Early Childhood Educ J
DOI 10.1007/s10643-014-0644-7
Effects of Toys on the Play Quality of Preschool Children:
Influence of Gender, Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Status
Jeffrey Trawick-Smith • Jennifer Wolff •
Marley Koschel • Jamie Vallarelli
Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract This study examined the effects of nine toys on
the play of 60 3- and 4-year-old children in culturally
diverse preschool classrooms. The toys, which varied in
their features and intended uses, were selected from a list
of those that were nominated by teachers and parents as
being developmentally beneficial. Each toy was video
recorded for 240 h during free play time in four different
classrooms. Researchers coded 828 two-minute segments
of children’s play with these toys using a play quality with
toys (PQT) rating instrument developed in a previous
investigation. Toys were found to vary significantly in their
impact on play quality. PQT scores were also found to vary
for each toy depending on the gender, socioeconomic sta-
tus, and ethnicity of the child playing with it, and the length
of time it was available in the classroom. Implications for
selecting toys for classrooms and observing children’s play
with them are presented.
Keywords Play
Toys
Preschool
Ethnicity

Socioeconomic status
Gender
J. Trawick-Smith (&)
J. Wolff
M. Koschel
J. Vallarelli
Center for Early Childhood Education, CECE 216, Eastern
Connecticut State University, Willimantic, CT 06226, USA
e-mail: trawick@easternct.edu
J. Wolff
e-mail: wolffje@my.easternct.edu
M. Koschel
e-mail: koschelm@my.easternct.edu
J. Vallarelli
e-mail: vallarellij@my.easternct.edu
Introduction
Play is critical for the social and intellectual development
of young children (Vygotsky 1976). Several elements of
play are related to learning in preschool classrooms. Play
activities that include make believe (Smilansky 1968), self-
regulation (Bodrova and Leong 2007; Elias and Burke
2002), problem solving (Ginsberg 2006), creative expres-
sion (Lloyd and Howe 2003), and social interaction (Ho-
wes and Matheson 1992) have been associated with
positive child outcomes. Play with these elements has been
referred to as ‘‘high quality,’’ because of its educational
benefits (Bergen 2001).
Previous research has examined a variety of factors that
influence the quality of play in preschools (Trawick-Smith
1990, 1992, 1993; Trawick-Smith and Dzuirgot 2010a, b).
Yet there has been scant research on the effects of toys on
play, even though 90 % of young children’s play involves
toys (Tizzard et al. 1976). Teachers have little empirical
evidence, then, to guide the important decisions they make
about which toys to provide in their classrooms.
The purpose of this study was to examine two interre-
lated questions about toys in preschool: (1) To what degree
do toys affect the quality of young children’s play? (2)
How do the effects of toys vary according to the novelty of
the toy or the gender, socioeconomic status (SES), and
ethnicity of children playing with them?
Theoretical Foundations: What Are Toys and Why Are
They Important?
We define a toy as any object—realistic or not, commercial
or natural—that children use in their play. In some parts of
the world, sticks, stones, and mud are common toys. In the
123

U.S., many children play with commercially-manufactured
materials. In the present study, we adhere to Brian Sutton-
Smith’s (1986, 2009) classic theory that the toys children
choose are directly related to their culture. Toy preferences
and use will reflect the histories, world views, values, and
gender role assignments of a child’s culture and family. For
this reason, the present investigation examines toys that
have been selected by parents and teachers—not special-
ists. We compare toy effects on children of both genders
and of diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds.
Another underlying assumption of this study is that toys
provide two vital functions in play. First, they inspire,
maintain, and enrich play (Pellegrini and Bjorklund 2004).
For example, a firefighter’s hat motivates children to ini-
tiate in a new play theme; the introduction of a pretend fire
hose extends and elaborates the play episode. Toys also
function to draw peers together into a shared play theme,
by helping them establish joint attention—a circumstance
when children all focus on the same object or activity
(Mundy and Newell 2007). In the present study, we
examine how toys influence the duration and complexity of
play activities and how well they inspire social interaction.
Previous Toy Research
A small number of early studies focused on the impact of
toys on peer interactions. Blocks and pretend play props
were found to inspire more frequent and cooperative social
activity, whereas ‘‘cognitively oriented’’ toys, such as
puzzles, were found to prompt solitary play (Hendrickson
et al. 1981; Ivory and McCollum 1999; Rettig et al. 1993;
Rubin 1977). In contrast, Hughes and Carter (2002) found
no differences between these social and solitary play
materials in their effects on children’s social interactions
(2002).
