Relationships between Play andLearning Practices among
Low-Income Families•
Myae Han, Leanne Whiteside-Mansell,
Jason T. Hustedt, Deborah Drain,
Rubie Eubanks, Christina Joe,
Imani Lawson, and Annette Pic

The authors examine the relationships between home play and learning—measured by reading and teaching practices at home—among low-income
families, including those with mental health issues. Based on a large databasefrom the Family Map Inventory, a screening tool for home visiting programs,
the authors’ findings revealed that play-related concerns such as play materials, home play, and the variety of play away from home had significant
impact. They conclude that care givers who provide children with more
play opportunities both at home and away from home tend to read bookswith children more frequently and to teach them more basic academic skills.
This suggests that early play interactions can contribute to early learningand implies that intervention programs such as Early Head Start and homevisiting programs focusing on play may boost a family’s resilience and add
value to existing services. Key words: infant and toddler play; learning andplay; mental health and play; play in low-income families

Introduction

Scholars generally believe play to be essential and critical in childdevelopment, but some have questioned and challenged the effectiveness of play
as a learning mechanism (Lillard et al. 2013; Lugo-Gil and Dang 2020; Whitebread 2019). Researchers studying play as a teaching strategy often compare it totheir direct instruction aimed at targeted outcomes and with their experimental
designs. For example, some have compared play to literacy instruction (Dickinson et al. 2019) and math instruction (Kotsopoulos et al. 2015), as well as toother types of direct instruction. Perhaps because play is a broad concept, onethat represents various types of activities regardless of their benefits for academic
learning, the breadth of play in the academic learning process is less likely to be
136

American Journal of Play, Volume 15, number 2 © 2023 by The Strong
Contact Myae Han at myaehan@udel.edu

Relationships between Play and Learning Practices

captured in experimental studies. To do so, researchers would have to include a
range of play activities and learning outcomes to show the effects of play.
A recent review of the impact of play on child development revealed that
qualitative and quasi-experimental approaches proved the most frequently usedmethods in play research (Lai et al. 2018) and suggested that future studies
should consider different approaches to provide wide scientific evidence of the
impact of play. Weisberg, Hirsh-Pasek, and Golinkoff (2013) also called for amore holistic approach to the study of play and learning, moving away fromtraditional empirical approaches to different statistical methods that can embrace
the full variety and complexity of play. Some scholars have also consistently
criticized the small sample sizes in play research (Lillard et al. 2013), and we doindeed need studies with larger samples.
The study described in this article aims to fill the gaps in the current literature about play and learning research by including various aspects of play practice (play materials, home play, variety of play), by examining the relationshipbetween play and learning in home contexts instead simply of clinical and school
contexts, by using a large sample size of low-income families and by including
the mental health status of care givers. This study took a different approach tounderstanding the relationship between play and learning by focusing on homelearning practices rather than on outcomes, as other studies have explored. We
sought to understand how play relates to learning practices that are linked with
future learning outcomes. For example, if play influences language-learning
practice, we can hypothesize it might in turn influence language outcomes.
Family systems theory constitutes our theoretical framework. This theoryof human behavior defines the family unit as a complex social system in which
members interact to influence each other’s behavior (Kerr and Bowen 1988).
The family systems theory (Broderick 1993; Cox and Paley 1997) posits thatfamily members influence each other in predictable and recurring ways andthat individuals must be understood in the context of the family (Smith andHamon 2012). The theory has been used in a variety of areas such as psychotherapy, family therapy, and health care. In this study, we investigated activities
and interactions that take place within families. By examining care giver andchild interactions at home, we could identify recurring home play and learning
practices that predict a child’s later learning and development. Family systems
theory considers both communication and interaction patterns and adaptationin context. By focusing on family behaviors and activities instead of individual
behaviors, we could better understand the relationship between home play andlearning practice among low-income families and whether the mental health sta-

137

138

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYtus of care givers relates to this relationship between play and learning practice.

Parent-Child Interactions
Parent-child interactions are a fundamental part of a young child’s development. From the tone and frequency of each word a parent speaks to the experiences and feelings parents have with their children, each interaction makes
an impression that can last a lifetime. Positive parent-child interactions andpractices include, but are not limited to, sensitive responses to child cues, praising the child, singing, frequent child-led playtime, coloring, playing counting
and rhyming games, going on family outings, shared book reading, and family
mealtimes. Play provides a major context for positive interaction during theearly years. Positive interactions can have a profound effect on the social andemotional development of young children and can reduce or prevent behavior issues in children and contribute to better self-regulation when they startelementary school (Bardack, Herbers, and Obradović 2017; Reedtz, Handegård, and Mørch, 2011). In children who have adverse childhood experiences(ACEs), positive parenting serves as protection against social and emotional
challenges and risks of developmental delay (Yamaoka and Bard 2019). Positive parenting, especially home learning, also helps children whose mothers
experience postpartum depression (Giallo et al. 2018). Increased literacy andknowledge of math among young children are also associated with positiveparenting (Van Voorhis et al. 2013). Furthermore, parents report that positiveparenting can even reduce their stress and increase their self-efficacy (Cooley
et al. 2014; Reedtz, Handegård, and Mørch 2011).
Parents who view themselves as effective are more likely to engage with
their children at home, which in turn is associated with higher levels in their children’s academic performances (Coleman and Karraker 1997; Hoover-Dempsey,
Bassler, and Brissie 1992). As a result, the engagement of parents with theirchildren at home is an important aspect of positive parenting. In particular,
numerous studies have linked language and literacy activities, as well as mathactivities, at home for children ages three to eight years old to higher academic
achievement in literacy and math as well as positive social and emotional outcomes (Van Voorhis et al. 2013). For example, meta-analysis of home-based
literacy interventions in early childhood including home tutoring, listening tochildren read, dialogic reading, and shared book reading, have been associatedRelationships between Play and Learning Practices

with later gains in standardized literacy testing and vocabulary skills. Further,an enriched home-learning environment that includes a variety of activities andexperiences has been associated positively with preschooler vocabulary and letter
identification (Chazan-Cohen et al. 2009) and better outcomes in reading, math,and self-regulation (Melhuish 2010). Further, intervention studies of in-homeactivities for low-income families that support math in preschool-aged children
have associated cooking, board games, and the use of at-home math materials
with higher posttest math skills (Van Voorhis et al. 2013).
Negative parent-child interactions and harsh parenting can have a detrimental impact on children (Chang et al. 2003; Mackenbach et al. 2014). However,even when interactions are not negative, but there is simply a lack of positive
interactions, the effects on children can still be damaging. Lack of positive parenting interactions and practices increases the risk of developmental delay inchildren from low-income families (Shah et al. 2015). Infants who have lessverbal interaction with their parents by age three have significantly reduced
language development, vocabulary, and reading comprehension in elementary
school (Hart and Risley 2003). A lack of positive parent-child interactions canalso weaken the parent-child relationship and affect the child’s ability to bondwith others in the future (Bowlby 1988).
Further, poor parental mental health is considered both an ACE as well as
a by-product of adverse experiences in adults associated with intergenerational
continuity of trauma when combined with poverty (Bouvette-Turcot et al. 2017;
Bouvette-Turcot et al. 2019). Other findings indicate that positive parenting
moderates the effects of ACEs on social, emotional, and general development
skills but that a complete absence of positive parenting equals the effect of four
ACEs on such social and emotional skills and increases the likelihood of developmental delays (Yamoka and Bard 2019). Clearly, positive parent-child interactions play a vital role in the development of children.

Play and Early Learning
Extensive research suggests the positive effects of play on child development.
More specifically, research demonstrates a relationship between play and literacy(Rand and Morrow 2021). Studies of literacy-related play indicate that emergent
literacy skills among young children can be promoted in a play setting (Saracho
and Spodek 2006) in different cultures, although attitudes about play as a vehicle

139

140

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYfor learning vary (Roopnarine,Yilirim, and Davidson 2019). For example, Han
and her colleagues (2010) examined the effect of an explicit instruction vocabulary protocol (EIVP) in the context of guided play and noted a difference in
expressive language scores and steeper receptive-vocabulary growth trajectories
for children who were exposed to EIVP plus play compared to the children
exposed only to EIVP. Further, play is a natural context in which children can
explore new ways to merge language and thought (Pelletier 2011) and to practicereading and writing skills that foster the literacy necessary for formal reading(Saracho and Spodek 2006).
Research (Hassinger-Das 2018; Toub et al. 2018) also suggests that children learn early math skills through playful learning in the context of guided
play (play with adult scaffolding) and free play (child-initiated, child-directedplay). Early math skills, defined as a collection of basic concepts such as counting, quantity, shapes, spatial relations, measurement, and patterns (Harris andPetersen 2019) are a strong predictor of future success in reading and math(Duncan et al. 2007). Emfinger (2009) identified the mathematical behaviors
present in dramatic and pretend play (role play pretending to be different roles)
to include one-to-one correspondence, counting, adding, subtracting, and representing numbers by written and spoken signs and symbols. These findings
suggest dramatic play facilitates numerate skills and offers a valid context for theestablishment of numerate behaviors. In a randomized controlled trial, greater
gains in math skills—such as numeracy, shape recognition, and mathematicallanguage—were noted among children who engaged in semistructured blockplay in a treatment group to enhance math learning compared to the control
group (Schmitt et al. 2018). On the other hand, Elliot and Bachman (2018)suggest that numeracy may be best promoted through more formal than informal math activities with children at home. The researchers further suggest theeffectiveness of formal versus informal activities may also be related to the levelof maturation of the children, the autonomy allowed them in numeracy activity,
and the level of intentionality and comfort with numeracy among the parents.
A recent review of guided play and learning suggests that guided play has agreater positive effect than direct instruction on early math and language skills(Skene et al. 2022). This meta-analysis of thirty-nine intervention studies shows
specifically that guided play had a greater positive effect than direct instruction
on early math, shape knowledge, and task switching and that free play had
a greater positive effect on spatial vocabulary. Some researchers consider the
existing evidence about pretend play and other developmental considerations

Relationships between Play and Learning Practices

such as social skills, problem solving, and creativity too questionable and insufficient to draw conclusions. Lillard and her colleagues reviewed the literaturelinking pretend play and developmental benefits and concluded that pretend
play scholarship is problematic. They cited experimenter bias, very small sample
size, difficulty to replicate, nonrandom assignment, confounding of implementor with intervention, and unsound statistical practices (e.g., one-tailed tests
without prior rationale). They concluded that conducting an experimental studyof pretend play and measuring its effect on learning outcomes is a difficult task,
making causality between play and learning elusive (Lillard et al. 2013).
Although these findings make it difficult to draw a direct line between
pretend play and developmental benefits, other forms of play such as guided
play have been shown to increase oral language development and word learning (Hadley and Dickinson 2019; Han et al. 2010). Play studies about fostering
vocabulary development among low-income children have focused on sharedbook reading as a strategy for merging play and oral language development toincrease vocabulary acquisition and build language. For instance, in two intervention studies by Toub and her associates (Toub et al. 2018) that explored therole of play following shared book reading in increasing vocabulary among lowincome preschoolers, the researchers found that adult-supported, play-based
activities were more effective than direct instruction.

Parenting and Mental Health
Mental health challenges such as depression, anxiety, and hostility can occur in
low-income families. Given the psychological tensions often related to poverty,
struggles with mental health may increase the difficulty parents face in engaging
with their children and even dampen their emotional responses to them. The
impacts of parental mental health on child outcomes are mixed. Children may
face greater cognitive, emotional, and behavioral consequences (Yamamoto
and Keogh 2018). In addition, parents who have high anxiety can often display
hostility. Parents who are hostile may exhibit negative feelings toward theirchildren and easily become irritated. Such parents often grow agitated during
these stressful interactions with their children. Consistent with predictions fromfamily systems theory, these behaviors may have negative effects on the parentchild relationship and may impact the home environment negatively (Newland,
Ciciolla, and Crinic 2015; Osyerman et al. 2005).

141

142

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

Although mental health issues such as depression and stress may leadto fewer positive parenting behaviors, negative outcomes are not a certainty.
Parent self-efficacy, especially related to discipline, play, and nurture, has beenfound to be a moderator that affects the strength or direction of these relationships (Meunier and Roskam 2008; Baron and Kenny 1986). Parent self-efficacy
has been found to moderate the negative impact of depression on parent-childengagement in the home among families of children fifteen to thirty-six monthsof age (Peacock-Chambers et al. 2016). A parent’s sense of outcome and selfefficacy has also been found to correlate positively with higher social competence, lower internalizing behavior, and lower externalizing behavior amongchildren three to seven years old.
Mothers experiencing depression can demonstrate resilience in how they
engage with their children at home (Giallo et al. 2018). When mothers maintaina high level of engagement and interaction with their children, the children are
more likely to experience better outcomes. Reading stories, playing together,talking about experiences, and involving children in everyday routines can provide mothers and children with an opportunity to share positive times with one
another as well as promote a warm and responsive relationship. For mothers,
educational attainment and partner support can strengthen their involvementwith home learning. Education can also create access to more social resources
for depressed mothers, and partner support can reduce the magnitude of thetask of child rearing.

Current Study
To fill the gaps in the literature, our study examined how play relates to learning
practices such as home reading and home teaching activities among low-income
families. We also examined the relationship of care giver mental health status to
the links between play and learning. We used three research questions: What is
the relationship between play and home reading practices among low-income
families? What is the relationship between play and home teaching practices
among low-income families? And what is the relationship between play andlearning practices (measured by reading and teaching practices at home) amongcare givers with and without mental health concerns?

Relationships between Play and Learning Practices

MethodData and Measures
Our study used a large database from the infant and toddler version of the Family
Map Inventory (FMI). FMI consists of comprehensive, research-based screening
interviews by early childhood educators of parents (Whiteside-Mansell et al.
2007). The interviews take approximately one hour and are typically conductedat the family home. Trained family service program staff use an FMI interview
to identify family needs and to set relevant goals to support a home that isenriched, safe, and nurturing. FMI has been widely used in home-visiting andcenter-based programs serving children up to five years old and their families
in several states across the United States.
Program service providers rather than researchers collect data from FMI.
Thus, our analyses rely on administrative data. All FMI interview results are
stored in a secure electronic online portal accessible only by FMI staff (fmportal.
cafesarkansas.com). One of the authors of this study, Leanne Whiteside-Mansell,is an FMI developer and researcher, and another, Rubie Eubanks, is a researcher
employed by FMI. They conducted the analyses but were not involved in datacollection. The rest of the authors are researchers working with the Early Head
Start Program using FMI.
This study used two domains of FMI relevant to our research questions: “early learning” and “care giver mental health.” The early learning domain
includes subdomains such as “play materials,” “parent-child play,” “reading tochild,” “teaching child,” and “variety of experience.” The care giver mental healthdomain includes “parental stress,” “care giver depression,” “hostility,” and “anxiety.” The developers of FMI have published acceptable evidence of reliability andvalidity (Whiteside-Mansell et al. 2010; Whiteside-Mansell et al. 2013). With theinfant toddler version of FMI, Whiteside-Mansell and her associates (WhitesideMansell et al. 2013) report internal consistency reliability for domains where
there are enough questions to do so. (For early learning, α =0.69-0.80). They
also report validity of the infant toddler FMI based on prior work with the earlychildhood FMI (Whiteside-Mansell et al. 2007; Whiteside-Mansell et al. 2010)
as well as the additional assessments of some constructs. For early learning,
identification rates appear similar to published estimates. For care giver mental
health, responses to each set of interview questions correlate significantly withresults from data from the national Head Start Family and Child Experiences
Study (FACES) (Zill et al. 2003).

143

144

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYWe based our summary of scale constructs on previous play and learning
literature using items from the FMI. Figure 1 explains how we created the variable scales with FMI items.
For the play scale, we used three subscales related to play: play materials,
home play, and variety play. The play materials scale was an assessment of theavailability of materials for play in the home—four items scored on a four-point
scale. Play materials includes those supporting fine and gross motor skills—
visual, tactile, creative, and auditory. An example might include: “Do you havethings that your baby is able to feel and cuddle such as stuffed animal, soft cloth,or play mat with textures?” The home play scale provides an assessment of theavailability of the parent-child play interaction at home. The three items focus on
the play activities that occurred the prior week and were scored on a four-point
scale. An example might include: “In the past week, how many times did youor someone in your family, play chase or dancing games with the child?” Thevariety play scale assessed the various play events parents arrange away fromhome for their children. These target monthly play events (e.g., going to a local
park, shopping, visiting a friend or relative) and yearly events (e.g., visit a zoo,
an aquarium, or a museum, or attend community events) with a simple yes orno response option.
We composed the reading scale of four items. For example, one item
assessed the number of times a week that the mother-figure, father-figure, oranother adult read to a child. The scale ranged from none to six or more times
a week scored on a four-point scale. Another item assessed the number of children’s books available to a child, in which responses ranged from none to ten
or more on a four-point scale.
The teaching scale assessed the extent that parents or others in the home
actively taught a child academic skills. The six items focused on the last week andwere scored on a four-point scale from none to six or more times. An example
might include: “In the past week, how many times did you or someone in yourfamily count things with your child; point out letters or words; point out andname colors; or point out and name shapes?”
The care giver mental health scale consisted of screening items for depression (two items), anxiety (three items), and hostility (two items). All items werescored from “not at all” to “nearly every day” on a four-point scale. The depression items came from the patient health questionnaire-2 (PHQ2) in Kroenke,
Spitzer, and Williams (2003). We constructed the hostility and anxiety items
using a similar format. Examples include: “In the past 2 weeks, how often have

