Upload
brian-verdine
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
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
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
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.
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
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.
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
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
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
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)
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
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
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
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.
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
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)
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
10/30
Limited Variety?
10
Dogs
Variety is important in concept formation
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
11/30
11
Horse?
Dog?
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
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.
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
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 &
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
14/30
Make
BETTER
toys?14
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
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
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
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?
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
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
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
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
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
19/30
Unique Language
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Traditional Toy Electronic Toy
PercentageofUniqueLanguage
Parent Speech Toy Speech
.001*
.03*
19
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
20/30
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Traditional Toy Electronic Toy
Rateo
fSpatialLanguageProduction
(wordsperm
in.)
Parent Speech Toy Speech
Spatial Language
.03*
.22
20
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
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?
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
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
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
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
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
24/30
24
Similar trends for spatial, shape, and math words
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
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
25/30
25
Overall: More language and variety w/ concrete shapes BUT also more language and variety w/ atypical compared
to canonical
Types (unique words) Tokens (total words)
Speech Type iPad Can Aty iPad Can Aty
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
Lowest Between Highest Not Diff
Results - Children
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
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!
Types (unique words) Tokens (total words)
Speech Type iPad Can Aty iPad Can Aty
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
Lowest Between Highest Not Diff
Results - Children
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
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???
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
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
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
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)
7/26/2019 Toys R Important - Jean Piaget Society 2016-06-10
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: