The Effects of Social and Isolate Toys on the Interactions and Play of Integrated and

Nonintegrated Groups of Preschoolers

Author(s): Paula J. Beckman and Frances L. Kohl
Source: Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded , OCTOBER 1984, Vol. 19, No. 3
(OCTOBER 1984), pp. 169-174
Published by: Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23877253

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Education and Training
of the Mentally Retarded

This content downloaded from

95.67.53.230 on Sun, 03 Oct 2021 19:22:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Effects of Social and Isolate Toys on the Interactions
and Play of Integrated and Nonintegrated
Groups of Preschoolers1
Paula J. Beckman and Frances L. Kohl
University of Maryland

Abstract: The purpose of the present study was to determine the effect of social and isolate toys on the interactions
and play of integrated and nonintegrated groups ofpreschoolers. Sixteen preschoolers (12 handicapped) partidpated.
Observations were made using a time-sampling technique obtaining information on the frequency of interactions,
amount of time preschoolers engaged in toy play, and toy preferences. Results revealed that under conditions in
which only social toys were available, children generally engaged in more interactions and less toy play as compared
to the other conditions. These results were consistent across groups.

Most research related to the integration of physical assistance) preschoolers engaged in

handicapped and nonhandicapped preschoolers while using 38 toys and materials were recorded.
has focused on social interactions. A consistent Approximately 66% of the toys and materials
finding of these investigations is that without were used in more than one type of social play
specific attempts to facilitate interactions, hand and 10 toys were distributed with relative equiv
icapped and nonhandicapped children do not alance across all types of play.
interact spontaneously (Devoney, Guralnick, & The purpose of the present study was to de
Rubin, 1974; McHale & Olley, 1982; Porter, termine the effects of social and isolate toys on
Ramsey, Tremblay, Iaceobo, & Crawley, 1978). the interactions and play of integrated and non
As a result, much effort has gone into the de integrated groups of preschoolers. Five specific
velopment of strategies such as peer modeling questions were addressed: (a) is there a difference
and reinforcement (Guralnick, 1976a; 1976b), in the frequency of interactions among pre
teacher reinforcement (Apolloni & Cooke, 1978; schoolers as a function of the type of toy avail
Berry & Marshall, 1978; Strain, Cooke, & Apol able; (b) is there a difference in the frequency
loni, 1976) and sociodramatic play (Devoney, of interaction as a function of whether the group
Guralnick, & Rubin, 1974; Strain & Wiegerink, was integrated or nonintegrated; (c) is there a
1976) to facilitate interaction. difference in the amount of time preschoolers
Another strategy which may have an impact engage in toy play as a function of the type of
on the frequency of interactions between hand toy available; (d) is there a difference in the
icapped and nonhandicapped preschoolers is the amount of time preschoolers engage in toy play
type of toys available during free play situations as a function of whether the group was inte
(Peterson & Haralick, 1977). There have only grated or nonintegrated; and (e) were any toys
been a few investigations which have addressed associated with more play than other toys?
this topic (Quilitch & Risley, 1973; Quilitch,
Christopherson, & Risley, 1977). Recently, Methods
Hendrickson, Tremblay, Strain, and Shores
(1981) reported on the relationship between toy
Subjects
and material use and the occurrence of social
interactive behaviors of normally developing Eight children from each of two preschool class
rooms participated (N = 16). The same selection
preschool children. The types of social play (i.e.,
isolate play, parallel play, sharing/cooperation,procedures were used in each classroom: (a) from
the pool of handicapped boys, three were se
1 The authors wish to thank the staff and families lected randomly; one was randomly assigned to
at the Montgomery Preschool Achievement Center the integrated group and the remaining two
for their cooperation and interest. were randomly assigned to the nonintegrated