Relationships between Play and Learning Practices

Variable Scale

NumberConstructs in Scaleof Items
Play

4Play materials at home: Mirror in the crib, mobile, toys
making noise, stuffed animal, soft cloth, play mat, ball,Materials

crib gym, building toys, art materials, musical toys
Home Play

3

Play

Parent-child playing at home: Playing games such as
peek-a-boo, patty cake, chasing, dancing, playing withtoys or games with child

Variety Play

7

Play outside home: Outings such as shopping, going for awalk to a park, visiting friend, going to a play, concert,
live show, zoo, aquarium, gallery, museum, community
events like a fair, festival, parade, block party

Home Reading

4Home reading practice: Number of books, frequency ofreading, reading partner

Home Teaching

6

Care Giver

7Home teaching practice: Counting, singing alphabet song,
teaching letters or words, colors, shapes
Maternal depression, anxiety, hostility

Mental Health

Figure 1. Variable Scale Creation and Explanation

you been bothered by feeling down, depressed, or hopeless; bothered by having
little interest or pleasure in doing things; bothered by feeling suddenly scared
for no reason; or bothered by feeling tense or nervous?”

SampleThe sample for this study includes child and parent-care giver dyads in the Family Map Inventory database. We extracted data from the electronic Family Map
portal. Our study targeted children up to thirty-six months old using the infanttoddler version of the FMI database. From the larger database, we restricted ouranalyses to FMI interviews of parents of infants or toddlers conducted between
July and December 2019 (N=1,107), so that all the data we collected came from

145

146

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYinterviews prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. We excluded repeat interviews forthe same child (N=31, keeping the earliest interview), interviews that omitted
the questions related to all of the play scales (N=23), and interviews of a second
child in the home (N=157).
We describe the resulting analytic sample (N=896) for this study in figure
2. The data consists of families from five states: Arkansas (39.5 percent), Arizona(30.2 percent), Texas (13.6 percent), Delaware (12.3 percent), and Maryland (3.9
percent). Families were enrolled mostly in Early Head Start or Head Start programs (69.2 percent), Arkansas home visiting programs (26.6 percent), Arkansas
funded state programs (2.8 percent), and other Arkansas center-based programs(1.5 percent). As a result, families in the study are participants in federal andstate programs targeting families in poverty with young children.
Most children in our sample were White (47.3 percent) or Black (28.8
percent), but a smaller proportion of children identified as other races (5.0
percent), multiple races (4.7 percent), American Indian (1.3 percent), Asian (1.0
percent), or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (0.7 percent). For 11.2 percent of
the children, we did not know their race. We gathered data on children’s ethnicity separately from the data on race. Our ethnicity data show that nearly half ofthe children (46.6 percent) were Hispanic or Latino. There were slightly more
female children (57.1 percent) than male (42.9 percent). Children’s ages ranged
up to thirty-six months (M=19.56, SD=9.6 months). Nearly all respondents in
the interviews were biological parents (91.5%; mothers, N=784 or fathers, N=36)
with other respondents including foster parents (N=17), adoptive parents (N=7),
grandparents (N=13), or other care givers (N=7). Spanish was spoken in thehomes of many children (N=35.6 percent), and even more respondents considered their family to be Hispanic or Latino (46.6 percent). About one-fifth of the
respondents (21.2 percent) did not have a high school diploma. Respondent ages
ranged from fourteen to seventy-six years (M=29.5, SD=7.8 years). And many
respondents worked full or part-time (twenty to sixty hours, 49.0 percent; notworking, 41.7 percent; one to twenty hours, 9.3 percent). Most families included
children in addition to the target child for FMI responses (73.6 percent) andother adults (73.0 percent).

Analysis
We conducted all analyses using IBM SPSS Statistics 28, statistical softwareRelationships between Play and Learning Practices

FactorN (896)
Child Demographics

GenderFemale
512
Male
384
Race
White
424
American Indian
12
Asian
9
Black
258
Native Hawaiian/Pacific
6
Other
45
Multiple
42
Unknown100
Age in months (M, SD, range)(19.6, 9.6, 0-36)
Primary Care Giver Demographics
GenderFemale857
Male
39
Relationship to child
Biological parent
820
Foster parent
17
Adoptive parent
7
Grandparent
13
Other or unknown
39
Language status
English534
Spanish
319
Other
36
Unknown
7
Level of education
No high school diploma
190
GED
40
High school diploma
310
Technical certificate or license
93
AA, AS, or some college
149
College degree
99
Unknown
15
Care giver Mental HealthNo concern
Concern
Unknown

546
329
21

%
57.1
42.9
47.3
1.3
1.0
28.8
0.7
5.0
4.7
11.2

95.6
4.4
91.5
1.9
0.8
1.5
4.3
59.6
35.6
4.0
0.8
21.2
4.5
34.6
10.4
16.6
11.0
1.7
60.9
36.7
2.3

Figure 2. Demographic Information for Sample

2

147

148

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYwidely used for research and business. We began by carrying out two multiple
regressions to investigate whether the play scales (play materials, home play,variety play) could significantly predict the home reading or home teaching
scales. We examined four additional multiple regressions to investigate the disruption of care giver mental health on the links between play and home readingor home teaching. We used care giver mental health scores to create two groupsof families: one with care giver mental health concerns and one with no caregiver mental health symptoms. Care givers with concerns reported at least one
symptom occurring at least “several days” on the two items of the screening.
Finally, to test the strength of the regression coefficient across groups in thelast four ordinary least square regression models, we tested the interactions ofcare giver mental health status with the three play scales in separate regression
analyses. In these models, we created interaction terms as the product of mental
health scale and the individual play scale. Models included controls for all threeplay scales.

Results
What is the Relationship between Play andHome Reading Practice among Low-Income Families?
Figure 3 reports results from the regression analysis of the relationship between
play and home reading. For reading at home, the overall regression model was
significant. The results of the regression model indicated that all three play scales(play materials, home play, variety play) were significant predictors of homereading F (3,823) = 93.49, p < .001. All independent factors contributed significantly to home reading. Among the three play scales, variety play (B=.638, p <.001) was the strongest predictor of home reading.
What is the Relationship between Play and Home
Teaching Practice among Low-Income Families?
Figure 3 also reports results from the regression analysis of the relationshipbetween play and home teaching. For home teaching, the overall model was
significant. The results of the regression model indicated that all three play scales(play materials, home play, variety play) were significant predictors of hometeaching, F (3,843) = 344.24, p < .001. All independent factors contributed significantly to teaching practices at home. Among the three play scales, the variety

149

Relationships between Play and Learning Practices

Home Reading
VariableB

SE B

Constant

.310

.092

Play Materials

.222

.032

Home Play.211

Variety Play

.638

β

Home Teaching
t

B

SE B

β

3.39***

-.041

.076

.229

6.99***

.165

.027

.156

6.21***

.032

.219

6.62***

.589

.026

.567

22.30***

.083

.244

7.68***

.634

.069

.224

9.20***

t-.537

R2=0.254, Adj. R2=0.251, (N=826) R2=0.551, Adj R2 = 0.549, (N=846)***= p<.001
Figure 3. Regression Analysis of the Relationships between Play and Reading and Teaching
Practiceof play (B=.634, p < .001) and home play (B=.589, p < .001) were the strongest
predictors of home teaching.
What Is the Relationship between Play and Learning Practice(Measured by Reading and Teaching Practice at Home) among
Care Givers with and without Mental Health Concerns?
Figure 4 shows the regression analysis of the relationship between play and reading or teaching practices at home while considering the mental health status ofcare givers (“mental health concern group” versus “no mental health concern
group”). The results of the regression model for the no mental health concern
group indicated that all play scales were significant predictors of home reading (F(3,511) = 54.71, p < .001) and home teaching (F (3,519) = 192.13, p < .001). All
independent factors contributed significantly to reading and teaching practices
in the no mental health concern group.
The regression model for the mental health concern group found similar
patterns. All play scales proved significant predictors of reading at home (F(3,294) = 37.18, p < .001) and teaching at home (F (3,304) = 147.42, p < .001). All
independent factors contributed significantly to reading and teaching practices
in the mental health concern group.
In both groups of families, those with and without mental health concerns,
an examination of the standardized betas indicates that the predictive power

3

150

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

Home Reading
Variable

B

Care Giver Mental health

SE B

β

Home Teachingt

B

No-Concern group

Constant

.346

.120

Play Materials

.177

.039

Home Play.232

Variety Play

.706

SE B

β

t

No-Concern group
2.88

-.057

.100

-.572

.190

4.52***

.167

.033

.168

5.08***

.043

.228

5.41***

.588

.036

.544

16.4***

.103

.273

6.86***

.655

.086

.238

7.59***

R2=0.253, Adj. R2=0.239, (N=514)

R2=0.526, Adj. R2=0.523, (N=522)

Concern group

Concern group

Care Giver Mental health
Constant

.216

.147

1.47

-.018

.123

Play Materials

.296

.056

Home Play.199

Variety Play

.463

.290

5.32***

.155

.046

.133

3.34***

.049

.228

4.06***

.591

.041

.601

14.6***

.148

.171

3.13***

.630

.121

.209

5.20***

R2=0.275, Adj. R2=0.268, (N=297)-.148

R2=0.593, Adj. R2=0.589, (N=307)*** p < 0.01
Figure 4. Regression Analysis of the Relationship between Play and Reading and Teaching
Practices among Care Givers with and without Mental Health Concernsof a variety of play was strongest among other play scales for both reading andteaching.
We also examined the potential difference in the main effects of the playscales on reading and teaching practices when the care giver exhibited mental
health symptoms. In an examination of the play scales and the interaction ofeach play scale controlling for the three main effects, we found that none of theinteractions was significant. This result suggests that the play scales function
similarly across families regardless of mental health status. The pattern of therelationship between play and learning were similar in both groups of families
with and without the mental health concern. Although it is not our researchquestion, our preliminary analysis examined the group differences and found4that there was no statistical difference in play materials and home play, but thereRelationships between Play and Learning Practices

was a statistical difference in the variety of play (t=.392, p<.001). This calls fora more in-depth future study.