Other investigations explored the impact of toys on the
symbolic level of children’s play (McLoyd 1983; Trawick-
Smith 1990, 1993). In these studies, researchers asked:
How often do children transform specific toys into things
that are imaginary? The effects of highly realistic toys—
pretend play props, toy cars, or miniature people—were
compared with nonrealistic ones—blocks, rubber shapes,
or paper towel rolls. The findings of these studies were
uniform: Younger preschoolers were found to perform their
most frequent symbolic transformations with realistic toys.
Older preschoolers engaged in periodic symbolic actions
with non-realistic items, so long as realistic props were also
available. Children age five and older engaged in highly
symbolic play with nonrealistic objects, even when realistic
toys were not present. Other researchers examined the
symbolic level of children’s play with two common pre-
school construction toys—blocks and LEGOs (Hanline
123
Early Childhood Educ J
et al. 2009; Wolfgang et al. 2001). These building materials
were found to prompt numerous symbolic activities in play
and the complexity of building was found to predict
reading and mathematics abilities later in school.
Some toy research has compared the toy preferences of
boys and girls. (Campenni 1999; Cherney et al. 2004;
Miller 1987). In these investigations, girls were found to
prefer ‘‘female-stereotypic toys’’—dolls or dress up
clothes—whereas boys were more likely to choose ‘‘male-
stereotypic toys,’’ such as toy cars and construction
materials. Little research has been done on the impact of
toys for children from diverse cultural or socioeconomic
backgrounds. Ethnographic studies of children from
around the world indicate that toy use varies, depending
on cultural traditions and resources available to families
(Whiting and Edwards 1988). In one study, children in
Puerto Rico were found to prefer playing with blocks, toy
cars, musical instruments, and miniature people (Trawick-
Smith 2010). In another, African American children were
found to be more ‘‘people oriented’’ and less ‘‘object
oriented’’ in their play, using fewer toys and including
more siblings and peers in their activities (Hale-Benson
1986).
The Current Study
The current study was designed to address gaps in previous
toy research. Early studies have focused narrowly on the
influence of toys on a single aspect of play—social inter-
action, symbolic activity, or play preferences. In the pres-
ent investigation we examined toy effects on play more
broadly, including all the features of play that have been
found to enhance learning and development. We used a
measurement system to analyze the quality of play with
toys that captures children’s levels of thinking and problem
solving, creative expression, social interaction and verbal-
ization, and self-directed behavior. Since play is influenced
by culture and SES (Goncu et al. 2000; McLoyd 1986;
Riojas-Cortéz 2001; Trawick-Smith 2010), we measured
how toys vary in their impact, depending on the back-
grounds of children playing with them; we also looked at
how toy effects differ for boys and girls.
Most previous research has been conducted in labora-
tory settings where only one or several toys were made
available to children at a time. We studied toys in authentic
preschool classrooms during naturalistic free play. Many
prior studies examine common preschool toys—blocks or
pretend play props, in particular. Findings nearly always
confirm the benefits of these classic materials. In the
present investigation, we examined the effects of less-
studied toys—those that were nominated by teachers and
parents.
Early Childhood Educ J
Table 1 Toys studied and their descriptions and intended uses
Toy Description/intended use
Bristle blocks A set of multicolored plastic blocks covered with
tiny bristles that allow them to affix to one
another to build objects and shapes
Duplo bricks A set of interlocking blocks in several colors that
can be used to build structures, vehicles, and
other objects
Lincoln logs A set of small wooden logs and roof pieces that
are notched so they fit together to build
structures
Measure up! A set of twelve multicolored nesting cups with
Cups numbers and animal images that can be used for
sorting, counting, stacking, and other play
activities
Rainbow people A set of people-shaped, multicolored wooden
pieces that can be sorted, stacked next to or on
top of each other, or used to carry out pretend
play themes
Castle bucket set A set of sand toys that include a bucket that can
be used as a castle mold, a spinning sand/water
mill, a watering can, a shovel, a rake, and a
scoop
Shape, model A set of toys to be used with sculpting material,
and mold such as Play-DohTM, including wooden
stamping cubes, patterned rolling pins, and a
wooden rolling cutting tool
Tree blocks A set of natural wooden blocks made from
reclaimed tree branches that can be stacked and
balanced to create various structures
Wooden train set A wooden train set that includes tracks and train
cars that can be used to pretend and to construct
various track configurations
Method
Toys Studied
We invited nominations of toys for our study from parents
and teachers through announcements at conferences, on a
website, and through an early childhood listserv. We
requested the names of ‘‘indoor toys,’’—excluding com-
puter applications, video, and books—that these adults
considered to be developmentally beneficial. From the first
18 toys that were nominated, nine were chosen for study.
