Children’s Spontaneous Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Behaviours and Engagement in Play with Loose Parts

Children’s Spontaneous Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Behaviours and Engagement in Play with Loose Parts | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Children’s Spontaneous Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Behaviours and Engagement in Play with Loose Parts Ozlem Cankaya, Natalia Rohatyn-Martin, Karen Buro, Keirsten Taylor This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7134028/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 05 Dec, 2025 Read the published version in Communications Psychology → Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Children incorporate what they find in their environment into their play, transforming everyday objects and materials into creativity and exploration. Termed loose parts, these versatile, natural or manufactured materials (e.g., cardboard, pipes, buttons, beads) are widely recommended for supporting young children’s early STEM engagement. While engaging, there is limited empirical work documenting young children’s indoor STEM behaviours through direct observation. Foundational research is needed to delineate how children’s cognitive capacities, home learning environment, and STEM engagement interact during early play to inform more targeted and developmentally grounded STEM education in early years. Using a within-subjects experimental design, we examined children’s STEM behaviours and engagement (N = 60, 32 girls, M = 58.6 months, SD = 10.9) during unstructured solitary play with loose parts and with toys with limited function and affordance (i.e., toy percussion instruments, control). Children’s cognitive functioning, executive function, and home learning environment were assessed via standardized measures and parent reports. Children demonstrated significantly more STEM behaviours with loose parts, particularly constructing, exploring mathematical concepts, communicating intentions, and reasoning about how things work. These behaviours did not differ by sex. Linear regression analyses showed that cognitive functioning predicted STEM engagement with loose parts, while verbal comprehension was the strongest predictor in the control condition. Construction behaviours were the most common STEM behaviours. Parents’ attitudes toward play and children’s executive functioning predicted construction behaviours. Findings underscore the importance of aligning play-based learning environments with children’s cognitive profiles and home experiences, rather than assuming uniform benefits from loose parts across all children. Social science/Psychology/Human behaviour Social science/Education early childhood education loose parts play STEM STEM behaviours STEM engagement mathematical reasoning unstructured play cognitive functioning executive function home learning environment toys Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Play is a key developmental process in early childhood and is increasingly recognized as a natural context and effective entry point for foundational science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) engagement and learning that can lead to innovative thinking (Campbell et al., 2018; Gull et al., 2022; MacDonald et al., 2022; Tselegkaridis & Sapounidis, 2022; Wan et al., 2021; Weisberg et al., 2015). In play, children engage in exploration, hypothesis testing, causal reasoning, and problem-solving behaviours that support them in building knowledge by interacting with their environment (Choi & Ae Ohm, 2018; Lifter et al., 2011; Lillard et al., 2013; Nicolopoulou, 1993). Unstructured play in particular offers opportunities for children to manipulate objects and materials, explore their properties, and engage in problem-solving without play partner intervention or scaffolding (Gold & Elicker, 2020; Hanline et al., 2001; Pellegrini & Gustafson, 2005; Vygotsky, 1967). Educators, researchers, and policymakers increasingly recognize the value of integrating curricular goals with play-based learning (e.g., MacDonald et al., 2022; Makovichuk et al., 2014). One promising approach involves the use of everyday materials and objects commonly referred to as “loose parts” to enrich children’s play. Loose parts are defined as natural or manufactured objects or materials that are not toys but can be repurposed as such by children during play to serve a variety of functions (Beloglovsky & Daly, 2016; Casey & Robertson, 2019; Gull et al., 2022). Loose parts have been widely endorsed for their potential to support STEM learning, education, and innovation (Casey & Robertson, 2019; Gull et al., 2024; Prameswari & Lestariningrum, 2020; Rahardjo, 2019; Wahyuningsih et al., 2020). Yet, despite strong theoretical and qualitative enthusiasm, empirical research on children’s engagement in STEM with loose parts remains limited, particularly regarding its role in indoor contexts (e.g., in playrooms in early learning and childcare; Cankaya et al., 2025). Many of the existing studies have focused on outdoor play and gross motor development (e.g., Flannigan & Dietze, 2017; Gull et al., 2019; Kiewra & Veselack, 2016; Olsen & Smith, 2020; for reviews, see Gibson et al., 2017; Cankaya et al., 2025). Only limited research shows that materials and objects similar to loose parts can support children’s cognitive outcomes (Cankaya et al., 2025). Explicit quantitative research focusing on young children’s STEM behaviours and engagement at home or early learning and child care environments with loose parts does not exist (Cankaya et al., 2025). Understanding the differences in children’s play with a variety of materials is necessary for clarifying the types of interactions that support STEM engagement. Foundational research that explores children’s spontaneous STEM behaviours with loose parts while taking into account children’s cognitive capacities (e.g., executive functioning, IQ) and home learning environment can inform more targeted and developmentally grounded STEM education in early years. The current study addresses this gap by observing preschool-aged children’s STEM behaviours during unstructured solitary play (i.e., when a child plays alone without interacting with others) with loose parts and with toys that offer limited affordance and exploration opportunities (e.g., toy percussion instruments, control). We examined how individual cognitive capacities (IQ and executive function), demographic characteristics (child’s age, sex, and parental education), and home learning environment are associated with children’s observed STEM behaviours. In doing so, this study provides a nuanced understanding of the cognitive and contextual factors that support early STEM behaviours and engagement. In studies examining children’s STEM behaviours and engagement, understanding how cognitive and contextual factors interact is essential for identifying the mechanisms that support the development of STEM interests and competencies. We aimed to