Social and Isolate Toys / 169

This content downloaded from

95.67.53.230 on Sun, 03 Oct 2021 19:22:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
group; (b) from the pool of handicapped girls, isolated (i.e., children would play with the toy
three were selected randomly; one was randomly by themselves). Only toys rated by all 10 raters
assigned to the integrated group and the re- in the same category were used in the investi
maining two were randomly assigned to the gation. Three sets of toys were used. The first
nonintegrated group; (c) from the pool of non- set, referred to as social toys, consisted of blocks,
handicapped boys, one was randomly selected a ball, toy vehicles (cars and trucks), and puppets,
for the integrated group; and (d) from the pool Isolated toys, the second set, consisted of books,
of nonhandicapped girls, one was randomly se- paper and crayons, play dough, and puzzles. The
lected for the integrated group. Therefore, one third set, referred to as mixed set, consisted of
group from each classroom was integrated con- both the social and isolate toys,
sisting of two handicapped (one male, one fe
male) and two nonhandicapped preschoolers _ , rV0C€uUT?S
(one male, one female) and the second group
from each classroom was not integrated con- Each child was observed twice in each to
sisting of four handicapped preschoolers (2 dition (i.e., social, isolate, mixed) for 5 min
males, 2 females). Handicapped children in totaling 96 observations. Observation
Classroom 1 ranged in age from 4 yrs-11 mos scheduled randomly across participants,
to 5 yrs-8 mos (X = 5 yrs-6 mos); nonhandi- (integrated, nonintegrated), and toy cond
capped children ranged in age from 4 yrs-1 mos (social, isolate, mixed). The order of t
to 4 yrs-3 mos (X = 4 yrs-2 mos). In Classroom dition was random for the two groups. P
il, handicapped children ranged in age from 3 sions were identical (i.e., 20 minutes in
yrs-6 mos to 5 yrs-2 mos (X = 4 yrs-7 mos) and furniture arrangement, toy location) ex
nonhandicapped children ranged from 3 yrs-1 the type of toy available to the children.
mo to 3 yrs-2 mos (X = 3 yrs-1 mo). The hand- sampling technique was used to collect
¡capped children's range of scores on the Stan- the end of each 10-second interval
ford-Binet Intelligence Scale was 49 to 72 (X sounded through an earphone connec
= 64) in Classroom I and 52 to 79 (X = 66) in tape recorder. The observer looked at the
Classroom II. Six of the handicapped children child and recorded his/her behavior acco
had Down's Syndrome and the remaining six to the following:
were diagnosed as mentally retarded with un
, • 1. Interaction: The observer recorded whether
known etiologies.
the child was engaged in an in
another child, which consiste
Setting looking, verbalizing, sharing, physical con
, i i . , . tact, bodv movement, and/or smiling.
The study was conducted in a preschool ' ,,,,
,. i , • , ,. 2. Toy Behavior: The observer recorded whether
achievement center located in the metropolitan , , . , . • , ,
Washington, D.C. area. In each classroom there the Wf P^ng with
... » , r • i • was denned as any direct manipulation of
were nine handicapped and tour nonhandi- 7 r
capped children, one teacher, two full time aides, a to^'
and one volunteer. Observations were made in One university
a 12' X 15' playroom approximately 100 yards hood special educat
from the classrooms. The room contained one Prior to the study
rectangularly shaped table, four chairs, and two record behaviors
large shelves containing toys. practice data collectio

Materials Reliability
In order to assign toys to interaction categorie
15 toys were rated independently by a group o
10 raters. The purpose of the rating was to de
termine whether a toy was social (i.e., interac-
tions between children would be facilitated) or

170 / Education and Training of the Mentally R

This content downloaded from

95.67.53.230 on Sun, 03 Oct 2021 19:22:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
observations. Reliability was calculated using the groups interacted more than children in the
formula: 100 X (number of agreements) nonintegrated groups. This trend was also found
■v" (number of agreements + number of dis- when groups were compared within each toy
agreements). Average reliability across obser- condition; the only exception was that when the
vations, conditions, and groups was 89% ranging mixed set of toys was available in Classroom II,
from 50 to 100%. the same number of interactions was observed
in the two groups (i.e., 30).
Results Data from the integrated groups were fu
analyzed to determine the percentage of
The five research questions concerning the effect vals in which the ha
of toys on the interactions and toy play behaviors observed interacting wi
of preschool children are presented below. data were collapsed a
1. Is there a difference in the frequency of inter- Classroom I, only 20%
actions among preschoolers as a function of the type in which interactio
of toy available? The frequency of interactions counted for by handica
by classroom, group, and toy condition are pre- in Classroom II, 39%
sented in Table 1. Data were obtained by count- in which interactions
ing the number of intervals each child was ob- counted for by handi
served interacting with a peer and totaling the 3. Is there a difference i
lum across all observations and participants. schoolers engage in toy play
When these data were collapsed within each toy of toy available? The n
condition, results revealed that for both class- preschoolers played w
rooms the most interactions occurred when so- Table 2 by classroom, g
cial toys were available, followed by mixed and When data were collap
isolate toys, respectively. When comparing the dition the same trend
results across toy condition within nonintegrated rooms: toy play occur
and integrated groups, again the greatest num- lated toy condition, fol
ber of interactions in all groups was observed condition, and least often
when social toys were available. available.
2. Is there a difference in the frequency of inter- When comparing the results within
actions as a function of whether the group was in- tegrated and nonintegrated groups, t
tegrated or nonintegrated? Data were collapsed for the integrated group in Classroom I
within each group and are presented in Table nonintegrated group in Classroom II was
1. For both classrooms children in the integrated same; toy play occurred most often in the

TABLE 1

Frequency of Interactions by Classroom, Group, and Toy Condition

Classroom
Classroom 1I Isolate
Isolate Toys
Toys Mixed
Mixed Toys
Toys Social
Social Toys
Toys

Nonintegrated
Nonintegrated 36 31 66 133

Integrated 48 73 98 219

84 104 164

Classroom II Isolate Toys Mixed Toys Social Toys

Nonintegrated 21 30 46 97

Integrated 35 30 56 121

56 60 102

Social and Isolate Toys / 171

This content downloaded from

95.67.53.230 on Sun, 03 Oct 2021 19:22:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 TABLE 2

Number of Intervals Preschoolers Played with Toys by Classroom, Group, and Toy C

Classroom I Isolate Toys Mixed Toys Social Toys

Nonintegrated 142 142 149 433

Integrated 152 144 109 405

294 286 258

Classroom II Isolate Toys Mixed Toys Social Toys

Nonintegrated 152 111 91 354

Integrated 130 140 58 328

282 251 149

toy condition followed by the mixed and social condition is presented in Table 3. Toy prefer
toy conditions, respectively. For the remaining enees were variable across groups and toy con
groups the trends were different. For the non- dition. The only noticeable preference across
integrated group in Classroom I, the number classroom and group was for play dough in the
of intervals was the same in the isolate and mixed isolate toy condition; this preference was not
toy conditions, yet fewer than in the social toy apparent, however, when play dough was avail
condition. The difference, however, was mini- able in the mixed toy condition,
mal. For the integrated group in Classroom II,
the difference between the isolate and mixed
Discussion
toy conditions was minimal, yet substantially
greater than in the social toy condition. The results of the present study have a number
4. Is there a difference in the amount of time pre- of interesting implications for educators worki
schoolers engage in toy play as a function of whether in integrated preschool programs. Similar t
the group was integrated or nonintegrated? When results of other studies, the findings of the p
data were collapsed across toy condition (refer ent study indicate that toys and materials
to Table 2), children in the nonintegrated groups have an influence on the amount of soci
played with toys more than children in the in- teraction observed between children and t
tegrated groups. However, this trend was in- amount of time preschoolers engage in toy
consistent when groups were compared within (Hendrickson, Tremblay, Strain, & Sho
each toy condition. Further examination of the 1981). A major finding of the present study
data revealed that differences between inte- that in situations in which only social toys w
grated and nonintegrated groups were primarily available, children in both integrated and n
accounted for by the substantial differences in integrated groups tended to engage in mo
the social toy condition. teraction than under any other toy condition.
Data from the integrated groups were further Another important finding was that under con
analyzed to determine the percentage of inter- ditions in which only social toys were available,
vals in which handicapped children played with children generally engaged in less toy play as
available toys. When data were collapsed across compared to the other conditions. The only ex
toy condition, handicapped children in Class- ception to the latter finding was that in Class
room I accounted for 33% (132/405) of the room I, children in the nonintegrated group
intervals and handicapped children in Classroom played about the same amount of time regardless
II accounted for 44% (144/328) of the intervals. of toy condition.
5. Were any toys associated with more play than These two findings suggest that educators
other toys? Percentage of time children engaged must be aware of the influence that the type of
in play with toys by classroom, group, and toy toys available to children may have on their be

172 / Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded-October 1984

This content downloaded from

95.67.53.230 on Sun, 03 Oct 2021 19:22:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 TABLE 3

Percentage of Time Children Engaged in Play with Toys by Classroom, Group, and Toy

Classroom I Classroom II

Nonintegrated Integrated Nonintegrated Integrated

Isolate
Books .00 .07 .11 .00
Play Dough .53 .40 .44 .78
Crayons .09 .51 .23 .11
Puzzles .38 .20 .22 .11

