About this srcd poster session

---

Panel information
Panel 4. Cognitive Processes

Abstract

---

Parents’ use of spatial language (e.g., talking about shapes, directions, and spatial relationships) during informal activities with children supports their spatial reasoning, a critical component of mathematical thinking (Casasola et al., 2020; Polinsky et al., 2017). Moreover, while parents and children vary in their use of spatial language (Pruden et al., 2011; Ren et al., 2022), there is some evidence that certain play materials can facilitate more diverse spatial and mathematical language during parent-child interactions (Bambha et al., 2024; Chan & Mazzocco, 2019). Thus, a better understanding of how different materials and activities promote parent-child spatial language is important for knowing how to best support children’s developing spatial and math skills.

In the current study, we examined parent-child spatial language during play activities, including variability in and relations between parent and child spatial language, differences in spatial language by activity type, and differences in spatial language by child gender. Data were collected from 80 children (Mage = 65.29 months, 41% female, 65% white, 11% African American or Black, 18% Biracial, 6% Asian; 9% Hispanic/Latine) and their parents (76% mothers) during one lab visit. Children and parents engaged in a 15-minute parent-child play interaction, completing a modified three bags task (Vandell, 1979) with a wordless picture book, a cash register and foods, and a balance scale.

Parent-child interaction videos were transcribed at the utterance level and coded for use of spatial language, including: spatial dimensions, locations and directions, spatial features and properties, orientations and transformations, and shapes (Cannon et al., 2007; Casasola et al., 2020). To examine differences in spatial language between activities during the interaction, parent and child utterances were categorized as occurring with (1) the book, (2) the cash register and foods, (3) the balance scale, (4) a combination of multiple activities (e.g., putting the foods from the cash register into the balance scale), or (5) in transitions between the activities (e.g., choosing which activity to do next).

Overall, we observed variability in both parent and child spatial language (Figure 1). There were also significant differences in spatial language by activity type for parents (F(4, 395)=23.87, p<.001) and children (F(4, 395)=15.45, p<.001) (Figure 2). Specifically, parents used the most spatial language during the balance scale (M=10.46) and the least during combined activities (M=1.06), and children used the most spatial language during book reading (M=5.24) and the least during combined activities (M=1.21). However, parent and child spatial language were not related (r(78)=-.05, p=.651), nor was there a difference in parent (t(59.50)=0.65, p=.518) or child (t(71.54)=0.43, p=.671) spatial language by child gender.

These results further highlight how different types of activities can facilitate and have different implications for children’s spatial learning. Additionally, the null associations between parent and child spatial language must be further explored by examining whether more nuanced parent spatial language (e.g., open- vs. closed-ended questions) relates to child spatial language.

Author information

Author	Role
Julie Joohyun Kim, Boston Children's Hospital	Presenting author
Mary DePascale, University at Albany, SUNY	Non-presenting author

⇦ Back to session