First Insights into Preschool Teachers’ Instructional Quality in Block Play and Its Associations with Children’s Knowledge, Interest, Academic Self-Concept and Cognitive Aspects

Figures & data

Figure 1. Stability of symmetrical (1 on the left, stable) and asymmetrical objects (2 in the middle, unstable, 3 on the right, stable).

Figure 2. Example items of the COM-Test (A: unstable, B: stable).

Table 1. Examined variables of preschool teachers’ instructional quality in block play.

Category	Scale	Derived from	Range	Explanation
Aspects of Interaction Quality (KES-RZ)	Stimulate Communication	KES-R (Roßbach et al., 2017)	1 = inadequate 3 = minimal 5 = good 7 = excellent	e.g., the teacher rarely/frequently encourages children to communicate. Suggestions for communication are appropriate to the age and abilities of the children.
	General Language Use	KES-R (Roßbach et al., 2017)	1 = inadequate 3 = minimal 5 = good 7 = excellent	e.g., the teacher talks little/much with the children, asks questions that require longer answers and also has individual conversations.
	Interaction Between Teacher and Child	KES-R (Roßbach et al., 2017)	1 = inadequate 3 = minimal 5 = good 7 = excellent	e.g., the teacher is inattentive/attentive in contact with the children, verbal and non-verbal messages are contingent. The teacher enjoys interacting with the children.
	Sensitivity and Timing in Instruction	Erickson Scales (Egeland et al., 1990)	1 = inadequate 3 = minimal 5 = good 7 = excellent	e.g., teacher consistently provides hints which are well-timed and well-suited to the efforts of the child with appropriate content at appropriate times.
Spatial Language	Spatial Dimensions	Cannon et al. (2007)	0-†	e.g., big, small, wide, size, length, height, volume
	Shapes and Bodies	Cannon et al. (2007)	0-†	e.g., circle, square, sphere, cube, pyramid
	Place and Direction	Cannon et al. (2007)	0-†	e.g., towards/away, inside/outside, below, space, distance
	Spatial properties	Cannon et al. (2007)	0-†	e.g., round, curved, even, odd, smooth, circular
Math Language	Quantities	Klibanoff et al. (2006)	0-†	e.g., whole/all, part, piece, section, half/third
	Scale units	Klibanoff et al. (2006)	0-†	e.g., centimeter/meter/millimeter
	Mathematical operations	Klibanoff et al. (2006)	0-†	e.g. more/plus, less/minus
Cognitive activating Scaffolding	Reflecting back children’s statements	Weber and colleagues (2020)	0-†	e.g., you just said that you think the building will not stay/fall
	Encouraging children’s further thinking	Weber and colleagues (2020)	0-†	e.g., that was a good idea of yours. Now think even further. What else could happen?
	Activating prior knowledge	Weber and colleagues (2020)	0-†	e.g., have you seen this before?
	Fostering assumptions	Weber and colleagues (2020)	0-†	e.g., what do you think, will it hold or fall?
	Encouraging comparisons	Weber and colleagues (2020)	0-†	e.g., look! What is the difference between X and Y?
	Asking for precise explanations	Weber and colleagues (2020)	0-†	e.g., what have you found out? Why is it stable/unstable?
	Modeling	Weber and colleagues (2020)	0-†	e.g., the building blocks don’t always have to lay with the middle on the surface to stay stable. If the heavier side hangs in the air, it is unstable.
	Directing children’s attention toward relevant aspects	Weber and colleagues (2020)	0-†	e.g., look at the stone that lies above the red stone. (Accompany the child’s gestures).

0-† = indicates the scale range, which is limited to the number of 10-second-blocks per video.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for children’s test scores.

	Test	M	SD	Min	Max	Scale Range
Knowledge	Stability Knowledge	8.36	1.60	3	14	0–16
	Spatial Language	19.47	3.58	4	26	0–26
	Mathematical Knowledge	15.66	8.07	3	41	0–43
	Interest	2.48	1.77	0	7	0–7
	Self-Concept	69.85	11.77	21	84	21–84
Cognitive Aspects	Fluid Intelligence	13.01	4.94	0	23	0–26
	Crystal. Intelligence	17.09	6.10	0	27	0–31
	Working Memory	15.52	5.45	1	29	0–35

M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation, Min = Minimum, Max = Maximum. Scale Range indicates the minimum and maximum number of points to be achieved.

Table 3. Correlations of children’s test results and demographical data.

	Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Knowledge	1. Stability Knowledge
	2. Spatial Language	.02
	3. Mathematical Knowledge	.14*	.50**
	4. Interest	.10	.08	.20**
	5. Self-Concept	−.02	.04	−.04	.02
Cognitive Aspects	6. Fluid Intelligence	−.02	.32**	.44**	−.01	−.00
	7. Crystal. Intelligence	.02	.60**	.45**	.05	−.08	.43**
	8. Working Memory	.01	.23**	.24**	−.01	−.05	.37**	.25**
Individual Characteristics	9. Age	.12*	.22**	.40**	−.02	−.05	.32**	.34**	.21**
	10. Language	.03	.48**	.16**	.11	.05	.07	.38**	.08	−.04
	11. Sex	−.05	.04	−.17**	−.56**	−.03	.07	.05	.03	.02	.02

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of preschool teachers’ instructional quality in block play.

Scale	M	SD	Min	Max	Scale Range
Stimulate Communication	6.36	1.01	3	7	1–7
General Language	5.85	1.28	0	7	1–7
Interaction	6.22	1.49	1	7	1–7
Sensitivity	4.32	1.22	1	6	1–7
Spatial Language	33.37	23.08	2	125	0-†
Math Language	5.25	4.92	0	21	0-†
Scaffolding	8.04	7.26	0	45	0-†

General Language = general language use, Interaction = interaction between teacher and child. M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation, Min = Minimum, Max = Maximum. Scale Range indicates the minimum and maximum number of points to be achieved, 0-† = indicates the scale range, which is limited to the number of 10-second-blocks per video.

Table 5. Correlations of preschool teachers’ instructional quality in block play.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Stimulate Communication
2. General Language	.43**
3. Interaction	.18	.20
4. Sensitivity	.51**	.38**	.51**
5. Spatial Language	.22	.18	.33**	.43**
6. Mathematical Language	.01	.21	.33**	.25*	.63**
7. Scaffolding	.21	.21	.11	.31**	.65**	.32**

General Language = general language use, Interaction = interaction between teacher and child. * indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01.

Table 6. Correlations between children’s test scores and preschool teachers’ overall instructional quality.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5
Overall Quality	.18**	.03	−.08	−.04	.07

1 = Stability Knowledge, 2 = Spatial Language, 3 = Mathematical Knowledge, 4 = Interest in Block Play, 5 = Self-Concept (Block Play). * indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01.

Table 7. Correlations between specific dimensions of preschool teachers’ instructional quality and children’s test scores.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5
Stimulate Communication	.08	.19**	.07	−.08	.10
General Language	−.03	.02	<.01	.02	.14*
Interaction	.07	.02	−.01	−.10	.13*
Sensitivity	.07	.09	−.02	−.10	.14*
Spatial Language	.13*	.06	−.03	−.08	.01
Math Language	.17**	−.09	−.15*	.05	.12*
Scaffolding	.16**	−.02	−.07	.05	.02

General Language = general language use, Interaction = interaction between teacher and child. 1 = Stability Knowledge, 2 = Spatial Language, 3 = Mathematical Knowledge, 4 = Interest in Block Play, 5 = Self-Concept (Block Play). * indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01.

Roßbach, H.-G., Natteford, R., Grenner, K., & Tietze, W. (2017). Kindergarten-Skala. Revidierte Fassung mit Zusatzmerkmalen (KES-RZ). Verlag das netz.

 Google Scholar

Egeland, B. R., Erickson, M. F., Clemenhagen-Moon, J., Hiester, M. K., & Korfmacher, J. (1990). 24 months coding manual: Project STEEP - revised 1990 from mother-child project scales. University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology.

 Google Scholar

Cannon, J., Levine, S., & Huttenlocher, J. (2007). A system for analyzing children and caregivers’ language about space in structured and unstructured contexts. Spatial Intelligence and Learning Center (SILC) Technical Report.

 Google Scholar

Klibanoff, R. S., Levine, S. C., Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., & Hedges, L. V. (2006). Preschool children’s mathematical knowledge: The effect of teacher“math talk.”. Developmental Psychology, 42(1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.59

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Weber, A. M., Reuter, T., & Leuchter, M. (2020). The impact of a construction play on 5-to 6- year-old children’s reasoning about stability. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1737. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01737

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The participants of this study did not give written consent for their data to be shared publicly, so due to the sensitive nature of the research supporting data is not available.