Mixed
Books .15 .01 .00 .03

Play Dough .06 .32 .04 .54

Crayons .15 .15 .70 .07
Puzzles .21 .08 .00 .00
Blocks .01 .13 .14 .08
Balls .22 .04 .11 .05
Vehicles .15 .24 .00 .20

Puppets .05 .03 .00 .03

Social
Blocks .09 .12 .31 .33
Balls .17 .27 .59 .00
Vehicles .75 .18 .09 .55
Puppets .00 .42 .00 .12

havior. The classroom environ

arranged in such a way as to fa
objectives. For example, if an
particular child is to increase
one strategy may be to make
are "social" in nature. Another
directive with children durin
could be directed toward those
that will facilitate interactions
ers, who are trying to encour
play with and manipulate toys
manner may want to make toy
are more isolate in nature. Cer
made available only during spe
depending on the nature of
The results regarding the dif
frequency of interaction and a
between the integrated and
groups are unclear. The gener
children in the integrated gro
and play with toys less as com
dren in the nonintegrated gr
trend varied depending on the
able and the classroom. In add

Social and Is

This content downloaded from

95.67.53.230 on Sun, 03 Oct 2021 19:22:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Since toys appear to influence social interactions,
it is probably important to do further investi
gations concerning the types of toys that are
social in nature. In addition, since the sample
size in the present study was relatively small, it
would be useful to determine if the findings of
the present study can be replicated with other
samples. It would also be of interest to know
whether toys and materials influence the inter
action patterns of older children. Finally, and
perhaps most interesting to educators, would be
to investigate the effects of teaching children to
play with social toys and determining if rates of
interaction can be increased. The findings of
the present study provide some useful infor
Peterson, N. L., & Haralick, J. G. (1977). Integration
mation to educators. Manipulation of the toys
available in the child's environment may be a
successful and unobstrusive way to facilitate so
cial interaction and potentially maximize the im
Guralnick, M.J. (1976b). Early childhood intervention:
The use of nonhandicapped peers as educational and
therapeutic resources. Paper presented at the Inter
national Congress of the International Association
for the Scientific Study of Mental Deficiency,
Washington, D.C.
Hendrickson, J. M., Tremblay, A., Strain, P. S., &
Shores, R. E. (1981). Relationship between toy
and material use and the occurrence of social in
teractive behaviors by normally developing pre
school children. Psychology in the Schools, 18, 500
504.
McHale, S. M., Sc Olley, J. G. (1982). Using play to
facilitate the social development of handicapped
children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,
2, 76-86.
of handicapped and nonhandicapped preschoolers:
An analysis of play behavior and social interaction.
Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 12,
235-245.

pact of integrated settings for handicapped pre Porter, R. H., Ramsey, B., Tremblay, A., Iaceobo,
schoolers. M., & Crawley, S. (1978). Social interactions in
heterogeneous groups of retarded and normally
developing children: An observational study. In
References G. P. Sackett & H. C. Haywood (Eds.), Observing
behavior: Theory and application in mental retardation
Appolloni, T., & Cooke, T. P. (1978). Integrated
(Vol. I) (pp. 311-328). Baltimore: University Park
programming at the infant, toddler, and preschool Press.
levels. In M. Guralnick (Ed.), Early intervention and
Strain, P. S., Cooke, T. P., & Appolloni, T. (1976).
the integration of handicapped and nonhandicapped
Role of peers in modifying classmates social be
children (pp. 147-165). Baltimore: University Park
havior: A review. Journal of Special Education, 10,
Press.
351-356.
Berry, P., & Marshall, B. (1978). Social interaction
Quilitch, H. R„ & Risley, T. R. (1973). The effects
and communication patterns in mentally retarded
of play materials on social play .Journal of Applied
children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 83, Behavior Analysis, 6, 573-578.
44-51.
Quilitch, H. R., Christopherson, E. R., & Risley,
Devoney, C., Guralnick, M. J., & Rubin, H. (1974).
T. R. (1977). The evaluation of children's play
Integrating handicapped and nonhandicapped
materials. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10,
preschool children: Effects of social play. Childhood
501-502.
Education, 50, 360-364.
Guralnick, M. J. (1976a). The value of integrating
handicapped and nonhandicapped preschool chil College of Education
dren. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46, 236 Department of Special Education
245. College Park, Maryland 20742

174 / Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded-October 1984

This content downloaded from

95.67.53.230 on Sun, 03 Oct 2021 19:22:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms