** 0.62***
CB T1 0.48*** 0.39*** 0.25**
CB T2 0.37*** 0.61*** 0.48*** 0.51***
CB T3 0.35*** 0.53*** 0.69*** 0.41*** 0.61***
StK T1 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.01
StK T2 −0.08 0.00 0.09 −0.07 −0.04 0.14 0.22**
StK T3 −0.18* −0.03 0.00 −0.10 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.53***
Notes. MB =motivational beliefs. CB =competence beliefs. StK =stability knowledge. *p <.05. **p <.01. ***p <.001.
Fig. 2. Cross-lagged panel model for the
reciprocal effects between motivational be-
liefs and stability knowledge.
Notes. MB =motivational beliefs. StK =
stability knowledge. Coefcients before the
slashes refer to the Verbal group; coefcients
between the slashes refer to the Material
group; coefcients behind the slashes refer to
the Free play group. *p <.05, **p <.01,
***p <.001.
Motivational beliefs and stability knowledge
remained consistent over time in each group.
No reciprocal effects were uncovered.
A.M. Weber and M. Leuchter
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 80 (2022) 101400
8
Discussion
Research on academic self-concept has mostly investigated mathe-
matics and language self-concepts of school-aged children and adoles-
cents (e.g., Guo et al., 2015; Helmke, 1999; Marsh et al., 1988). By
focusing on preschool children’s block building self-concepts, its rela-
tion with science learning and play as a possible way to support both, we
aimed to contribute to and extend the research on young children’s
academic self-concepts.
Thus, we conducted this study to investigate whether 5- to 6-year-old
children’s block building self-concepts as well as children’s knowledge
acquisition in a specic science domain, i.e., stability knowledge, can be
supported through play. We conducted an experiment with building
blocks in three groups, which differed in the way play was realized. The
Material group engaged in a guided construction play with provided
materials, the Verbal group played with the same materials and addi-
tionally received verbal scaffolds, and the Free play group played with
blocks freely. Our ndings contribute to the literature on science edu-
cation in the preschool years.
Research question 1: Group differences in changes in block building self-
concept and stability knowledge
Children’s motivational and competence beliefs at pretest were high
in all three groups, which is consistent with previous research on pre-
school children’s academic self-concepts (Eccles, 2009; Harter, 2015;
Helmke, 1999). However, motivational and competence beliefs
decreased in the Free play group and remained consistent in the guided
play groups.
Possibly, the high initial motivational and competence beliefs pre-
vented an increase over the 12-week period. Guided construction play
with material scaffolds might have maintained children’s motivational
and competence beliefs. This stabilization was presumably supported by
the challenges posed by the guided play conditions that allowed children
to gain new experiences with block building (Shavelson et al., 1976).
The material scaffolds might have urged the children to try new and
complex constructions and succeed in building them (Harter, 2015;
Leuchter & Naber, 2019). This might have prevented developmentally
determined decreases in block building self-concept (Marsh et al., 2012;
Samarapungavan et al., 2011; Shavelson et al., 1976). In the Free play
group, however, the children might have experienced many failures, as
their buildings tumbled, because they did not know how to stabilize
them. Thus, the developmentally determined decrease in children’s
motivational and competence beliefs was not prevented (Harter, 2015).
The two guided play groups did not differ in their block building self-
concepts, even though motivational verbal scaffolds were implemented
in the Verbal group (Belland et al., 2013). Thus, material scaffolds might
maintain children’s block building self-concepts, while additional verbal
scaffolds do not seem to have an effect. Two possible reasons might
explain why the verbal scaffolds did not increase children’s block
building self-concepts, (1) the importance of positive experiences
compared to feedback, and (2) the short intervention time.
(1) Positive experiences might be more important for young chil-
dren’s academic self-concepts than feedback by an adult, especially by
an adult they hardly know (Harter, 2015). Research has shown that
feedback provided by caregivers, e.g., parents or teachers, who children
have a close relationship with, affects children’s academic self-concepts
(Frome & Eccles, 1998; Helmke & van Aken, 1995). Moreover, feedback
becomes increasingly important during the school years, because chil-
dren are confronted with it on a daily basis (Helmke, 1999). Further-
more, children become more adept at integrating feedback and social
comparisons with their peers into their academic self-concepts (Harter,
2015). Therefore, our verbal scaffolds might not have affected children’s
block building self-concepts, because the children did not perceive the
experimenters as caregivers and did not have a close relationship with
them. However, the verbal scaffolds might have affected children’s
motivational and competence beliefs if they had been provided by their
preschool teacher or their parents, i.e., a person the children are close to.
This could be investigated in a future study.
(2) The second possible reason regards the short play time. Studies
on maintaining or enhancing children’s and adolescents’ academic self-
concepts implemented interventions that spanned at least multiple
weeks (Craven et al., 1991; Marsh & Richards, 1988; Patrick, Man-
tzicopoulos, & Samarapungavan, 2009; Samarapungavan et al., 2011).
Therefore, longer intervention times might have allowed the verbal
scaffolds to take effect and the children would have been familiar with
the experimenters. Nevertheless, guided play has shown to be an
effective way to support and maintain children’s block building self-
concepts. Even after a very short intervention, an effect of the guided
play on block building self-concept could be detected.
Moreover, it is also of interest whether children gained stability
knowledge during the playful intervention. Directly after the interven-
tion and over the course of 12 weeks, the Free play group showed no
gain in stability knowledge, while the Verbal and Material groups
increased. Thus, we may assume that the guided play conditions
enhanced children’s stability knowledge, while free play did not
contribute to a knowledge gain (Stipek, Feiler, Daniels, & Milburn,
1995).
In both guided play groups, material scaffolds were employed. For
knowledge acquisition after a very brief period, scaffolding materials
seem to be crucial. The effect of verbal scaffolds was investigated in
combination with material scaffolds. Similar to the results on block
building self-concept, no additional inuence of the verbal scaffolds on
knowledge acquisition was discovered which invites four possible in-
terpretations. (1) As the play only lasted approximately one hour and
only took place once, additional interventions over a longer period could
Fig. 3. Cross-lagged panel model for the
reciprocal effects between competence be-
liefs and stability knowledge.
Notes. CB =competence beliefs. StK =sta-
bility knowledge. Coefcients before the
slashes refer to the Verbal group; coefcients
between the slashes refer to the Material
group; coefcients behind the slashes refer to
the Free play group. *p <.05, **p <.01,
***p <.001.
Competence beliefs and stability knowledge
remained consistent over time in each group.
Competence at T2 affected stability knowl-
edge at T3 in the Free play group. Otherwise,
no reciprocal effects were uncovered.
A.M. Weber and M. Leuchter
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 80 (2022) 101400
9
uncover a possible difference between materials and materials with
verbal scaffolds (Leuchter & Naber, 2019). (2) The scaffolding was not
controlled for its adaptivity, which could be crucial for learning (van de
Pol et al., 2010). Longer and more adaptive interventions might improve
children’s stability knowledge further and could reveal possible in-
uences of verbal scaffolds. (3) The guided play materials might have
been so self-explanatory and low threshold that the children did not
require an adult’s scaffolds in addition to the materials to gain new
knowledge (Martin et al., 2019). (4) We aimed to measure children’s
stability knowledge and accordingly measured it with the COM Test, a
nonverbal instrument (Krist, 2010). Therefore, children were not
required to explain their reasoning behind their understanding of sta-
bility. In a study, in which children were asked about their underlying
reasoning for determining constructions’ stabilities, a play group with
material and verbal scaffolds had an advantage over a group with ma-
terial scaffolds (Weber et al., 2020).
Ideally, science education occurs in contexts that children are
familiar with from their everyday lives, e.g., block play (Copple &
Bredenkamp, 2009). Our results show that 5- to 6-year-olds can acquire
knowledge of science phenomena if they are presented with these phe-
nomena in familiar contexts and in ways that they can comprehend and
process.
Research question 2: Reciprocal effects between block building self-concept
and stability knowledge
We examined the relation of motivational and competence beliefs
with stability knowledge. We found no indication of reciprocal effects
for any of the play groups. Thus, play seemingly does not affect the
reciprocal effects between block building self-concept and stability
knowledge and they do not differ between groups. Instead, the recip-
rocal effects might just develop as children age (Arens et al., 2016).
However, we only investigated the effect of different play forms on the
reciprocal effects in a science domain. Research on different interven-
tion forms such as play in comparison to direct instruction and in
different subjects might yield different results.