The other nine toys were screened out by a selection
committee, comprised of a teacher, a parent, a researcher,
and an administrator, because of concerns about safety or
suitability for use in a preschool classroom. The toys that
were chosen for the study are presented in Table 1. As
shown in the table, the toys varied according to the type of
play they were intended to promote; some are common in
preschools, some are not.
Child Participants
Toys were studied as they were being used by 60 3- and
4-year-old children (M = 48.8 months), who were of
diverse backgrounds (34 were Latino, 19 Euro-American, 4
African American, 2 Jamaican, 1 Filipino; 32 female, 28
male), and were enrolled in four classrooms of a preschool
program located on a small university campus. SES of par-
ticipants was determined by family eligibility for free or
reduced lunch; 22 child participants were eligible for free
lunch (low SES), 12 for reduced-price lunch (mid-low SES),
and 26 did not qualify for this subsidy (middle SES). Each of
the four classrooms had a teacher, (two with master’s
degrees, two with bachelor’s degrees), a teacher associate
(three had bachelor’s degrees, one an associate’s degree),
and two assistant teachers (three with bachelor’s degrees,
five with no degree). All but two of these professionals were
of Euro-American background; 1 was Puerto Rican, 1 Ira-
nian. The center is nationally accredited with a full day, play-
based curriculum. This study was reviewed and approved by
the institutional review board of the authors’ university. A
consent letter was distributed to and signed by a parent or
legal guardian of each child participant. This included per-
mission for the investigators to video record and analyze
children’s classroom behaviors.
Procedures
Each of the nine toys was video recorded in four classrooms,
on 12 separate 20-min periods during free play time. A toy
was placed in one of the classrooms and recorded for 20 min
on the first, second, and fourth day that it was available to
children. (No recording was done on the third day, but it was
still provided during free play). After 4 days in one class-
room, the toy was moved into another classroom and
recorded for 20 min on each of 3 days. This continued until
each toy had been recorded in all four classrooms and a total
of 240 min of play with it were captured. The play of all
children who chose to play with these toys during these
observation periods was recorded. Recordings were made
using hidden cameras and microphones in the classrooms
that could be controlled from a remote site. Toys were placed
in the same type of play center in each classroom, as agreed
upon by teachers prior to the beginning of the study.
Teachers followed a uniform process for briefly introducing
each toy on the first day it was available and limiting their
interactions with the toy to when children needed help.
Measures
Each toy was scored during each two-minute sequence of
recorded video using a play quality with toys instrument
123

(PQT) developed in a previous study (Trawick-Smith et al.
2010). The instrument was an eight-item, five-point
observation rubric on which researchers scored the quality
of children’s play with the toy during each of these two
minute clips. Using this tool, researchers assigned a score
of 1 (lowest coding) to 5 (highest) for each video segment
for each of the following behaviors: (1) Thinking and
learning behaviors, such as studying and exploring objects,
displaying facial expressions of concentration, or com-
menting on new concepts or discoveries. (2) Problem
solving behaviors, such as attempting to overcome chal-
lenging dilemmas or trying to complete difficult tasks. (3)
Curiosity and inquiry behaviors, such as asking questions
about the toy, showing facial expressions of puzzlement or
fascination, or engaging in exploratory behaviors. (4)
Sustained interest, such as persisting in play with the toy
with minimal distraction. (5) Creative expression, includ-
ing articulation of unique ideas or using the toy in novel
ways. (6) Symbolic transformations, such as using of the
toy to represent something completely different, engaging
in pretend play, or enacting imaginary actions or situations.
(7) Interacting, communicating, and collaborating with
peers, including conversations and cooperative levels of
play. (8) Autonomous play with the toy, including the
independent use of the toy without adult assistance or
expressions of frustration. The mean score across these
eight items and all 20 min segments comprised the overall
PQT score for each toy.
In previous research, interrater reliability coefficients for
the instrument were found to range from .81 to .89. A
validity study indicated that items on the tool were inter-
related and discriminated among toys in a way that was
consistent with previous research (Trawick-Smith et al.
2010). In the current study, 50 % of recorded video was
independently coded by a second researcher to evaluate
interrater reliability. Reliability coefficients for the two
raters were high (r ranged from .78 to .92 across items,
with a mean of .87).
If more than one child was playing with a toy in a two
minute segment (a very common circumstance), a separate
set of scores was assigned to the toy for each child who was
using it. So, a video segment for a toy could be coded
several times—once for each child who was playing with
it. This allowed us to examine the impact of toys on
individual children of diverse backgrounds and to assign
distinct scores for a toy, even when it was used in very
different ways by children during the same observation.
The units of analysis for this study were the coded two-
minute video segments for each of the nine toys. We first
tallied the frequencies of two minute segments for each
toy. Across all toys, 828 of these segments were counted.
Since toys were studied in naturalistic classroom settings,
the number of segments examined for each toy varied,
123
Early Childhood Educ J
depending on how often children chose to play with them.
So these frequencies provided a measure of how often each
toy was chosen by children. Next, mean total scores on the
PQT instrument were computed for each toy. These were
calculated by averaging each of the eight subscores for
each toy across all of the two minute segments in which it
was recorded. These mean scores provided a measure of
the quality of play with the toys that was independent from
how often they was used. Analysis of variance was used to
examine differences in mean play quality scores across
toys and categories of children who were playing with
them.
Results
Across all toys, 828 two-minute recorded play segments
were analyzed. The frequency of segments examined for
each toy are presented in Table 2. As shown in the table,
the frequency of recorded segments varied from 32 (for
Rainbow People) to 184 (for the Shape, Model, and Mold
set). These frequencies serve as a rough measure of how
often each toy was chosen by children. Means and standard
deviations of overall play quality scores for the toys are
also presented in Table 2. Conducting an analysis of var-
iance, we found significant differences in score across the
nine toys, F (8, 4,512) = 27.26, p \ .001. Tukey post hoc
tests revealed the major sources of these differences: Two
toys scored significantly higher than all others on the PQT.
For Duplo Bricks, mean differences with all other toys
ranged from .24 to 1.03, all statistically significant at the
.05 level. For Rainbow People, these mean differences
ranged from .28 to 1.07, also statistically significant,
p \ .05. Another toy, Tree Blocks, scored significantly
lower than all other toys, with mean differences ranging
from -.27 to -1.07, p \ .05 for all comparisons. For all
other pairs of toys, mean differences varied from positive
to negative, but none were significant. So, two toys were
more likely to inspire high quality play; one was less likely
to do so.
Additional analyses showed that toys’ scores did not
vary significantly across classrooms. Too, no significant
differences in play quality were found for toys when used
by children of different ages, reflecting the narrow age
range of participants studied. A number of significant
interaction effects were discovered between toys and other
child characteristics. A 2 (gender) 9 9 (toys) interaction
was found, F (8, 3,286) = 8.301, p \ .001. Table 2 pre-
sents means and standard deviations on play quality scores
for toys when being used by children of each gender, based
on 376 coded video segments for girls and 452 for boys. As
shown in the table, five toys scored higher when boys
played with them. Only one toy, Tree Blocks, received
Early Childhood Educ J

Table 2 Means and standard deviations for PQT scores, frequency Latino or Euro-American backgrounds, and those of low, mid-low or
and percentage of two minute video segments for each toy and mean middle SES backgrounds are playing with them
scores and standard deviations for when boys and girls, those of
Toy PQT Scores Frequency Gender Ethnicity SES Day observed
M SD N % Gender M SD Ethnicity M SD SES M SD Day M SD

Bristle blocks 3.71 1.36 44 5.4 F 2.93 1.46 Latino 3.84 1.29 Low 3.13 1.64 1 3.42 1.62
M 4.12 1.12 Euro-Am NOa Mid NOa 2 4.62 .49
High 3.92 1.24 4 3.52 1.40
Duplo bricks 4.10 1.16 113 13.5 F 3.32 1.37 Latino 4.05 1.17 Low 3.97 1.14 1 4.34 1.07
M 4.25 .98 Euro-Am 4.01 1.06 Mid 3.95 1.14 2 4.19 1.05
High 3.84 1.32 4 3.74 1.40
Lincoln logs 3.53 1.23 48 5.8 F 2.96 1.29 Latino 3.61 1.22 Low 3.50 1.01 1 3.51 1.21
M 3.72 1.15 Euro-Am 3.50 1.09 Mid 3.62 1.26 2 3.78 1.37
High 3.74 1.27 4 3.50 1.23
Measure up cups 3.67 1.18 96 11.6 F 3.40 1.17 Latino 3.97 1.10 Low 3.38 1.20 1 3.84 1.33
M 4.03 1.09 Euro-Am 3.38 1.21 Mid 3.41 1.18 2 3.51 1.25
High 3.90 1.07 4 3.50 .97
Rainbow people 4.08 1.22 32 3.9 F 3.41 1.10 Latino 4.38 1.02 Low 3.13 1.24 1 4.53 .93
M 4.33 1.17 Euro-Am 3.28 1.37 Mid 3.44 1.03 2 3.32 1.38
High 4.00 1.34 4 NOa
Sand castle buckets 3.70 1.20 72 8.7 F 3.64 1.23 Latino 3.57 1.19 Low 3.75 1.22 1 3.69 1.26
M 3.76 1.17 Euro-Am 3.83 1.28 Mid 3.52 1.27 2 3.68 1.41
High 3.69 1.20 4 2.79 1.52
Shape model mold 3.30 1.22 184 22.2 F 3.22 1.18 Latino 3.43 1.20 Low 2.86 1.28 1 3.47 1.28
M 3.35 1.24 Euro-Am 3.17 1.23 Mid 3.32 1.24 2 2.99 1.34
High 3.73 1.05 4 3.58 1.22
Tree blocks 2.90 1.28 60 7.2 F 3.18 1.29 Latino 2.58 1.23 Low 2.56 1.25 1 3.00 1.35
M 2.83 1.28 Euro-Am 3.91 1.06 Mid 2.50 1.19 2 3.32 1.31
High 3.17 1.27 4 2.77 1.66
Wooden train set 3.85 1.03 180 21.7 F 3.68 1.03 Latino 3.91 1.01 Low 3.87 1.00 1 3.88 1.07
M 3.96 1.01 Euro-Am 3.78 1.06 Mid 3.91 1.01 2 3.90 1.09
High 3.78 1.05 4 3.71 1.21
a
Not observed during observation periods

higher scores when they were used by girls. Three toys
received nearly equivalent scores for both genders.
Ethnicity and PQT were examined by comparing scores
for each toy when Latino versus Euro-American children
were playing with them. (There were too few African
American, Jamaican, and Filipino participants in the study to
examine other ethnic groups.) A significant 2 (ethnicity) 9 9
(toys) interaction effect was found, F (18, 14,718) = 21.86.
This analysis was based on 545 two minute segments with
Latino children playing with toys and 219 segments when
used by Euro-American children. Means and standard
deviations of play quality scores for toys, when used by
children of these ethnic backgrounds, are presented in
Table 2. As shown in the table, the sources of this interaction
are the higher play quality scores for Latino children, when
playing with Measure Up Cups, mean difference = .59,
Rainbow People, mean difference = 1.10, the Shape,
Model, and Mold set, mean difference = .30, and higher
scores of Euro-American children when using Tree Blocks,
mean difference = 1.33.
Play quality scores for toys differed significantly,
depending on the SES of children playing with them.
Overall, toy scores were significantly lower when used by
children of low SES, compared to mid-low and middle SES
levels, F (2, 2,891) = 15.87, p \ .001. This analysis was
based on 268 coded two minute segments when children of
low SES were playing with them, 204 segments for chil-
dren of middle-low SES, and 344 for children of middle
SES. However, a significant 3 (SES) 9 9 (Toy) interaction
effect was found, F (15, 2,868) = 5.00, p \ .001. Means
and standard deviations of PQT scores for each toy and for
each level of SES are presented in Table 2. As shown in
the table, scores for one toy were approximately equivalent
regardless of the SES of children playing with it (Duplo

123

bricks). Other toys scored higher when children of low or
middle-low SES were using them (sand castle buckets and
wooden trains), and other toys scored higher when used by
those of middle SES (Bristle Blocks, Lincoln Logs, Mea-
sure Up Cups, Rainbow People, and Tree Blocks).
Table 2 shows that scores for toys varied depending on
how many days they had been available to children in the
classroom. A significant 3 (day studied) 9 9 (toy) inter-
action was found, F (15, 14,722) = 28.806, p \ .001. As
shown in the table, Duplo bricks, rainbow people, measure
up cups, and sand castle buckets received their highest play
quality scores on the first day they were observed; bristle
blocks, Lincoln logs, tree blocks, and the wooden trains
received their highest play quality scores on the second day
they were available to children. Scores for all of these toys
declined to varying degrees on by the fourth day they were
in the classroom. The only exception was for the Shape,
Model, and Mold set that received its highest scores on the
fourth day. It is important to note that some toys that
received lower scores on the fourth day in classrooms still
maintained relatively high play quality ratings throughout
all observation periods. This suggests that some toys con-
tinue to inspire children even after several days.
Discussion
Our findings suggest that toys make a difference in children’s
play. Some of the toys that we studied prompted very high
quality play, others did not. An implication is that careful
thought should go into selecting toys for a classroom. The
toys provided may have as great an impact on children’s
development as planned group time activities and other
elements of the curriculum. Observation of toy effects is
important in order to identify those materials that promote
meaningful play for a particular classroom of children.
In our study, Duplo bricks and Rainbow people inspired
higher quality play behaviors than other toys. These two
materials share common characteristics. They are both rela-
tively non-realistic, so they do not suggest any one particular
play theme. Rainbow People, for example, are simple, mul-
ticolored human figures without features. They can represent
make believe people of any gender or can be sorted or stacked
like construction toys. Duplos are even more open-ended in
their uses. Children were observed creating buildings, people,
animals, and pretend play props (e.g., a cell phone). Our
observations show that these toys allow many different kinds
of play, particularly construction and pretend play. These
findings are consistent with previous research on more con-
ventional, classic toys with these same qualities, such as
hardwood blocks (Trawick-Smith et al. 2010).
Our findings also indicate that the frequency with which
children choose to play with a toy is not always related to
123
Early Childhood Educ J
the quality of the play they engage in when using it. In
other words, children are not necessarily drawn to materials
that are most beneficial for play development. For example,
one of our highest scoring toys, Rainbow People, was less
frequently chosen in free play than all other toys. In con-
trast, a toy with only moderate play quality scores—the
Shape, Model, and Mold set—was selected often by chil-
dren. This suggests that teachers should observe, not only
what children like to play with, but what they do with toys
once they begin playing. When using a toy, do children
show thinking and problem solving behaviors, social
interaction and language, and creative and autonomous
play?
Our study suggests that boys and girls respond to the same
toys in different ways. Gender differences in play are not
surprising; these have been reported in previous research
(Campenni 1999; Cherney et al. 2004; Miller 1987). What is
unique about our findings is that it was not just toy preference
that was different for boys and girls, but the quality with
which each gender played with toys. Some toys inspired
higher quality play for girls, others for boys. A cause for
concern is that the majority of toys that we studied—all
nominated by teachers and parents—received their highest
scores when used by boys. This suggests that classroom
observation of toy use should focus on identifying toys that
equally inspire beneficial play for both boys and girls.
Teachers may need to add or replace toys in a classroom in
order to provide a better balance of materials that inspire play
activities for both genders. In addition teachers might watch
for toys that promote more mixed-gender play, which was
found to be less frequent in our study.
Based on our findings, teachers should also attend to
ethnic and SES differences in the use of toys. We found
that some toys scored higher when Latino children played
with them, others when used by Euro-American children.
These likely reflect cultural differences in family play
experiences, social and thinking styles, and even world
views (Goncu et al. 2000; Trawick-Smith 2010). Similar
data were obtained for children of varying socioeconomic
groups. Several toys received their highest scores when
children of low SES status used them, others when children
of middle SES children were playing. Children of color and
those living in poverty have long been reported to have
deficits in play abilities (Doyle et al. 1991; Saltz et al.
1977; Smilansky 1968). Our findings suggest that these
play differences may be, in part, a function of the toys
available to children. If children of low SES were assessed
while playing with sand castle buckets or toy trains—toys
that received higher PQT scores when used by low SES
children—would these same conclusions about play defi-
cits be reached? Observations will assist teachers in iden-
tifying toys that match the play needs and interests of all
children. Our findings suggest that such toys do exist. Both
Early Childhood Educ J
Duplo bricks and a toy train set received equally high
scores when used by children of lower and higher SES
groups and by those of diverse cultural backgrounds.
That toys vary in their impact based on culture and SES
also has implications for working with families. Teachers
might interview family members about toys that hold cul-
tural meaning. They might inquire about family play
experiences that are enjoyed at home and even the types of
play materials that they, parents and grandparents, used
when they were young. Teachers can also share with
families their observations of children’s toy use at school.
This information would be very helpful in guiding the
selection of toys to promote high quality play at home.
Most of the toys we studied inspired the highest
quality and frequency of play on the first or second day
that they were available to children. This finding is
consistent with other investigations showing that novel
toys are more attractive to children (Hunter et al. 1982;
Rabinowitz et al. 1975; Shutts et al. 2010). A unique
finding in our study is that novelty not only drew children
to toys, but inspired higher quality play with them.
Several toys maintained relatively high play quality
scores even on the fourth day they were available. Some
toys, then, may not lose their power to promote play as
readily as others. For example, scores for Duplo bricks,
Lincoln Logs, Measure Up Cups, and the wooden train
set declined only minimally on day four in each class-
room. A goal of classroom observation should be iden-
tifying toys that have what Prescott et al. (1972) call
‘‘holding power’’—the ability to engage children in
elaborate play over time. Too, teachers might use strat-
egies to keep play materials fresh—rotating toys in and
out and sharing materials across classrooms, so that there
are always novel materials to choose from.
The importance of our findings is not simply identifying
specific toys that enhance play. There are broader impli-
cations in regard to the properties of toys that inspire high
quality play and variations in how toys impact play for
diverse classrooms of children. The most critical conclu-
sion from our study is that teachers must be observant,
reflective, and responsive to individual children’s needs as
they equip their classrooms with toys, just as they are in all
other aspects of teaching.
References
Bergen, D. (2001). The role of pretend play in children’s cognitive
development. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 4, 1–12.
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2007). Tools of the mind. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.
Campenni, C. E. (1999). Gender stereotyping of children’s toys: A
comparison of parents and nonparents. Sex Roles, 40, 121–138.
Cherney, I. D., Kelly, V. L., Glover, K. G., Ruane, A., & Ryalls, B. O.
(2004). The effects of stereotyped toys and gender on play-based
assessment in 18–48 months old children. Educational Psychol-
ogy, 23, 95–106.
Doyle, A., Ceschin, R., & Tessier, O. (1991). The relation of age and
social class factors in children’s social pretend play to cognitive
and symbolic ability. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 14, 395–410.
Elias, C. L., & Berk, L. E.(2002). Self-regulation in young children: Is
there a role for sociodramatic play? Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 17, 216–238.
Ginsberg, H. (2006). Mathematical play and playful mathematics: A
guide for early education. In D. Singer, R. M. Golinkoff, & K.
Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.) Play = learning: How play motivates and
enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth (pp.
145-165). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Goncu, A., Mistry, J., & Mosier, C. (2000). Cultural variations in the
play of toddlers. International Journal of Behavioral Develop-
ment, 24, 321–329.
Hale-Benson, J. E. (1986). Black children: Their roots, culture, and
learning styles. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hanline, M. F., Milton, S., & Phelps, P. C. (2009). The relationship
between preschool block play and reading and math abilities in
early elementary school: A longitudinal study of children with
and without disabilities. Early Child Development and Care,
189, 117–147.
Hendrickson, J., Tremblay, A., Strain, P., & Shores, R. (1981).
Relationship between toy and material use and the occurrence of
social interactive behaviors by normally developing preschool
children. Psychology in the Schools, 18, 500–504.
Howes, C., & Matheson, C. C. (1992). Sequences in the development
of competent play with peers: Social and social pretend play.
Developmental Psychology, 28, 961.
Hughes, C., & Carter, M. (2002). Toys and materials as setting events
for the social interaction of preschool children with special
needs. Educational Psychology, 22, 429–444.
Hunter, M. A., Ross, H. S., & Ames, E. W. (1982). Preferences for
familiar or novel toys: Effect of familiarization time in 1-year-
olds. Developmental Psychology, 18, 519.
Ivory, J. J., & McCollum, J. A. (1999). Effects of social and isolate
toys on social play in an inclusive setting. Journal of Special
Education, 32, 238–243.
Lloyd, B., & Howe, N. (2003). Solitary play and convergent and
divergent thinking skills in preschool children. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 18, 22–41.
