Toys R Important: Effects of Toy

Design on Parent (and Child)

Geometric and Spatial Talk

Brian N. Verdine1
Jennifer M. Zosh2
Kathy Hirsh-Pasek3

Maya A. Marzouk1
Roberta M. Golinkoff1

University of Delaware1,
Penn State Brandywine2,
& Temple University3
Jean Piaget Society Conference

Chicago, IL June 9, 2016

Todays talk:
Play and Toys = Learning
Case Study: Shapes During Preschool

Study 1: Traditional and Electronic Shape

Sorters
Study 2: Shapes on Touchscreen Tablets
and in Concrete Shape Sets (Canonical and
Atypical)

Implications

Toy (n.):
1. an object, often a small representation of
something familiar, as an animal or person,
for children or others to play with;
plaything.

Toy (n.):
2. a thing or matter of little or no value or
importance; a trifle.
3. something that serves for or as if for
diversion, rather than for serious practical
use.

Play and Toys = Learning

Play is essential for all domains of development (Ginsburg,
2007 in American Academy of Pediatrics)

Toys provide substrate for play

Can create guided play situations
Can influence subject matter of play

Toy (n.): A tool for learning

The case of shapes

Learning shape names at intersection of:
Spatial Skills Mathematics Language

Shape ID accuracy and speed at 3

better spatial skills at 5 (Verdine et al., under review)
Hearing spatial language
spatial performance (e.g. Casasola, Bhagwat & Burke, 2009)
Better spatial skills at 3
better math skills at 5 (Verdine et al., in press SRCD Monograph)
6

Shape learning seems easy

Triangle - 3 angles and 3 connected sides

but process for really knowing shapes is extended

In Satlow & Newcombe (1998) children and adults sorted real
shapes from instances that were:
Typical equilateral triangles
Atypical scalene triangles
Invalid shapes with extra sides or gaps

Accept invalid shapes and reject valid atypical shapes until

after age 5
7

Preschool Shape Knowledge

Preschoolers know some shapes
But most dont KNOW their shapes
Basic types (e.g., rectangles)
Do not understand defining features
Struggle with different appearances

Verdine, Lucca, Golinkoff, Hirsh-Pasek, & Newcombe (2016). The shape of things: The origin of young childrens
knowledge of the names and properties of geometric forms. J of Cognition and Development, 17(1), 142161.

Why does it take so long?

Amount and nature of input?
44 hours = 26 geometry terms
(Rudd, Lambert, Satterwhite, and Zaier; 2008)

All math activities spontaneous

University preschool with well-educated teachers!

Teaching shapes
confirm ID w/o discussing properties
(Sarama and Clements; 2004)

Limited Variety?
Variety is important in concept formation
Dogs

10

Dog?

Horse?

11

Variety in Shape Toys

Small number of shapes
Little variety within categories
Compare and contrast
Defining vs. Incidental properties

Resnick, Verdine, Golinkoff, & Hirsh-Pasek (in press). Geometric toys in the attic? A corpus analysis of early
exposure to geometric shapes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly.

12

Improving Preschool Shape Input

The Problems &
Potential Solutions
Little geometry in early school
Target informal learning
Spend 80% of time outside school (Meltzoff et al., 2009)

Little discussion of defining properties

Increase salience of features and invite their discussion

Little variety
Create materials with more shapes within and between
categories
13

Make
BETTER
toys?
14

Todays talk:
Play and Toys = Learning
Case Study: Shapes During Preschool

Study 1: Traditional and Electronic Shape

Sorters
Study 2: Shapes on Touchscreen Tablets
and in Concrete Shape Sets (Canonical and
Atypical)

Implications

15

Study 1:
Are there impacts of electronic shape toys on
parent-child interactions?
1) Does design (traditional vs. electronic) influence
parent language?

Overall amount?
Variability?

2) What about spatial language specifically?

Zosh, Verdine, Filipowicz, Golinkoff, Hirsh-Pasek, & Newcombe (2015). Talking shape: Parental language with
electronic vs. traditional shape sorters. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9(3), 136144.

16

The Experiment
24 parent-child dyads

Randomly assigned
electronic or traditional
Children 20 - 28 mos. (M = 23)
shape sorter
7-minute play session
DVs:
Overall Types and Tokens
Spatial Language

the square
in the box
flip the piece over
that edge

Electronic Toy

Traditional Toy

17

Overall Language Production

Rate of Overall Language Production
(words per min.)

Parent Speech
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Toy Speech

.04*

.14

Traditional Toy

Electronic Toy
18

Unique Language
Parent Speech

Toy Speech

30
Percentage of Unique Language

.03*
25

20

.001*

15

10
5
0
Traditional Toy

Electronic Toy

19

Spatial Language
Parent Speech

Toy Speech

Rate of Spatial Language Production

(words per min.)