According to the reciprocal effects model (e.g., Marsh & Craven,
2006), academic self-concept and achievement in a domain are inter-
related. Previous studies have found evidence for this relation even for
7-year-old children (Guay et al., 2003). The children in our study were
younger, i.e., 5 or 6 years of age, which might have contributed to the
missing relation. Accordingly, Arens et al. (2016) failed to provide ev-
idence for reciprocal effects with preschool children as well. However,
children from 4 years of age are able to differentiate between self-
concept domains (Marsh et al., 2002). Therefore, children can
acknowledge different aspects of their self-concepts such as block
building self-concept in contrast to the broader mathematical self-
concepts. Thus, it is unlikely that an inability to differentiate between
self-concept domains was the reason that children did not relate their
stability knowledge to their block building self-concepts.
A possible reason for the missing link might be that we assessed block
building self-concept by asking children how skilled they are at learning
about building with blocks and how much they enjoy it. We did not focus
on stability knowledge. The children might have focused on different
aspects of building with blocks such as building a zoo or a garage.
Therefore, our measure might have assessed block play in general, but
not the stability component of block building more specically (e.g.,
Marsh & Martin, 2011). Future research could address this issue by
assessing children’s block building self-concepts in terms of stability
knowledge more specically.
Another possible reason we found no support for the reciprocal ef-
fects model might be preschool children’s unrealistically positive aca-
demic self-concepts (Harter, 2015; Helmke, 1999). The results in our
study that showed that children had a very high block building self-
concept in the pretest might conrm this. Concerning block play in
the preschool years, children are likely mostly left to build freely, and
presumably, preschool teachers mostly give feedback on the appearance
of children’s buildings such as “what a beautiful tower” (e.g., Arens
et al., 2016). Although feedback may also concern block buildings’
stabilities, children might have little opportunity to discuss the under-
lying reasons for that stability. Therefore, preschool children’s block
building self-concepts might have little to do with their actual abilities
and stability knowledge (Trawick-Smith, 2012). However, the relation
between children’s block building self-concepts and their stability
knowledge increased slightly, but not signicantly in all three groups.
This might denote that children’s block building self-concepts become
more realistic if they engage in playful activities.
Concluding, our study conrms the difculty of obtaining a deni-
tive result concerning reciprocal effects for this age group. To our
knowledge, we have been the rst to study reciprocal effects for pre-
school children in a science domain and in a context that children are
familiar with. Future studies on the relation between preschool chil-
dren’s block building self-concepts and their stability knowledge might
produce different results.
Limitations
Regarding the implementation, play time was relatively brief. The
children only played with the blocks for approximately one hour. More
interventions over a longer period might maintain their block building
self-concepts to a greater extent and enhance children’s stability
knowledge further. However, it was decided that an hour was sufcient
as a rst step to achieve ecological validity in the context of German
preschool practice (Arens et al., 2016). Moreover, stability knowledge
and the stability concept in general are rather small topics that can be
acquired in a relatively short amount of time. We compared two guided
play groups with verbal and material scaffolds and with material scaf-
folds and a free play group. From our study design, we may only
conclude that guided play supports children’s block building self-
concepts and stability knowledge more than free play.
To investigate the effects of verbal scaffolds compared to material
scaffolds, two other groups could be implemented in future studies. In a
verbal scaffolds only group, the children might receive the verbal scaf-
folds and the same materials as the free play group, i.e., unstructured
building blocks. Moreover, verbal scaffolds could be implemented as
direct instructions, with the children receiving explanations without
play (Fisher et al., 2013). Since some researchers argue that direct in-
struction is an effective way to teach young children about science (e.g.,
Dunbar & Klahr, 2012), the effect of direct instruction might be
compared with the effects of guided and free play on block building self-
concept and stability knowledge. Additionally, the study design could be
extended by including a baseline group that receives no treatment. This
would allow us to study whether free play contributes to the develop-
ment of block building self-concept and stability knowledge compared
to receiving no intervention. The children in our guided play groups
were not explicitly made aware of the goal of investigating stabilities.
However, they were encouraged to engage in the investigation of sta-
bilities implicitly through material and verbal scaffolds. Thus, a free play
group receiving a prompt about the investigation of stabilities could be
implemented to exclude possible effects of knowing the goal.
Children’s behavior during play was only partly assessed via
manipulation check videos, but not analyzed because some parents or
children denied permission to videotape. However, there might have
been differences in children’s interaction with the building blocks. Some
children might have interacted more actively and more frequently with
the blocks, whereas others might have spent more time watching others
build. Furthermore, children’s time spent playing alone or with another
child and their manipulation of and their conversations about the blocks
might be crucial to changes in block building self-concept and stability
knowledge (Harter, 2015). Moreover, a multidimensional use of the
videos might allow for controlling the scaffolds’ adaptivity (van de Pol
et al., 2010). In our study, we used a limited set of verbal scaffolding
A.M. Weber and M. Leuchter
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 80 (2022) 101400
10
techniques that were implemented in the Verbal group. Controlling for
the adaptivity of the scaffolds could offer insights into individual
learning processes, which could help explain learning differences in the
Verbal group. Thus, children’s and the experimenter’s behavior during
play should be investigated in detail in a future study.