document and inform the design of equitable learning environments that align with young children’s developmental capacities and scaffold meaningful STEM engagement prior to the introduction of formal instruction or exposure to advanced STEM domains (e.g., robotics, coding). Spontaneous STEM Behaviours in Early Childhood Research on STEM behaviours in early childhood consistently underscores the importance of play-based and exploratory experiences in fostering foundational STEM competencies that can lead to STEM learning (Gull et al., 2022; Ramani et al., 2014; Lippard et al., 2019; Wan et al., 2021; Weisberg et al., 2016). Zheng and Ng (2024) conducted the only study that focused on unstructured play with loose parts and its power to promote science learning. This teacher action research explored how open-ended questions influence young children’s science learning during play with loose parts in a kindergarten classroom in Singapore. Over five weeks, a teacher-researcher engaged five 4- to 5-year-old children in biweekly 30-minute play sessions, posing open-ended questions designed to prompt science process skills. Data was collected through video/audio recordings, observation checklists, and teacher journals, and analyzed using inductive content analysis. The study found that open-ended questions extended children’s engagement with science-related skills and increased the complexity of their scientific exploration. Additionally, children often independently initiate exploration of scientific concepts such as motion and material transformation during play. However, the study’s small sample size and potential observer bias due to the teacher-researcher’s dual role limit the generalizability and objectivity of the findings. The lack of independent assessment of children's conceptual understanding further restricts the strength of the conclusions. There are many other studies focusing on children’s STEM or STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Mathematics) with loose parts. While they may be rich in descriptions, they are qualitative in nature, often include only reflections of the researchers, or have methodological issues which limit generalizability (Dewi et al., 2024; Rahardjo, 2019; Wahyuningsih et al., 2020). In a scoping review, Gull and colleagues (2022) explored how the use of loose parts can address challenges in teaching STEM. They found 20 studies that emphasize that the use of loose parts encourages creativity, problem-solving, and engineering-like thinking through hands-on engagement. Although their study shares how loose parts could be used to improve learning and student engagement in STEM, they did not evaluate the quality of studies, and most of the studies they identified focus on describing qualitative experiences from teachers’ perspectives. Furthermore, their focus was on older children in elementary classrooms. Systematic reviews point out that the majority of the work with explicit focus on children’s experiences with loose parts involves older children; there is a lack of understanding of how younger children engage with loose parts (Gibson et al., 2017). STEM in early childhood is a multidimensional domain encompassing distinct disciplines, each grounded in its own theoretical foundations, research base, and pedagogical practices (Brenneman et al., 2009; Clements & Sarama, 2016). Furthermore, the integration of arts into STEM, resulting in STEAM, emphasizes interdisciplinary approaches that combine creative expression with technical reasoning (Bequette & Bequette, 2012; Peppler & Wohlwend, 2018). The recent inclusion of coding, robotics, and artificial intelligence further complicates the landscape, requiring navigation of tensions between developmental suitability, curricular goals and innovation (Bers, 2020; Makovichuk et al., 2014; Papadakis, 2021). There are many research studies focusing on various STEM experiences, education, and interventions in early childhood with technological advancements. For example, in another systematic review, Wan et al. (2021) documented empirical studies that included children aged 3 to 8. Their goal was to identify integrated STEM activities and their efficacy. They included studies that were related to programming robots, engineering designs, digital games and comprehensive approaches. Similarly, Tselegkaridis and Sapounidis (2022) highlight the effectiveness of integrating robotics and mobile apps in playful, age-appropriate contexts that support cognitive development. Yet, despite the increasing global engagement in advanced STEM options, early learning and childcare centres frequently lack the infrastructure, educator training, or policy support necessary to implement structured opportunities for technology-enhanced STEM learning (Tselegkaridis & Sapounidis, 2022). These gaps highlight the need to first understand how young children naturally explore STEM concepts through play, as well as to identify the cognitive and contextual factors that can impact children’s effective STEM engagement. Observational studies can be foundational to the development of STEM environments that are inclusive, effective, and responsive to diverse needs when technology and educator training for STEM are not part of the early childhood education ecosystem (Schmitt et al., 2024). Relationship Between Toys, Play Materials, and STEM Behaviours In play, materials and toys can prompt children to involve themselves in a variety of behaviours, explore new strategies, test hypotheses, or shift between play types (Lloyd & Howe, 2003; Trawick-Smith et al., 2015). The nature of the play changes with each toy (Park, 2019). For example, construction materials like blocks may encourage experimentation with balance, symmetry and constructive play (Park, 2019; Schmitt et al., 2024), while repurposed items such as cardboard or string may stimulate creative solutions to everyday problems (Cankaya et al., 2024). Additionally, dolls can increase language use and the number of scenarios in pretend play (Park, 2019; Lillard et al., 2013). Alongside the nature of toys, the availability of toys and play materials significantly shapes play, influencing children’s early learning experiences (Trawick-Smith et al., 2015). Toys have become increasingly commercialized, themed, and technologically sophisticated; they tend to promote structured, predetermined ways of playing that may limit experiences (Coyle & Liben, 2020). Moreover, the number of toys in children’s environment can have an impact on engagement quality (Dauch et al., 2018). Some children, especially those from low socioeconomic backgrounds, do not come into educational settings with the same access to STEM-related toys or experiences as other children (An et al., 2019; Salvatierra López & Cabello, 2022). This gap may hinder children's engagement in play, STEM engagement and learning, particularly when classroom environments do not reflect their home cultures or previous play experiences (Lin & Li, 2019; Rawson, 2023). In response, many early learning programs