toys r important - jean piaget society 2016-06-10

7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10

1/30

Toys R Important: Effects of ToyDesign on Parent (and Child)

Geometric and Spatial Talk

Brian N. Verdine

1

Jennifer M. Zosh2

Kathy Hirsh-Pasek3Maya A. Marzouk

1

Roberta M. Golinkoff1

Jean Piaget Society Conference

University of Delaware1,Penn State Brandywine2,

& Temple University3

Chicago, IL June 9, 2016


2/30

Todays talk:

2

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


3/30

Toy (n.):

3

1. an object, often a small representation ofsomething familiar, as an animal or person,

for children or others to play with;

plaything.


4/30

Toy (n.):

4

2. a thing or matter of little or no value orimportance; a trifle.

3. something that serves for or as if fordiversion, rather than for serious practical

use.


5/30

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

5


6/30

6

The case of shapes

Learning shape names at intersection of: Spatial Skills Mathematics Language

Shape ID accuracy and speed at 3better spatial skills at 5 (Verdine et al., under review)

Hearing spatial language

spatial performance(e.g. Casasola, Bhagwat & Burke, 2009)

Better spatial skills at 3better math skills at 5 (Verdine et al., in press SRCD Monograph)


7/30

Triangle - 3 angles and 3 connected sides

but process for really knowing shapes is extended

In Satlow & Newcombe (1998) children and adults sorted realshapes 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 untilafter age 5

7

Shape learning seems easy


8/30

Preschool Shape Knowledge

8

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.


9/30

Why does it take so long?

9

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)


10/30

Limited Variety?

10

Dogs

Variety is important in concept formation


11/30

11

Horse?

Dog?


12/30

Variety in Shape Toys

12

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.


13/30

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

Potential Solutions

13

Improving Preschool Shape Input

The Problems &


14/30

Make

BETTER

toys?14


15/30

Todays talk:

15

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


16/30

Study 1:Are there impacts of electronic shape toys on

parent-child interactions?

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

1) Does design (traditional vs. electronic) influence

parent language?

Overall amount?

Variability?

2) What about spatial language specifically?


17/30

The Experiment

Electronic Toy Traditional Toy

24 parent-child dyads

Children 20 - 28 mos. (M = 23)

7-minute play session

DVs: Overall Types and Tokens Spatial Language

the square in the box flip the piece over

that edge

Randomly assignedelectronic or traditionalshape sorter

17


18/30

0

10

20

30

40

5060

70

80

90100

Traditional Toy Electronic Toy

RateofOverallLanguageProduction

(wordsperm

in.)

Parent Speech Toy Speech

Overall Language Production

.14

.04*

18


19/30

Unique Language

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


PercentageofUniqueLanguage


.001*

.03*

19


20/30

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Rateo

fSpatialLanguageProduction

(wordsperm

in.)


Spatial Language

.03*

.22

20


21/30

Study 2:Does Shape Variety or Using an App

Influence Parent-Child Interactions?

21

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 orchild behaviors?


22/30

Shape Interactions

22

Quizzing Flash Cards Puzzle

iPad:

Canonical:

Atypical:

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 10Atypical: 10 canonical + 10 atypical


23/30

23

Overall: More language and variety w/ concrete shapes

Canonical and atypical shapes not different

Types (unique words) Tokens (total words)

Speech Type iPad Can Aty iPad Can Aty

Parents

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

Results - Parents


24/30

24

Similar trends for spatial, shape, and math words



Parents

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


Results - Parents


25/30

25

Overall: More language and variety w/ concrete shapes BUT also more language and variety w/ atypical compared

to canonical



Children

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


Results - Children


26/30

26

Atypical: Spatial Language More variety than iPad; trend for more than canonical

More than 2x the amount of spatial language than

canonical or iPad!



Children

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


Results - Children


27/30

Take-Home Points:Electronic Toys and Apps

27

Electronic toys and tech are attractive: Grab and hold attention Toy makers: More expensive

Parents: MarketingMore educationalMore 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???


28/30

Take-Home Points:Shape Variety

Current toys have small numbers of shapes

Learn basic shapes easily BUT shape knowledge remainsimmature

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


29/30

Our future STEM experts are now in preschool!

29

Toy design influenceswhat children see andhear

of little or no value

We must provide bettertools for learning (i.e.,toys)


30/30

30

Thanks!!!!! Funding

ARRA Stimulus Grant from NIH (1RC1HD0634970-01) to RobertaGolinkoff and Kathy Hirsh-Pasek

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

Thanks also to: The Childs Play, Learning & Development Lab at Univ. of Delaware

The Brandywine Child Development Lab at PSU Brandywine

Maya Marzouk

Univ. of DelawareJenn Zosh

Penn State - Brandywine

Roberta Golinkoff

Univ. of DelawareKathy Hirsh-Pasek

Temple University

Co-Authors:

toys r important - jean piaget society 2016-06-10

Documents