Discussion

In response to recommendations from researchers (e.g., Lai et al. 2018; Lillard
et al. 2013; Weisberg et al. 2013) calling for more nuanced analyses employing
larger sample sizes for play research, our study promotes understanding of therelation between several components of play and children’s early learning. Withrich and large data from the infant-toddler Family Map Inventory gatheredfrom numerous U.S. sites at a single point in time, we were able to examine how
play relates to the process of learning, home reading practices, and care givers’
teaching practices for their children and found stronger relationships compared
to previous studies.
Our study revealed that matters related to play such as play materials andtoys, play between parents and children at home, and the variety of play awayfrom home significantly predicted home learning practices such as reading andteaching. In general, care givers who support children’s play are likely to support their young children’s learning as well. First, when examining relationships
between play and care givers’ reading practices, we found that all three playscales—play materials, home play, and variety play—predicted home reading
practices among low-income families. Next, when examining relationships
between play and home teaching, we once again found that each of the three playscales predicted home teaching. Finally, when studying how these relationships
might vary based on care givers’ mental health issues, our regression models forboth no-concern and mental health concern groups successfully predicted homereading and home teaching based on the three play scales. However, interaction
tests showed no differences in the care giver’s mental health status and how theplay scales function.
It was interesting to find that the variety of play was the strongest predictor
of home reading and teaching practices by care givers. Care givers who provide
their children more play opportunities outside the home read books more frequently and taught basic academic skills at home. Previous literature on play andlearning did not distinguish between home practices and the variety of play awayfrom home. Fortunately, we were able to examine this distinction in types of play,
due to the in-depth, nuanced, and personal level of FMI data. These patterns
were similar among care givers with and without mental health concerns. Thisimplies that play could make important contributions to the resilience of young

151

152

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

children experiencing risk, if incorporated into early intervention approaches.
Given that some risk factors are hard to change, early intervention programs focusing on play might offer efficient ways to boost the resiliency of thefamily. Early Head Start and home-visiting programs, which already focus oninteractions between care givers and children in low-income families, are highly
relevant contexts in which an expanded emphasis on play may be a valuableaddition to existing services. Further, the predictive power of the FMI play scales
indicates that the FMI can be a valuable tool in informing service delivery inthese types of early intervention settings.
While the FMI is a promising measurement tool that can help both practitioners and researchers understand how play relates to care giver learning practices, our approach has limitations that could be addressed in future research.
First, the FMI relies upon self-report data from care givers. Although FMI developers train early childhood staff on the use of the FMI at each site, care givers
may not be consistently accurate in responding to the interview questions. Also,
our data are cross-sectional. Although the FMI database would allow for longitudinal comparisons, our ability to conduct such analyses was constrained by
the pandemic, because it is likely that families’ home behaviors (and the ability to engage in activities outside the home) would have been impacted after
our initial fall 2019 data collection point. Future researchers should be able toexamine how children’s play experiences develop over time and how this relates
to home teaching and reading. Early childhood programs in different locations
offer another challenge to employing multisite datasets of this type because suchprograms have different emphases. Although the purpose of our study was not
to examine these program-level differences, future analysis could potentiallyincorporate them.
Another future study should examine in depth play and home learning
among those concerned with mental health compared to those not concerned.
Although not addressed in our research, our preliminary analysis showed that
there were statistical differences in the variety of play between the group concerned with mental health issues and the group that was not so concerned. Thishas prompted researchers to seek further examination in a future study.
Our study provides new insight that care givers who play with children are
more likely to support home reading and academic learning. Care givers who
understand the importance of play and support play at home are more likely
to support age appropriate learning. Play interaction with their children could
provide the background knowledge and experiences necessary to engage inRelationships between Play and Learning Practices

later academic learning at school. Finally, our study helps identify opportunities and content areas for care givers to interact with their children to support
their learning and, potentially, for early childhood programs to help support
care givers doing so.

References
Bardack, Sarah, Janette E. Herbers, and Jelena Obradović. 2017. “Unique Contributionsof Dynamic versus Global Measures of Parent-Child Interaction Quality in Predicting School Adjustment.” Journal of Family Psychology 31:649–58.
Baron, Reuben M., and David A. Kenny. 1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical
Considerations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:1173–82.
Bouvette-Turcot, Andrée-Anne., Eva Unternaehrer, Hélène Gaudreau, John E. Lydon,
Meir Steiner, and Michael J. Meaney. 2017. “The Joint Contribution of MaternalHistory of Early Adversity and Adulthood Depression to Socioeconomic Status
and Potential Relevance for Offspring Development.” Journal of Affective Disorders
207:26–31.doi:10.1016/j.jad.2016.08.012.
Bouvette-Turcot, Andrée-Anne, Alison S Fleming, Eva Unternaehrer, Andrea Gonzales, Leslie Atkinson, Hélène Gaudreau, Meir Steiner, and Michael J. Meaney. 2019.
“Maternal Symptoms of Depression and Sensitivity Mediate the Relation between
Maternal History of Early Adversity and Her Child Temperament: The Inheritance of Circumstance.” Development and Psychopathology, 32:1–9. doi:10.1017/
S0954579419000488
Bowlby, John. 1988. A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development.
Broderick, Carlfred B. 1993. Understanding Family Process: Basics of Family Systems
Theory.
Chang, Lei, David Schwartz, Kenneth A. Dodge, and Catherine McBride-Chang. 2003.
“Harsh Parenting in Relation to Child Emotion Regulation and Aggression.” Journal of Family Psychology 17:598–606. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.17.4.598.
Chazan-Cohen, Rachel, Helen Raikes, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Catherine Ayoub, Barbara
Alexander Pan, Ellen E. Kisker, Lori Roggman, and Allison Sidle Fuligni. 2009.
“Low-Income Children’s School Readiness: Parent Contributions over the First
Five Years.” Early Education and Development 20:958–77.
Coleman, Priscilla K., and Katherine H. Karraker. 1997. “Self-Efficacy and Parenting
Quality: Findings and Future Applications.” Developmental Review 18:47–85.
Cooley, Morgan E., Amanda Veldorale-Griffin, Raymond E. Petren, and Ann K. Mullis. 2014. “Parent-Child Interaction Therapy: A Meta-Analysis of Child Behavior
Outcomes and Parent Stress.” Journal of Family Social Work 17:191–208. doi:10.1
080/10522158.2014.888696.

153

154

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYCox, Martha J., and Blair Paley. 1997. “Families as Systems.” Annual Review of Psychology 48:243–67.
Dickinson, David K., Molly F. Collins, Kimberly Nesbitt, Tamara Spiewak Toub, Brenna
Hassinger-Das, Elizabeth Burke Hadley, Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, and Roberta Michnick Golinkoff. 2019. “Effects of Teacher-Delivered Book Reading and Play on
Vocabulary Learning and Self-Regulation among Low-Income Preschool Children.” Journal of Cognition and Development 20:136–64.
Duncan, Greg J., Chantelle J. Dowsett, Amy Claessens, Katherine Magnuson, Aletha
C. Huston, Pamela Klebanov, Linda Pagan, Leon Feinstein, Mimi Engel, Jeanne
Brooks-Gunn, Holly Sexton, Kathryn Duckworth, and Crista Japel. 2007. “School
Readiness and Later Achievement.” Developmental Psychology 43:1428–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428.
Elliott, Leanne, and Heather J. Bachman. 2018. “How Do Parents Foster Young Children’s
Math Skills?” Child Development Perspectives 12:16–21. doi: 10.1111/cdep.12249.
Emfinger, Kay. 2009. “Numerical Conceptions Reflected during Multiage Child-InitiatedPretend Play.” Journal of Instructional Psychology 36:326–34.
Giallo, Rebecca, Deirdre Gartland, Hannah Woolhouse, Fiona Mensah, Elizabeth
Westrupp, Jan Nicholson, and Stephanie Brown. 2018. “Emotional-Behavioral
Resilience among Children of First-Time Mothers with and without Depression
across the Early Childhood Period.” International Journal of Behavioral Development 42:214–24.
Hadley, Elizabeth Burke, and David K. Dickinson. 2019. “Cues for Word-Learning during
Shared Book-Reading and Guided Play in Preschool.” Journal of Child Language
46:1202–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000919000552.
Han, Myae, Noreen Moore, Carol Vukelich, and Martha Buell. 2010. “Does Play Makea Difference? How Play Intervention Affects the Vocabulary Learning of At-Risk
Preschoolers.” American Journal of Play 3:82–105. https://www.museumofplay.org/
app/uploads/2022/01/3-1-article-does-play-make-a-difference.pdf.
Harris, Barbara, and Dana Petersen. 2019. “Developing Math Skills in Early Childhood.” Mathematica Policy Research, February. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
ED594025.pdf.
Hart, Betty, and Todd R. Risley. 2003. “The Early Catastrophe: The 30 Million Word Gap
by Age 3.” American Educator 27:4–9.
Hassinger-Das, Brenna, Jennifer M. Zosh, Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, and Roberta M. Golinkoff.
2018. “Playing to Learn Mathematics.” Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development. https://www.child-encyclopedia.com/play-based-learning/accordingexperts/playing-learn-mathematics.
Hoover-Dempsey, Kathleen V., Otto C. Bassler, and Jane S. Brissie. 1992. “Explorationsin Parent-School Relations.” Journal of Educational Research 85:287–94.
Kerr, Michael E., and Murray Bowen. 1988. Family Evaluation: An Approach Based on
Bowen Theory.
Kotsopoulos, Donna, Samantha Makosz, Joanna Zambrzycka, and Katharine McCarthy.
2015. “The Effects of Different Pedagogical Approaches on the Learning of LengthRelationships between Play and Learning Practices

Measurement in Kindergarten.” Early Childhood Education Journal 43:531–39.
Kroenke, Kurt, Robert L. Spitzer, and Janet B. W. Williams. 2003. “The Patient Health
Questionnaire-2: Validity of a Two-Item Depression Screener.” Medical Care
41:1284–92. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.MLR.0000093487.78664.3C.
Lai, Ngan Kuen, Tan Fong Ang, Lip Yee Por, and Chee Sun Liew. 2018. “The Impact ofPlay on Child Development—A Literature Review.” European Early Childhood
Education Research Journal 26:625–43. doi:10.1080/1350293X.2018.1522479.
Lillard, Angeline S., Matthew D. Lerner, Emily J. Hopkins, Rebecca A. Dore, Eric D.
Smith, and Carolyn M. Palmquist. 2013. “The Impact of Pretend Play on Children’s Development: A Review of the Evidence.” Psychological Bulletin 139:1–34.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029321.
Lugo-Gil, Julieta, and Myley Dang. 2020. “Play as a Teaching Strategy for Children in
Pre-Kindergarten to Grade 3: Findings from the Evidence Review.” IES REL MidAtlantic. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/midatlantic/app/Docs/technicalassistance/RELMA_Play_Evidence_Review_Findings_Memo_final.pdf.
Mackenbach, Joreintje D., Ank P. Ringoot, Jan van der Ende, Frank C. Verhulst, Vincent W. V. Jaddoe, Albert Hofman, Pauline W. Jansen, and Henning W. Tiemeier.
2014. “Exploring the Relation of Harsh Parental Discipline with Child Emotionaland Behavioral Problems by Using Multiple Informants: The Generation R Study.”
PloS One 9:e104793. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104793.
Melhuish, Edward. 2010. “Why Children, Parents, and Home Learning Are Important.”
Early Childhood Matters: Evidence from the Effective Pre-school and Primary Education Project, edited by Kathy Sylva, Edward Melhuish, Pam Simmons, Iram SirajBlatchford, and Brenda Taggart, 44–69.
Meunier, Jean-Christophe, and Isabelle Roskam. 2009. “Self-Efficacy Beliefs amongst
Parents of Young Children: Validation of a Self-Report Measure.” Journal of Childand Family Studies 18:495–511.
Newland, Rebecca P., Lucia Ciciolla, and Keith A. Crinic. 2015. “Crossover Effects
Among Parental Hostility and Parent-Child Relationships during the Preschool
Period.” Journal Child Family Studies 24:2107–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826014-0012-7.
Oyserman, Daphna, Deborah Bybee, Carol Mowbray, and Tamera Hart-Johnson. 2005.
“When Mothers Have Serious Mental Health Problems: Parenting as a Proximal Mediator.” Journal of Adolescence 28:443–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.11.004.
Peacock-Chambers, Elizabeth, Justin T. Martin, Kelly A. Necastro, Howard J. Cabral,and Megan Bair-Merritt. 2016. “The Influence of Parental Self-Efficacy and Perceived Control on the Home Learning Environment of Young Children.” Academic
Pediatrics 17:176–83.
Pelletier, Janette. 2011. “Supporting Early Language and Literacy.” What Works?
Research into Practice, Research Monograph 38. October. http://www.edugains.
ca/resourcesLIT/ResourceCollection/What%20Works/WW_Early_Language.pdf.
Rand, Muriel K., and Lesley Mandel Morrow. 2021. “The Contribution of Play Expe-

155

156

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYriences in Early Literacy: Expanding the Science of Reading.” Reading Research
Quarterly 56:239–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.383.
Reedtz, Charlotte, Bjørn Helge Handegård, and Willy-Tore Mørch. 2011. “Promoting Positive Parenting Practices in Primary Pare: Outcomes and Mechanisms of
Change in a Randomized Controlled Risk Reduction Trial.” Scandinavian Journalof Psychology 52:131–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2010.00854.x.
Roopnarine, Jaipaul L., Elif Dede Yildirim, and Kimberly L. Davidson. 2019. “MotherChild Play and Father-Child Play in Different Cultural Contexts.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Play: Developmental and Disciplinary Perspectives, edited byPeter K. Smith and Jaipaul L. Roopnarine, 142–64.
Saracho, Olivia N., and Bernard Spodek. 2006. “Young Children’s LiteracyRelated Play.” Early Child Development and Care 176:707–21. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03004430500207021.
Schmitt, Sara A., Irem Korucu, Amy R. Napoli, Lindsey M. Bryant, and David J. Purpura. 2018. “Using Block Play to Enhance Preschool Children’s Mathematics andExecutive Functioning: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Early Childhood Research
Quarterly 44:181–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.04.006.
Shah, Reshma, Sarah A. Sobotka, Yi-Fan Chen, and Michael E. Msall.2015. “Positive
Parenting Practices, Health Disparities, and Developmental Progress.” Pediatrics
136:318–26. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-3390.
Skene, Kayleigh, Christine M. O’Farrelly, Elizabeth M. Byrne, Natalie Kirby, Eloise C. Stevens, and Paul G. Ramchandani. 2022. “Can Guidance during Play Enhance Children’s Learning and Development in Educational Contexts? A Systematic Review
and Meta-Analysis.” Child Development 93:1162–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/
cdev.13730.
Smith, Suzanne R., and Raeann R. Hamon. 2012. Exploring Family Theories. 3rd ed.
Toub, Tamara S., Brenna Hassinger-Das, Kimberly Turner Nesbitt, Hande Ilgaz, Deena
Skolnick Weisberg, Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, Roberta Michnick Golinkoff, Ageliki
Nicolopoulou, and David K. Dickinson. 2018. “The Language of Play: Developing
Preschool Vocabulary through Play Following Shared Book-Reading.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 45:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.01.010.
Van Voorhis, Frances L., Michelle F. Maier, Joyce L. Epstein, and Chrishana M. Lloyd.
2013. The Impact of Family Involvement on the Education of Children Ages 3 to 8:
A Focus on Literacy and Math Achievement Outcomes and Social-Emotional Skills.
MDRC.
Weisberg, Deena Skolnick, Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, and Roberta Michnick Golinkoff. 2013.
“Embracing Complexity: Rethinking the Relation Between Play and Learning:
Comment on Lillard et al. (2013).” Psychological Bulletin 139:35–39.
Whitebread, David. 2019. “Overview: The Contribution of Research in Developmental
Psychology to Early Childhood Education.” In The SAGE Handbook of Developmental Psychology and Early Childhood Education, edited by David Whitebread,
Valeska Grau, Megan McClelland, Nancy Perry, and Deborah Pino-Pasternak,
1–19.

Relationships between Play and Learning Practices

Whiteside-Mansell, Leanne, Robert Bradley, Nicola Conners, and Patti Bokony. 2007.
“The Family Map: Structured Family Interview to Identify Risks and Strengths in
Head Start Families.” NHSA Dialog 10:189–209.
Whiteside-Mansell, Leanne, Danya Johnson, Nicola A. Conners-Burrow, Lorraine McKelvey, and Robert H. Bradley. 2010. “Evidence of the Validity of the Early Childhood Family Map: A Tool to Assess Risk and Strength in Head Start.” Poster
presented at the Head Start Research Conference, Washington, DC, June 21–23,
2010.
Whiteside-Mansell, Leanne, Danya Johnson, Patti Bokony, Lorraine McKelvey, Nicola
Burrow, and Taren Swindle. 2013. “Using the Family Map: Supporting Family
Engagement with Parents of Infants and Toddlers.” Dialog: The Research to Practice Journal for the Early Childhood Field 16:20–44.
Yamaoka, Yui, and David E. Bard. 2019. “Positive Parenting Matters in the Face of
Early Adversity.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 56:530–39. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.11.018.
Yamamoto, Rumi, and Brian Keogh. 2018. “Children’s Experiences of Living with a Parent with Mental Illness: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies Using Thematic Analysis.” Journal Psychiatric Mental Health Nursing 25:131–41. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jpm.12415.
Zill, Nicholas, Gary Resnick, Kwang Kim, Kevin O’Donnell, Alberto Sorongon, Ruth
Hubbell McKey, Shefali Pai-Samant, Cheryl Clark, Robert O’Brien, and Mary Ann
D’Elio. 2003. Head Start FACES 2000: A Whole-Child Perspective on Program Performance. Fourth Progress Report. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families.

157