Block building self-concept was assessed with reference to building
blocks, not in direct relation to stability knowledge. Since, contrary to
our expectations, children’s block building self-concepts were not
related to their stability knowledge, a more specic measure of self-
concept relating to stability knowledge might have produced different
results. Concerning the measurement of stability knowledge, some
limitations can be identied as well. First, we investigated 5- and 6-year-
old children at three points over the course of 12 weeks. Tracing
developmental trajectories in block building self-concept and stability
knowledge over a longer period could be valuable to answer questions
about possible changes in block building self-concept and stability
knowledge and their possible interplay. Furthermore, children’s time
spent playing with blocks in their everyday lives was not assessed but
could affect children’s stability knowledge (Jirout & Newcombe, 2015).
Nevertheless, our study highlights possibilities for supporting chil-
dren’s block building self-concepts and knowledge acquisition through
incorporating guided play into preschool science education. Considering
the ndings, guided play with or without verbal scaffolds may be an
effective way to support children’s self-concepts and knowledge during
a brief intervention.
Funding
This work was supported by the German Research Foundation [grant
number 290497409].
Author statement
We conrm that this manuscript has neither been published else-
where, nor is under consideration by another journal. All authors have
approved the revised manuscript and agree to its resubmission to
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare no conict of interest.
Acknowledgement
First, we would like to thank all the children, who participated in our
study, and all kindergartens that helped connecting with the children.
Furthermore, we thank Ina Pl¨
oger for helping develop the material
scaffolds; Laura L¨
owe, who helped with sample acquisition, data
collection, and data management; Hanna Fuhrmann, Rebecca Ott,
Kristin Hoffmeister, and Aliena Eichhorn for their help with data
collection.
References
Anders, Y. (2015). Literature review on pedagogy for a review of pedagogy in early
childhood education and care (ECEC) in England (United Kingdom). In Proceedings of
the 17th meeting of the OECD network on early childhood education and care (October).
Arens, A. K., Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., Yeung, A. S., Randhawa, E., & Hasselhorn, M.
(2016). Math self-concept in preschool children: Structure, achievement relations,
and generalizability across gender. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 391–403.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.12.024
Baillargeon, R., & Hanko-Summers, S. (1990). Is the top object adequately supported by
the bottom object? Young infants’ understanding of support relations. Cognitive
Development, 5(1), 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(90)90011-H
Ball, C., Huang, K.-T., Cotten, S. R., & Rikard, R. V. (2017). Pressurizing the STEM
pipeline: An expectancy-value theory analysis of youths’ STEM attitudes. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 26(4), 372–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-
017-9685-1
Belland, B. R., Kim, C., & Hannan, M. J. (2013). A framework for designing scaffolds
that improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 243–270.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.838920
Borriello, G. A., & Liben, L. S. (2018). Encouraging maternal guidance of preschoolers’
spatial thinking during block play. Child Development, 89(4), 1209–1222. https://doi.
org/10.1111/cdev.12779
Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efcacy beliefs of middle
school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 485–499. https://doi.
org/10.1002/tea.20131
Copple, C., & Bredenkamp, J. (Eds.). (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early
childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8 (3rd ed.) (National
Association for the Education of Young Children).
Craven, R. G., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (1991). Effects of internally focused feedback
and attributional feedback on enhancement of academic self-concept. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 83(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.17
Denissen, J. J. A., Zarrett, N. R., & Eccles, J. S. (2007). I like to do it, I’m able, and I know
I am: Longitudinal couplings between domain-specic achievement, self-concept,
and interest. Child Development, 78(2), 430–447. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2007.01007.x
Dunbar, K. N., & Klahr, D. (2012). Scientic thinking and reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak, &
R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning. Oxford
handbooks online.
Dunn, L. M., Dunn, D. M., Lenhard, A., Lenhard, W., Segerer, R., & Suggate, S. (2015).
PPVT 4. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Pearson Assessment.
Eccles, J. S. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and
collective identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 78–89.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520902832368
Ehm, J.-H., Hasselhorn, M., & Schmiedek, F. (2019). Analyzing the developmental
relation of academic self-concept and achievement in elementary school children:
Alternative models point to different results. Developmental Psychology, 55(11),
2336–2351. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000796
Fisher, K. R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Newcombe, N., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Taking shape:
Supporting preschoolers’ acquisition of geometric knowledge through guided play.
Child Development, 84(6), 1872–1878. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12091
Frome, P. M., & Eccles, J. S. (1998). Parents’ inuence on children’s achievement-related
perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 435–452.
Greeneld, D. B., Alexander, A., & Frechette, E. (2017). Unleashing the power of science
in early childhood: A foundation for high-quality interactions and learning. Zero to
Three, 37(5), 13–21.
Guay, F., Marsh, H. W., & Boivin, M. (2003). Academic self-concept and academic
achievement: Developmental perspectives on their causal ordering. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 95(1), 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.95.1.124
Guo, J., Marsh, H. W., Parker, P. D., Morin, A. J. S., & Yeung, A. S. (2015). Expectancy-
value in mathematics, gender and socioeconomic background as predictors of
achievement and aspirations: A multi-cohort study. Learning and Individual
Differences, 37, 161–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.01.008
Guthrie, J. T., Wigeld, A., & Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Scaffolding for motivation and
engagement in reading. In J. T. Guthrie, A. Wigeld, & K. C. Perencevich (Eds.),
Motivating reading comprehension: Concept-oriented reading instruction (pp. 55–86). L.
Erlbaum Associates.
Harter, S. (2015). The construction of the self: Developmental and sociocultural foundations
(second edition). Guilford Press.
Helmke, A. (1999). From optimism to realism? Development of children’s academic self-
concept from kindergarten to grade 6. In F. E. Weinert, & W. Schneider (Eds.),
Individual development from 3 to 12: Findings from the Munich longitudinal study (pp.
198–221). University Press.
Helmke, A., & van Aken, M. A. (1995). The causal ordering of academic achievement and
self-concept of ability during elementary school: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 87(4), 624–637.
Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Hsin, C.-T., & Wu, H.-K. (2011). Using scaffolding strategies to promote young children’s
scientic understandings of oating and sinking. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 20(5), 656–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9310-7
Jansen, M. M. (2017). Academic self-concept in the sciences: Domain-specic
differentiation, gender differences, and dimensional comparison effects. In F. Guay,
H. W. Marsh, D. M. McInerney, & R. G. Craven (Eds.), International advances in self
research: Vol. 6. Self. Driving positive psychology and well-being (pp. 71–112).
Information Age Publishing.
Jirout, J. J., & Newcombe, N. S. (2015). Building blocks for developing spatial skills:
Evidence from a large, representative U.S. Sample. Psychological Science, 26(3),
302–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614563338
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation
theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 141–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10648-006-9012-5
Klahr, D., & Li, J. (2005). Cognitive research and elementary science instruction: From
the laboratory, to the classroom, and back. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 14(2), 217–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-005-4423-5
Krist, H. (2010). Development of intuitions about support beyond infancy. Developmental
Psychology, 46(1), 266–278. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018040
Krist, H., Horz, H., & Sch¨
onfeld, T. (2005). Children’s block balancing revisited: No
evidence for representational redescription. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 64(3),
183–193. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185.64.3.183
Lauermann, F., Tsai, Y.-M., & Eccles, J. S. (2017). Math-related career aspirations and
choices within Eccles et al.’s expectancy-value theory of achievement-related
A.M. Weber and M. Leuchter
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 80 (2022) 101400
11
behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 53(8), 1540–1559. https://doi.org/10.1037/
dev0000367
Leibham, M. B., Alexander, J. M., & Johnson, K. E. (2013). Science interests in preschool
boys and girls: Relations to later self-concept and science achievement. Science
Education, 97(4), 574–593. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21066
Leuchter, M., & Naber, B. (2019). Studying children’s knowledge base of one-sided levers
as force ampliers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(1), 91–112. https://
doi.org/10.1002/tea.21470
Marsh, H. W., Byrne, B. M., & Shavelson, R. J. (1988). A multifaceted academic self-
concept: Its hierarchical structure and its relation to academic achievement. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 366–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.80.3.366
Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. G. (2006). Reciprocal effects of self-concept and performance
from a multidimensional perspective: Beyond seductive pleasure and unidimensional
perspectives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 133–163. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00010.x
Marsh, H. W., Ellis, L. A., & Craven, R. G. (2002). How do preschool children feel about
themselves? Unraveling measurement and multidimensional self-concept structure.
Developmental Psychology, 38(3), 376–393. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-
1649.38.3.376
Marsh, H. W., & Martin, A. J. (2011). Academic self-concept and academic achievement:
Relations and causal ordering. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1),
59–77. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709910X503501
Marsh, H. W., & Richards, G. (1988). The outward bound bridging course for low
achieving high-school males: Effect on academic achievement and multidimensional
self-concepts. Australian Journal of Psychology, 40, 281–298.
Marsh, H. W., Xu, M., & Martin, A. J. (2012). Self-concept: A synergy of theory, method,
and application. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational
psychology handbook: Vol. 1. Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 427–458).
American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13273-015.
Martin, N. D., Dornfeld Tissenbaum, C., Gnesdilow, D., & Puntambekar, S. (2019). Fading
distributed scaffolds: The importance of complementarity between teacher and
material scaffolds. Instructional Science, 47(1), 69–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11251-018-9474-0
NGSS. (2021). K-PS2-1 motion and stability: Forces and interactions. Next Generation
Science Standards. https://www.nextgenscience.org/pe/k-ps2-1-motion-and-stabilit
y-forces-and-interactions.
Oppermann, E., Brunner, M., Eccles, J. S., & Anders, Y. (2017). Uncovering young
children’s motivational beliefs about learning science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 24(2), 195. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21424
Patrick, H., & Mantzicopoulos, P. (2015). Young children’s motivation for learning
science. In K. C. Trundle, & M. Saçkes (Eds.), Research in early childhood science
education (pp. 7–34). Springer.
Patrick, H., Mantzicopoulos, P., & Samarapungavan, A. (2009). Motivation for learning
science in kindergarten: Is there a gender gap and does integrated inquiry and
literacy instruction make a difference. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2),
166–191. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20276
Pellegrini, A. D. (2013). Play. In P. D. Zelazo (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of developmental
psychology: Vol 2: Self and other (pp. 276–299). Oxford Univ. Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student
motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95
(4), 667–686. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Pl¨
oger, I. (2020). Statik als Lerngegenstand im Übergang von Kindergarten zur Grundschule
[Statics as a learning opportunity at the transition from kindergarten to primary school].
Landau: University of Koblenz-Landau.
van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student
interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation
for Statistical Computing (version 4.0.5) [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria.
https://www.R-project.org/.
Richey, J. E., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2013). How much is too much? Learning and
motivation effects of adding instructional explanations to worked examples. Learning
and Instruction, 25, 104–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.11.006
Riley, W. F., & Sturges, L. D. (1993). Engineering mechanics: Statics (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Rubin, K. H., Fein, G. G., & Vandenberg, B. (1983). Play. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology (pp. 693–774). Wiley.
Rubin, K. H., & Smith, K. (2018). Play in human development. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.),
The SAGE encyclopedia of lifespan human development. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Samarapungavan, A., Patrick, H., & Mantzicopoulos, P. (2011). What kindergarten
students learn in inquiry-based science classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 29(4),
416–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2011.608027
Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of
construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46(3), 407–441.
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modelling change
and event occurence. Oxford Univ. Press.
Stipek, D., Feiler, R., Daniels, D., & Milburn, S. (1995). Effects of different instructional
approaches on young children’s achievement and motivation. Child Development, 66
(1), 209–223. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1131201.
Trawick-Smith, J. (2012). Teacher-child play interactions to achieve learning outcomes.
In R. Pianta (Ed.), Handbook of early childhood education (pp. 259–277). Guilford
Publications.
Weber, A. M., & Leuchter, M. (2020). Measuring preschool children’s knowledge of the
principle of static equilibrium in the context of building blocks: Validation of a test
instrument. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 50–74. https://doi.org/
10.1111/bjep.12304
Weber, A. M., Reuter, T., & Leuchter, M. (2020). The impact of a construction play on 5-
to 6-year-old children’s reasoning about balance relationships. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11, 1737. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01737
Weisberg, D. S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Kittredge, A. K., & Klahr, D. (2016).
Guided play. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(3), 177–182. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0963721416645512
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Churran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with
nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural
equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 56–75).
Wigeld, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/
ceps.1999.1015
Zosh, J. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Hopkins, E. J., Jensen, H., Liu, C., Neale, D., …
Whitebread, D. (2018). Accessing the inaccessible: Redening play as a spectrum.
Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1124. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01124
A.M. Weber and M. Leuchter