McLoyd, V. C. (1983). The effects of structure of play objects on the
pretend play of low income children. Child Development, 54,
626–635.
McLoyd, V. (1986). Scaffolds or shackles? The role of toys in
preschool children’s pretend play. In G. Fein & M. Rivkin
(Eds.), Young child at play: Reviews of research (pp. 63–78).
Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of
Young Children.
Miller, C. L. (1987). Qualitative differences among gender–stereo-
typed toys: Implications for cognitive and social development in
girls and boys. Sex Roles, 16, 473–487.
Mundy, P., & Newell, L. (2007). Attention, joint attention, and social
cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16,
269–274.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Bjorklund, D. F. (2004). The ontogeny and
phylogeny of children’s object and fantasy play. Human Nature,
15, 23–43.
Prescott, E., Kritchevsky, S., & Jones, E. (1972). The day care
environmental inventory. Pasadena, CA: Pacific Oaks College.
Rabinowitz, F. M., Moely, B. E., Finkel, N., & McClinton, S. (1975).
The effects of toy novelty and social interaction on the
123

exploratory behavior of preschool children. Child Development,
46, 286–289.
Rettig, M., Kallam, M., & McCarthy-Salm, K. (1993). The effect of
social and isolate toys on the social interactions of preschool-
aged children. Education and Training in Mental Retardation,
28, 252–256.
Riojas-Cortéz, M. (2001). Preschoolers’ funds of knowledge dis-
played through sociodramatic play episodes in a bilingual
classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29, 157–170.
Roskos, K. A., Christie, J. F., Widman, S., & Holding, A. (2010).
Three decades in: Priming for meta-analysis in play-literacy
research. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10, 55–96.
Rubin, K. H. (1977). The social and cognitive value of preschool toys
and activities. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 9,
382–385.
Saltz, E., Dixon, D., & Johnson, J. (1977). Training disadvantaged
preschoolers on various fantasy activities: Effects on cognitive
functioning and impulse control. Child Development, 48,
367–380.
Shutts, K., Banaji, M. R., & Spelke, E. S. (2010). Social categories
guide young children’s preferences for novel objects. Develop-
mental Science, 13, 599–610.
Smilansky, S. (1968). The effects of sociodramatic play on disad-
vantaged preschool children. New York, NY: Wiley.
Sutton-Smith, B. (1986). Toys as culture. New York, NY: Gardner
Press.
Sutton-Smith, B. (2009). The ambiguity of play. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Tizzard, B., Phelps, J., & Plewis, L. (1976). Play in preschool centres:
Play measures and their relation to age, sex, and IQ. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 251–264.
Trawick-Smith, J. (1990). Effects of realistic vs. non-realistic play
materials on young children’s symbolic transformation of
objects. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 5, 27–36.
123
Early Childhood Educ J
Trawick-Smith, J. (1992). A descriptive study of spatial arrangement
in a family day care home. Child & Youth Care Forum, 21,
356–397.
Trawick-Smith, J. (1993). Effects of realistic, non-realistic, and
mixed-realism play environments on young children symboliza-
tion, social interaction, and language. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associ-
ation, Atlanta.
Trawick-Smith, J. (2010). Drawing back the lens on play: A frame
analysis of young children’s play in Puerto Rico. Early
Education and Development, 21, 1–32.
Trawick-Smith, J., & Dzuirgot, T. (2010a). ‘‘Good-fit’’ teacher–child
play interactions and subsequent autonomous play in preschool.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 110–123.
Trawick-Smith, J., & Dzuirgot, T. (2010b). Untangling teacher–child
play interactions: Do teacher education and experience influence
‘‘good-fit’’ responses to children’s play? Journal of Early
Childhood Teacher Education, 31, 1–24.
Trawick-Smith, J., Russell, H., & Swaminathan, S. (2010). Measuring
the effects of toys on the cognitive, creative, and social play
behaviors of preschool children. Early Child Development and
Care, 181, 909–927.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1976). Play and its role in the mental development of
the child. In J. Bruner, A. Jolly, & K. Sylva (Eds.), Play: Its role
in development and evolution (pp. 6–18). New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Whiting, B. B., & Edwards, C. P. (1988). Children of different worlds.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wolfgang, C. H., Standard, L., & Jones, I. (2001). Block play
performance among preschoolers as a predictor of later school
achievement in mathematics. Journal of Research in Childhood
Education, 15, 173–180.