Increasing the Engagement and Complexity of Block Play in Young Children
Barton, Erin E.; Ledford, Jennifer R.; Zimmerman, Kathleen N.; Pokorski, Elizabeth A. (2018). Education and Treatment of Children, v41 n2 p169-196. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1176314
-
examining3Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2026
- Practice Guide (findings for Imitation plus play expansions in block play - Barton et al. (2018) )
- Single Case Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a SCD design where the independent variable is manipulated by the researcher, each outcome is measured systematically over time by multiple assessors with a sufficient number of assessment points and inter-assessor agreement, but there are an insufficient number of phases and/or assessments per phase to meet without reservations.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please download findings data here.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 33%
Male: 67% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Tennessee
-
Race Black 33% White 67% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was implemented at an early childhood school affiliated with a university in Tennessee. Data collection and intervention implementation were conducted during early care in the primary classroom or adjacent room for some students (Megan and Matt). The study was conducted during after care in a smaller classroom for Matt. Each session was conducted on a carpeted area of a classroom that was visually divided from other areas by 10 containers of blocks.
Study sample
This study included three preschool students with individualized education plans (IEPs) from one early childhood school. Megan was a Black female with developmental delays. Toby was a white male with Down Syndrome. Matt was a white male with Pierre Robin Syndrome and an IEP eligibility under developmental delay. A fourth target student (Elliot) was included in the study, but he is not part of the subset whose data meets WWC standards. Each target student was paired with a non-target student for the study who did not have developmental delays or an identified disability. Four female graduate students served as the interventionists and each had experience in early childhood education. A single implementer was assigned to a target/non-target student pair, though substitutions occurred to account for scheduling.
Intervention Group
During the intervention condition sessions, student pairs were instructed by their assigned implementer to play with blocks for 10 minutes. They were provided in a wooden block set consisting of 186 blocks in 14 different shapes. The implementer started each session by asking the students to play and build with blocks. They set a time, and ended the session after 10 minutes. Throughout sessions, the implementer discouraged challenging behavior, such as knocking down blocks, by redirecting students. The implementer would imitate the students by building block structures with the same number of types of blocks, and verbally bring attention to their imitations. After a couple imitations, the implementer would then expand the students' constructions by adding at least one new block to their imitation 6–8 times per session. Implementers would describe how they expanded their imitation and provide direct praise to the students when they did the same.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single-case designs. During baseline sessions, student pairs were instructed by their assigned implementer to play with blocks for 10 minutes. The implementer introduced the session, set a timer, and ended the session after 10 minutes. Every minute during the session, the implementer would narrate the students' play with comments such as "You are building with blocks". The implementer did not imitate students' block play or manipulate any blocks.
Support for implementation
Given that the study involved small children, some small modifications were included in implementation for each pair. For Megan, snacks were provided as reinforcement alongside praise. For Toby, a token board was used to reinforce staying in the intervention area. For Matt, instructions were given to not knock down the structures being built.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).