14
12

10

.22

.03*
6
4
2
0
Traditional Toy

Electronic Toy
20

Study 2:
Does Shape Variety or Using an App
Influence Parent-Child Interactions?
1) Does including different shapes:
Get parents to compare and contrast?
Count sides?
Talk about spatial properties?

2) Does technology help or hinder desirable parent or

child behaviors?
21

Shape Interactions

iPad:
Quizzing

Flash Cards

Puzzle

51 parent-child dyads
Children 34-38 months (M = 36)
5-minute play session
DVs:
Overall Types and Tokens
Spatial Language
Shape Names
Number Words
Randomly assigned 1 of 3 toy sets
Digital:
iPad: app with 10 shapes
Concrete:
Canonical: 2 identical sets of 10
Atypical: 10 canonical + 10 atypical

Canonical:

Atypical:

22

Results - Parents

Parents

Types (unique words)

Tokens (total words)

Speech Type

iPad

Can

Aty

iPad

Can

Aty

All

98.0

134.8

137.9

293.6

453.8

458.3

Spatial

11.7

18.1

19.4

28.9

48.0

50.5

Shapes

9.5

13.7

12.4

27.0

38.0

43.6

Math

2.1

5.6

4.8

12.7

32.2

24.2

Lowest Between Highest Not Diff

Overall: More language and variety w/ concrete shapes

Canonical and atypical shapes not different
23

Results - Parents

Parents

Types (unique words)

Tokens (total words)

Speech Type

iPad

Can

Aty

iPad

Can

Aty

All

98.0

134.8

137.9

293.6

453.8

458.3

Spatial

11.7

18.1

19.4

28.9

48.0

50.5

Shapes

9.5

13.7

12.4

27.0

38.0

43.6

Math

2.1

5.6

4.8

12.7

32.2

24.2

Lowest Between Highest Not Diff

Similar trends for spatial, shape, and math words

24

Results - Children

Children

Types (unique words)

Tokens (total words)

Speech Type

iPad

Can

Aty

iPad

Can

Aty

All

22.6

48.4

58.9

43.2

98.9

141.7

Spatial

2.9

4.7

7.3

4.8

6.6

14.5

Shapes

3.5

9.6

10.3

7.3

17.9

20.4

Math

1.7

5.5

4.0

8.3

20.3

14.7

Lowest Between Highest Not Diff

Overall: More language and variety w/ concrete shapes

BUT also more language and variety w/ atypical compared
to canonical
25

Results - Children

Children

Types (unique words)

Tokens (total words)

Speech Type

iPad

Can

Aty

iPad

Can

Aty

All

22.6

48.4

58.9

43.2

98.9

141.7

Spatial

2.9

4.7

7.3

4.8

6.6

14.5

Shapes

3.5

9.6

10.3

7.3

17.9

20.4

Math

1.7

5.5

4.0

8.3

20.3

14.7

Lowest Between Highest Not Diff

Atypical: Spatial Language

More variety than iPad; trend for more than canonical
More than 2x the amount of spatial language than
canonical or iPad!
26

Take-Home Points:
Electronic Toys and Apps
Electronic toys and tech are attractive:
Grab and hold attention
Toy makers: More expensive
Parents: Marketing More educational More value

Influence parent-child interactions

Parents: Use less language or less varied language
Passive observers or offload teaching responsibilities

Children: Hear and Use less language

Use electronic toys sparinglyfor now

Careful design could power-up parents rather than turn them off
Better than traditional toys for solo play???
27

Take-Home Points:
Shape Variety
Current toys have small numbers of shapes
Learn basic shapes easily BUT shape knowledge remains
immature

Increasing shape variety changes interactions:

Children: Use more language overall and especially more
spatial language
Parents: Language not very different
Current Direction: Behavior coding and nature of language
(e.g., comparisons and feature highlighting)

No fancy intervention needed! Just more shapes in toys!

Easy for apps (no physical limitation)

28

Our future STEM experts are now in preschool!

Toy design influences
what children see and
hear
of little or no value

We must provide better

tools for learning (i.e.,
toys)
29

Thanks!!!!!

Funding

ARRA Stimulus Grant from NIH (1RC1HD0634970-01) to Roberta

Golinkoff and Kathy Hirsh-Pasek
NSF grant through the Spatial Intelligence and Learning Center,
Temple University (SBE-1041707)

Co-Authors:

Maya Marzouk
Univ. of Delaware

Jenn Zosh
Penn State - Brandywine

Roberta Golinkoff
Univ. of Delaware

Kathy Hirsh-Pasek
Temple University

Thanks also to:

The Childs Play, Learning & Development Lab at Univ. of Delaware
The Brandywine Child Development Lab at PSU Brandywine

30