and home environments have embraced the concept of loose parts (Cankaya et al., 2024; 2025; Makovichuk et al., 2014). Parents and educators play a critical role in facilitating meaningful conversations around these materials, using them to support STEM-related skills like spatial reasoning, inquiry, and design thinking (Casey & Robertson, 2019; Gull et al., 2022; Schmitt et al., 2024). Researchers documented that exploring and manipulating physical principles through objects allows young children to formulate scientific intuitions, serving as potential precursors to learning in STEM subjects (Pellegrini & Gustafson, 2005; Solis et al., 2017). For example, Swirbul et al. (2022) investigated how infants engage in play with objects within their home environments and how this behaviour supports development. They found that infants spent about 60% of the observation time ( M = 88.5 min, SD = 14.4) interacting with a variety of objects, including both toys and common household items. These interactions were typically brief but occurred frequently throughout the observation period. Researchers concluded that spontaneous, everyday object play generates rich opportunities for learning, contributing to young children's cognitive development, starting in infancy. Furthermore, when children play with objects, they act like scientists collecting evidence for testing hypotheses. For instance, Schulz and Bonawitz (2007) found that preschoolers engage in more exploratory play when presented with confounded evidence, where multiple possible causes were mixed and unclear. Using a free-play paradigm, they demonstrated that children were capable of distinguishing between confounded and unconfounded evidence. When toys presented ambiguous causal relationships, children were more likely to explore those toys over new ones, suggesting they were motivated to resolve the ambiguity. Importantly, children also spontaneously disambiguate variables during their play, indicating that even without formal instruction, their exploration is directed toward understanding cause-and-effect relationships. Thus, ambiguity in evidence can enhance preschoolers’ learning by prompting more thoughtful and targeted exploration (Schulz & Bonawitz, 2007). These findings suggest that without structured play or specialized toys, children’s environments support a wide range of STEM experiences (Swirbul et al., 2022). Loose parts in children's environments, such as cardboard tubes, fabric scraps, string, rocks, or containers, can serve as powerful stimuli for STEM exploration and innovation (Gull et al., 2024; Swirbul et al., 2022). Children independently assess which materials to use based on affordances, the perceived possibilities for action that an object offers (Gibson, 2014). These materials can encourage children to observe properties such as weight, texture, flexibility, and balance, prompting them to ask questions, make predictions, and test outcomes in early years (Gull et al., 2025). Because everyday objects and materials with many affordances do not have fixed purposes, they can support open-ended inquiry, encourage problem-solving, and invite children to use trial and error to investigate cause-and-effect relationships. These experiences allow children to transform familiar materials into opportunities for experimentation, reasoning, and scientific thinking in their play (Thibodeau-Nielsen et al., 2025). When observing children’s cognitive development during play with various materials and toys, two core thinking processes are evident: (1) convergent thinking, which focuses on arriving at a single solution, and (2) divergent thinking, which involves generating multiple possibilities (Lloyd & Howe, 2003). Closed-ended materials (e.g., puzzles, percussion instruments) are typically associated with convergent thinking, while versatile materials (e.g., blocks, natural objects) promote divergent thinking by enabling children to explore multiple affordances and outcomes. In a study, Trawick-Smith and colleagues (2015) found that open-ended materials with many affordances, like Duplo Bricks® and Rainbow People®, elicited higher-quality play behaviours. While age did not predict play quality, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES) showed significant interactions with material type, highlighting the importance of both material affordances and individual differences in shaping play activities and outcomes. Children’s Social Versus Solitary Play While social interactions are often credited for enhancing STEM learning (Gold & Elicker, 2020; Gold et al., 2022; Haden et al., 2014; Thibodeau-Nielsen et al., 2025; Zippert et al., 2019), solitary play offers a distinct lens for understanding individual differences in attention, persistence, cognitive flexibility, and problem-solving. In the absence of peer or adult scaffolding, children must independently generate ideas, represent problems, test strategies, and evaluate outcomes, processes that engage multiple cognitive domains (Lloyd & Howe, 2003). Identifying the cognitive demands and affordances of solitary play with different types of materials is essential for designing learning environments. In solitary play, the absence of external guidance requires children to internally regulate their planning, attention, and goal-setting, further strengthening cognitive capacities associated with early STEM learning. In contrast, toys often signal a limited or fixed function, whereas loose parts can be manipulated in varied ways, inviting flexible thinking, sustained exploration and deep cognitive engagement. (Cankaya et al., under review; Kaplan et al., 2023). Gull and colleagues (2019) describe how loose parts encourage self-guided play, allowing children to manipulate, transform, and innovate. In solitary contexts, this autonomy allows children to exercise critical thinking and engage in inquiry-based learning without relying on social input. For instance, a child playing alone in a sandbox might shape sand into a structure, reinforce it with sticks, and decorate it with leaves, testing stability and aesthetic choices simultaneously (Gold & Elicker, 2020; Moore & Tank, 2014). These tasks foster divergent thinking, as children must continuously problem-solve and adapt their approaches (Lloyd & Howe, 2003). Thus, they enable children to combine and reconfigure materials in countless ways, supporting open-ended, self-directed learning experiences (Cankaya et al., 2023; 2024; Daly & Beloglovsky, 2014). These interactions promote executive functioning and self-regulation, while encouraging children to engage in higher-level thinking (Cankaya et al., 2023; Gold et al., 2015). Despite growing emphasis on early STEM education, there remains a significant lack of empirical data on how young children engage with STEM concepts during unstructured, solitary play with a variety of versatile materials. Much of the existing literature focuses on interventions, adult-led instruction or collaborative group settings, leaving a critical gap in our understanding of children’s independent STEM exploration. While previous research has explored how play materials support high-quality play and cognitive development, limited attention has been paid to how children engage with loose parts independently to explore STEM concepts. This study addresses that gap by examining how young children use loose parts in solitary play to engage in STEM behaviours, focusing on the types of behaviours that emerge and how they compare to play with other toys with limited function. Relationship between Cognitive Development and STEM Behaviours Executive function (EF) refers to a set of cognitive processes—including working memory, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility – that enable goal-directed behaviour, self-regulation, and problem-solving in early childhood (Diamond, 2013). EF plays a critical role in children's ability to engage in complex processes and learning tasks (Zelazo et al., 1997). It is particularly relevant in play-based problem-solving, where children must set goals, plan strategies, execute actions, and evaluate outcomes. Zelazo’s four-phase framework of EF, representation, planning, execution, and evaluation, maps onto how children may engage with STEM during play. For instance, when attempting to construct a functional marble run, children must represent the problem (e.g., noticing the marble does not roll), plan a solution (e.g., gather blocks to create an incline), execute their plan, and evaluate the outcome (e.g., adjust the angle or support structure). These cognitive processes are embedded in play and provide a developmental pathway for strengthening EF, STEM thinking and learning simultaneously. During play, children often demonstrate behaviours that reflect core components of their developing EF capacity, including working memory, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility (Bagiati & Evangelou, 2016; Bairaktarova et al., 2011; Brophy & Evangelou, 2007). EF skills have been shown to predict achievement in STEM domains, particularly, mathematics (Diamond, 2013; Gathercole et al., 2003; Titz & Karbach, 2014) and science (Anthony & Ogg, 2020; Bauer & Booth, 2019; Gathercole et al., 2003) and engineering ( Gold et al., 2021). When children interact with toys that do not allow them to immerse in deep exploration, their cognitive capacities, particularly EF, may not be demanded as much (Cankaya et al., 2023; Møller, 2015; Zosh et al., 2015). This aligns with the hierarchical models of EF development (Zelazo et al., 1997; Zelazo & Müller, 2002). However, during solitary play with loose parts, children are challenged to hold multiple mental representations in mind, navigate trial and error, and revise strategies, all without external scaffolding (Carlson et al., 2014; Gold et al., 2021). Children’s capacity for self-regulation and strategic problem-solving increases with age, but the variability is also shaped by individual differences in cognitive functioning, environmental support, and prior experiences (Campbell et al., 2018; Clements & Sarama, 2016). While unstructured play may facilitate cognitive development and STEM-related competencies, empirical clarity on this relationship remains limited (Cankaya et al., 2025). Foundational research is needed to delineate how children’s EF, overall cognitive functioning, and STEM engagement interact during early play experiences to inform more targeted and developmentally grounded STEM education in early years. Other Factors Associated with Children’s STEM Behaviours Studies show that children as young as three years old can meaningfully engage in STEM through guided exploration and experimentation, setting the stage for deeper interest and competency as they grow (Petkova, 2023). However, the nature of this exploration and the behaviours observed can vary significantly by age. Younger children often participate in STEM through sensory-based, open-ended play such as manipulating materials or observing physical effects, whereas older ones tend to demonstrate more advanced behaviours like making predictions, testing hypotheses, and engaging in problem-solving (Counsell & Wright, 2016). Learning trajectories of children of different ages is important for STEM education and can determine how progressively complex skills can be supported as children move through developmental stages (Guss et al., 2023). STEM opportunities can be out of reach for some children due to the uneven distribution of educational resources, parental support, and learning environments (Plasman et al., 2020). The family investment model posits that higher SES enables access to tools and environments that promote cognitive and academic development. In the context of STEM, this means that children from higher-SES families are more likely to have access to age-appropriate toys, electronics, extracurricular programs, and informal learning spaces such as science museums or libraries (Salvatierra López & Cabello, 2022). By contrast, lower-income families may face barriers such as limited financial resources, reduced access to quality early education, or lack of parental familiarity with STEM content, which can hinder both early exposure and sustained interest in these fields (An et al., 2019). Researchers also indicate that children from lower-income households may receive less support in developing STEM skills at home, which can influence long-term academic trajectories (An et al., 2019). Furthermore, higher-income households with more educated parents tend to exhibit stronger STEM achievement and more positive attitudes toward STEM, partly due to differences in early cognitive stimulation and academic support (Turner et al., 2019; Saw et al., 2018). Children’s engagement with STEM is also shaped by the social and cultural contexts of their play, which are influenced by parental attitudes. Gendered socialization, including the marketing and packaging of toys, influences children's interest in and access to STEM activities. Studies show that even subtle cues such as labelling a mechanical toy as “for boys” or “for girls” can alter both children’s behaviours and parental involvement during play (Coyle & Liben, 2020). This gendered patterning can have downstream effects on self-efficacy, interest, and persistence in STEM fields (Weisgram & Dinella, 2018; Leaper & Brown, 2014). The home learning environment, comprising both parental attitudes and the availability of cognitively stimulating activities, has been linked to STEM outcomes (Campbell et al., 2018). In studies examining children’s STEM behaviours and engagement, understanding how cognitive and contextual factors interact is essential for identifying the mechanisms that support the development of STEM interests and competencies. Current Study Research on young children's STEM behaviours and explorations, particularly in the context of observation of play with loose parts, remains limited. Few researchers have examined how young children engage in engineering play (Gold et al., 2020; Gold & Elicker, 2020; Gold et al., 2021), and even fewer have implemented observational methods (Tselegkaridis & Sapounidis, 2022). A precise, developmentally grounded understanding of children’s STEM behaviours with loose parts could enhance both instructional design in early STEM education and scholarly insights into cognitive development and school readiness. Further research is needed to examine how children’s engagement in STEM behaviours, such as problem-solving, hypothesis testing, and construction, relates to cognitive development, including EF and cognitive functioning. Such an inquiry can help situate early STEM behaviours and engagement within broader developmental and educational frameworks. This study addresses two key gaps in the literature on early childhood STEM learning. First, although prior research has examined how early STEM exposure supports cognitive development (e.g., Gold et al., 2015), much of this work has focused on social contexts. Far less attention has been given to how children engage in STEM behaviours during solitary play, despite its relevance for understanding individual cognitive processes. Particularly, research has yet to systematically examine how the affordances of different play materials, such as versatile versus limited-function toys, influence the emergence and frequency of STEM behaviours in unstructured, solitary contexts. Understanding how materials like loose parts shape children's independent STEM behaviours is critical for informing early learning environments and guiding educators and parents in selecting developmentally supportive materials. Second, although the importance of play for supporting cognitive, social, and emotional development is well established, a shift toward structured academic early education, particularly in certain cultural contexts, has contributed to declining opportunities for unstructured play (Cankaya & LeFevre, 2016; Lin & Li, 2020; Pakarinen et al., 2024). This trend may compromise the development of self-regulatory capacities such as EF, attentional control, and behavioural regulation, skills that strongly predict school readiness (Burdette & Whitaker, 2005; Cameron et al., 2015; Miller et al., 2022). Despite these links, play research has largely overlooked how individual differences, such as children's cognitive abilities and home learning environments, influence STEM engagement during solitary play (Cankaya et al., under review). In response to these gaps, the present study examines how material type (loose parts vs. limited-purpose toys) influences the frequency and type of STEM behaviours during solitary play. It also investigates how individual and contextual factors, including cognitive functioning, EF, age, sex, parental education, and home learning environment, relate to variation in children’s STEM behaviours. The study was guided by the following research questions: What types of STEM behaviours do children exhibit when playing with loose parts compared to toys that allow limited opportunities for exploration? How do young children's STEM behaviours and engagement with loose parts vary with cognitive functioning, executive function, parental education, child’s age, sex, and home learning environment? Methodology Participants Children and their parents were recruited for the study from private and not-for-profit daycares in a large city in western Canada. In this data analysis, we included 60 children who participated in both play sessions, completed all cognitive assessments, and had parents who completed the parental questionnaire. Table 1 below includes the characteristics of our participants, which were gathered through parent questionnaires. Table 1 Participant Characteristics Characteristic n (%) Sex (n, % of total sample) Male 28 (46.7%) Female 32 (53.3%) Parent Answered Questionnaire Mother 50 (83.3%) Father 9 (15.0%) Other 1 (1.7%) Home Language Monolingual 28 (46.7%) Multilingual 32 (53.3%) Children’s Birth Country Canada 57 (95.0%) Other 3 (5.0%) Parents’ Birth Country Canada 50 (83.3%) Other 10 (16.7%) Most parents identified as mothers (83%), were born in Canada (83%), and reported their child was also born in Canada (95%). Monolingual children accounted for 47% of the sample, while children who may be exposed to more than one language at home accounted for 53%. Parental education was measured on a 6-point scale, from 1 = less than high school, to 6 = post-graduate degree. The median level of parental education was 5.00 (University Graduate; IQR =1.00). The quantity of books in the home was measured on a 6-point scale, from 1 = 0–25, to 6 = 200 or more. The median number of children’s books at home was 4.00 (76 to 100 books, IQR = 3.00). The median number of adult books at home was 4.00 (76 to 100 books, IQR = 2.50). Reading to children was measured on a 9-point scale, from 1 = never, to 9 = more than 7 times a week. The median number of readings that occurred per week at bedtime was 8.00 (7 times a week, IQR = 1.00) and 5.00 at other times (4 times a week, IQR = 2.00). Measures Cognitive Assessments Given the potential influence of cognitive development on children’s play behaviours, two assessments were employed to evaluate cognitive functioning: the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, Fourth Edition: Canadian (WPPSI-IV; Wechsler, 2012) and the Heads-Toes-Knees-Shoulders Task (HTKS Task; McClelland et al., 2014), which assesses EF performance. The sequence of the HTKS Task and the WPPSI-IV administration was randomized. The WPPSI-IV CDN This standardized assessment is designed to evaluate children's cognitive abilities (ages 2:6 to 7:7). The assessment included 15 subtests organized into cognitive domains. Raw scores were first converted into scaled scores and used for creating composite scores used in the analysis as follows: Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) assesses verbal reasoning and language comprehension; Visual Spatial Index (VSI) evaluates visual perception and spatial problem-solving; Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI) measures logical thinking and problem-solving with novel information; Working Memory Index (WMI) examines short-term memory and manipulation of visual or spatial information; Processing Speed Index (PSI) assesses the speed and accuracy of visual information processing. Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ), derived from five subtests for younger and six for older children, provides a comprehensive measure of overall cognitive functioning. HTKS Task The HTKS task measures EF performance in young children, particularly cognitive flexibility, working memory, and inhibitory control (Kenny et al., 2023), as conceptualized by Ponitz et al. (2008). It involves behavioural regulation through structured instructions. The task required children to perform actions opposite to verbal instructions they received, challenging their ability to suppress automatic responses and apply rule-based behaviours. Children received 0 for incorrect responses (e.g., touching the prompted body part, such as "head"), 1 for self-corrected responses, and 2 for correct responses (e.g., touching the opposite body part, such as "toes"). The measure is scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 62. Task duration varied depending on the child’s performance and ability to progress through the stages. Parent Questionnaire The parent questionnaire was designed to collect information on children’s play experiences, home environments, and parental perspectives. The quality of the home learning environment plays a critical role in children's play and development (Anders et al., 2012; LeFevre et al., 2010; Niklas & Schneider, 2017; Sénéchal, 2006; Sénéchal & LeFevre, 2002; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2019). The first section gathered detailed demographic and socioeconomic data about the child and the parent. Parents provided information on their child’s sex, date of birth, country of birth, as well as their relationship to the child, including their sex, country of birth, and postal code. Additionally, they reported their highest level of education and language use at home. The questionnaire also included items on the number of books in the home and how often parents or household members read to the child each week, distinguishing between bedtime reading and other reading times. The questionnaire also assessed parents’ attitudes toward early childhood literacy, math, science, screen time, and play, using a four-point Likert scale from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." Parents also reported how frequently their child engaged in various activities and how often they participated together, including math (e.g., counting games), reading (e.g., pointing to letters), and creative play (e.g., building, pretend play), using a five-point scale from "never" to "always." These items were adapted from prior studies on parental beliefs and practices related to children’s education and development (Cankaya, 2013; Skwarchuk et al., 2013). Play Materials and Toys The play session materials for this study were organized into two distinct sets, labelled Box A and Box B. The toy boxes used in this study were 12.9-quart clear plastic, providing a uniform and secure storage solution for the materials in Box A (toy percussion instruments, control) and Box B (loose parts). Please see Figure 1 below for the contents of Boxes A and B. The first set, Box A, consisted of toy percussion instruments. The second set, Box B, consisted of a diverse range of loose parts (see Appendix II for the complete list). The loose parts materials, objects and toys were selected to be gender-neutral and free of explicit play cues. To ensure consistency, they were presented to children in a standardized arrangement. Similarly, the percussion instruments were a varied set, rather than a standalone toy, ensuring that both conditions offered diverse interaction opportunities while differing in their affordances and constraints. Procedures Play Sessions Children participated in two play sessions, each lasting up to 30 minutes. They were randomly assigned to one of the conditions first: playing with loose parts or toy percussion instruments. Children played with the alternative box in the next play session, at least two days after the first session. In the session's final minutes or if the child indicated they were done, the researcher asked what the child was doing. This approach encouraged children to reflect on and explain their play while preserving the natural flow of interaction. Cognitive Assessment Session In Session 3, the researcher administered the WPPSI-IV and the HTKS task in a quiet, distraction-free room. The assessments were conducted individually, following standardized procedures. WPPSI-IV was administered in a standardized order, tailored to the child’s age group. The assessment was split into two shorter sessions if the child needed a break. Observational Data Coding Play Duration The play sessions were observed and coded on a minute-by-minute basis (Singer et al., 2014). This coding process involved identifying when children’s play started and ended. In rare cases, if children took a break (e.g., used the bathroom), the researcher stopped, resumed the time, and recorded the minutes of play. STEM Behaviours The observed STEM behaviours were coded using the STEM Play Behaviour Scale, which consists of eleven subtypes, outlined in Table 2. This scale was adapted from previous research focusing on children’s engineering play behaviours (Bairaktarova et al., 2011; Gold et al., 2017; Milford & Tippett, 2015). Table 2 STEM Behaviour Descriptors STEM Behaviours Description Asking Questions Pose questions to gather information about the function of an object or materials. Communicating Goals State their objectives and plans. Solving Problems Propose solutions to challenges. Exploring Mathematical Concepts Involve spatial reasoning, pattern recognition, or common mathematical domains. Constructing Gather, sort, or stack materials to create a structure or design. Explaining How Things Are Built or Work Describe their creation(s) either during or after construction. Testing Hypotheses An element of curiosity while redesigning a constructed item. Using STEM-Specific Language Use language specific to the field of STEM (e.g., ramp, gravity, stability). Integrating Technological Ideas Incorporate elements of technology where there is no technology (e.g., “The machine will pull this up”). Following Prototypes Comparison of how something looks in the real world and recreating it with their materials. Evaluating Design Test the function of a completed design. Researchers watched video recordings of each play session and coded children’s STEM behaviours. Children were assigned either 1 or 0 for each minute across all STEM behaviours, indicating whether the behaviours occurred or did not occur during the one-minute time frame. Some of the STEM behaviours require a verbal component, such as ‘Communicating Goals,’ whereas some only require a non-verbal component (e.g., Constructing Structures). Higher quality play could feature multiple STEM behaviours in a minute. A sum for each behaviour was calculated for the play session and then divided by the duration to create a ratio. For instance, if a child’s play session lasted 10 minutes and they engaged in a specific STEM behaviour during 5 of the 10 minutes, the child’s frequency for that exploration would be 0.5 (i.e., 50%). This adjustment ensured that the resulting frequencies reflected the prevalence and distribution of STEM behaviours within each play session. A STEM Engagement Score was calculated by summing all observed STEM behaviours. To provide a broader perspective, a second score (i.e., the Composite STEM Score) was computed by summing all STEM behaviours except constructing structures. Given that constructive play typically dominated children's activities (Cankaya et al., under review), we wanted to examine their engagement with other types of STEM behaviours. Interrater Reliability Assessment An interrater reliability assessment was conducted to ensure the reliability of the coding process. A team of four researchers coded the data. During the initial training, our research team observed play sessions together, discussing and categorizing STEM behaviours within each category. Researchers independently coded STEM behaviours and then compared the results. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion with the first author. Interrater reliability was assessed using a subset of 13 randomly selected participant sessions (21% of the total 60 sessions). A subset was chosen due to the time-intensive nature of video coding. While conducting reliability analysis on the full dataset would offer the most comprehensive check, randomly selecting a portion is a widely accepted practice in observational research (Hallgreen, 2012). Each selected play session was independently coded by multiple researchers, and the resulting codes were compared to evaluate consistency. Following Tong et al. (2020), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used as they were appropriate for assessing interrater reliability with ratio-level data and multiple raters. ICCs were specifically calculated for the STEM Engagement Score to determine agreement across coders. Based on the guidelines procured by Koo and Li (2016), the ICC was calculated using a one-way random-effects model. For the STEM Engagement Score, the single measure ICC was 0.914 (95% CI [0.901, 0.926], F (623,624 = 22.4, p < .001), indicating excellent interrater reliability. ICCs were not correlated to the child’s gender, age, or multilingualism. Statistics Statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 29.0.2.0; IBM Corp., 2023) and JASP (Version 0.19.3.0; JASP, 2025). A significance level of α = .05 was used unless stated otherwise. Data were summarized using medians, IQR, and range (min-max). Spearman’s correlation coefficients were reported for all numerical measures. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare the median frequencies of STEM behaviours between the two conditions (loose parts and toy percussion instruments), as these measures were not normally distributed. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to develop composite scores and summarize the results from the parental questionnaire. The identified composite scores and other measurements were included in a forward selection linear regression to determine which factors predicted children’s STEM behaviours with loose parts. Using forward selection avoids multi-collinearity and over-fitting issues while identifying the most impactful predictors of STEM Engagement Score (Field et al., 2025). Entering all predictors simultaneously could have led to overfitting, notably when some predictors (e.g., Cognitive functioning, EF performance, age) were related, making the model unreliable. Multicollinearity may have reduced the precision of the estimated coefficients, potentially affecting the interpretability of the model. Forward regression allowed us to mitigate these risks by selecting the most important predictors step by step. We added each predictor with the strongest relationship to the outcome and then sequentially included other predictors that continued to improve the model. This process was repeated until no additional variables significantly enhanced the model. For the Wilcoxon t-test analysis, a Bonferroni correction was applied to the significance level to account for multiple comparisons across different measures of children's STEM behaviours. In this case, we performed 13 tests, leading to a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0038, or 0.38%. This conservative adjustment ensured that the significant results reported were less likely to be due to random chance and more likely to reflect true differences. Results Descriptives Table 3 below presents the medians, IQR, and range of scores for key variables in the study. Table 3 Medians and IQR of Key Variables Key Variables n Mdn IQR Min - Max Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) 60 105.0 18.8 58-141 Visual Spatial Index (VSI) 60 107.5 31.0 65-145 Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI) 52 97.0 17.8 58-127 Working Memory Index (WMI) 60 103.0 19.0 45-129 Processing Speed Index (PSI) 52 100.0 15.8 66-123 Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ) 60 131.5 47.5 57-170 EF Performance (HTSK Task) 60 51.0 25.0 0-62 Play Duration (Loose Parts) 60 30.0 4.0 5-30 Play Duration (Control) 60 26.0 10.0 10-30 STEM Engagement Score (Loose Parts) 60 1.3 0.7 0.0-2.9 STEM Engagement Score (Control) 60 0.2 0.4 0.0-1.5 Note. FRI and PSI have lower n due to age criteria for administering these measures. Correlational Analyses The Spearman correlation analysis indicated several significant relationships among cognitive functioning sub, executive functioning, and children’s STEM behaviours with loose parts and toy percussion instruments (see Table 4). Children’s age was positively correlated with FSIQ, r = .57, p < .001, and EF performance (HTKS), r = .65, p < .001. FSIQ was significantly correlated with all its subscales and EF Performance, r = .53, p < .001. STEM engagement Score in the loose parts condition was significantly correlated with FSIQ, r = .27, p = .045, and with total STEM Engagement score in the control condition, r = .49, p < .001. Table 4 Spearman Correlations between Variables Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1. Age (in months) - 2. Parent Education -0.041 - 3. Verbal Comprehension Index 0.180 -0.010 - 4. Visual Spatial Index 0.178 -0.152 0.246 - 5. Fluid Reasoning Index -0.025 0.020 0.308* 0.474*** - 6. Working Memory Index 0.032 -0.107 0.304* 0.396** 0.296* - 7. Processing Speed Index 0.155 0.019 0.397** 0.294* 0.353* 0.389** - 8. Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ) 0.570*** -0.233 0.379** 0.600*** 0.369** 0.293* 0.437** - 9. EF Performance 0.646*** 0.115 0.280* 0.147 0.166 0.142 0.345* 0.533*** - 10. Play Duration (Control) 0.185 0.190 0.159 -0.017 -0.043 -0.013 0.049 0.152 0.290* - 11. Play Duration (Loose Parts) 0.084 0.066 0.100 0.123 0.141 -0.044 -0.239 0.131 0.090 0.392** - 12. STEM Engagement (Control) 0.110 0.110 0.228 0.100 -0.105 -0.115 0.093 0.187 0.024 0.212 -0.032 - 13. STEM Engagement (Loose Parts) 0.112 0.021 0.180 0.071 0.078 -0.143 -0.020 0.271* 0.139 0.094 0.146 0.492*** Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Differences in Children’s STEM Behaviours and Engagement in Play A series of Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were conducted to examine differences in children’s STEM behaviours between the loose parts and toy percussion instrument (control) conditions. Table 5 below shows the results for STEM behaviours and Engagement Scores. A Bonferroni correction was applied to control for Type I error across 14 comparisons, establishing a significance threshold of p < .0036. Effect sizes are reported as matched rank biserial correlations ( d ), with corresponding standard errors and 95% confidence intervals. We also included the duration of each condition for benchmarking children’s play length (Cankaya et al., under review). Table 5 Paired Samples Wilcoxon T-Test Results for STEM Explorations Statistics ( U ) z df p Effect Size SE Effect Size Lower Upper Asking Questions 394.00 -1.80 59 .072 -0.30 0.17 -0.57 0.02 Communicating Goals 724.00 3.80 59 <.001* 0.68 0.18 0.45 0.83 Solving Problems 141.50 0.90 59 .373 0.23 0.24 -0.25 0.62 Constructing Structures 1711.00 6.62 59 <.001* 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00 Exploring Mathematical Concepts 969.00 5.10 59 <.001* 0.87 0.17 0.77 0.93 Explaining How Things are Built/Work 1188.50 5.32 59 <.001* 0.86 0.16 0.76 0.93 Testing Hypotheses 137.00 2.24 59 .026 0.60 0.26 0.17 0.84 Using STEM-Specific Language 31.00 0.36 59 .751 0.13 0.34 -0.52 0.68 Integrating Technological Ideas 36.00 1.60 59 .112 0.60 0.36 -0.04 0.89 Following Prototypes 239.50 0.83 59 .412 0.18 0.21 -0.24 0.54 Evaluating Design 43.50 2.49 59 .015 0.93 0.36 0.74 0.98 STEM Engagement Score 1770.00 6.68 59 <.001* 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00 STEM Engagement Score (Excluding Construction) 1520.50 5.89 59 <.001* 0.91 0.15 0.83 0.95 Play Session Duration 734.50 3.54 59 < .001* 0.63 0.18 0.37 0.79 Note. The effect size is reported as the matched rank biserial correlation. Results are considered significant only if the p-value is below 0.05/14 (i.e., 0.0036) and marked with a * sign if they were significant. Communicating Goals Children were significantly more likely to communicate goals in the loose parts condition. This difference was significant at the adjusted threshold, U = 724.00, z = 3.80, p < .001, d = 0.68, SE = 0.18, 95% CI [0.45, 0.83], indicating a moderate-to-large effect. Constructing Structures Constructive play involving the building of structures was substantially more frequent with loose parts. This difference was highly significant, U = 1711.00, z = 6.62, p < .001, d = 1.00, SE = 0.15, 95% CI [1.00, 1.00], indicating a very large effect. Exploring Mathematical Concepts Children involved mathematical concepts in their play significantly more often when playing with loose parts. This difference was statistically significant, U = 969.00, z = 5.10, p < .001, d = 0.87, SE = 0.17, 95% CI [0.77, 0.93], indicating a large effect. Explaining How Things Are Built/Work Children explained mechanisms or structures significantly more often when playing with loose parts. The difference was statistically significant, U = 1188.50, z = 5.32, p < .001, d = 0.86, SE = 0.16, 95% CI [0.76, 0.93], reflecting a large effect. STEM Engagement Score The total number of STEM-related behaviours was significantly higher in the loose parts condition, U = 1770.00, z = 6.68, p < .001, d = 1.00, SE = 0.15, 95% CI [1.00, 1.00]. There were no significant between-subjects effects in STEM engagement based on children’s gender, home language, or their interaction. STEM Engagement Score (Excluding construction) Constructing Structures was common with loose parts, and in order to explore if children are involved in STEM behaviours beyond constructing, we explored a total score that does not include constructing structures. The STEM Engagement (Excluding Construction), reflecting the mean across categories, was also significantly higher when children interacted with loose parts, U = 1520.50, z = 5.89, p < .001, d = 0.91, SE = 0.15, 95% CI [0.83, 0.95]. Non-Significant Differences in STEM Behaviours Across Play Conditions Although several STEM behaviours occurred more frequently during play with everyday objects, these differences did not reach statistical significance after Bonferroni correction. Children tested hypotheses through trial and error and evaluated their designs slightly more often with loose parts, but these effects did not meet the adjusted threshold. No significant differences were found for asking questions, solving problems, using STEM-specific language, integrating technological ideas, or following prototypes. Differences in STEM Behaviours within Each Condition Two graphs were created to examine the percentage of children’s play that involves each STEM behaviour (see Figures 1 and 2). To compare the frequency of observed STEM behaviours within each condition, two repeated-measures one-way ANOVAs were conducted to test for differences in the mean proportion of time children engaged in each of the STEM behaviours. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction were conducted to identify differences between specific behaviours. Results showed that “constructing structures” occupied a significantly greater portion of time than all other STEM behaviours ( p < .001). The second most significant STEM behaviour was “explaining how things work,” which was also occupied significantly more time than all other STEM behaviours ( p < .001). The third most significant STEM behaviour was “exploring math concepts,” and was significantly greater than “testing hypotheses” ( p = .043), “using STEM language,” “integrating technology,” and “evaluating design” ( p < .001). Post hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction were conducted to identify differences between STEM behaviours. Results showed that “asking questions” occupied a significantly greater portion of time than “communicating goals” ( p = .019), “exploring math concepts” ( p =.020), “solving problems,” “testing hypotheses,” “integrating technology,” “using STEM language,” and “evaluating design” ( p < .001). The second most significant STEM behaviour was “explaining how things work,” which occupied significantly more time than “testing hypotheses” ( p = .013), “using STEM language” ( p = .005), “integrating technology” ( p = .003), evaluating design ( p = .004). The third most common STEM behaviour was “constructing structures,” which was not significantly greater than any other STEM behaviour. Examining Sex Differences in STEM Engagement, Cognitive Functioning, and Executive Function A series of multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were conducted to examine whether sex had a significant effect on children's cognitive capacities (as measured by the WPPSI-IV and the HTKS Task) and their STEM behaviours across both play conditions. None of the MANOVAs revealed a significant effect, indicating that children's cognitive capacities and STEM behaviours did not differ significantly by sex. Regressions Exploratory Factor Analysis and Composite Score Development Exploratory Factor Analysis was conducted in JASP to identify underlying patterns among variables by focusing on the shared variance that reflects psychological constructs (See Table 6). The analysis identified six factors explaining 46.7% of the variance in the parental questionnaire data. These composite scores were used for further analysis. Table 6 Summary of Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for Home Learning Environment Variables Factor Description Variance Explained (%) Frequency of Home Learning Activities (Factor 1) Included parents' reports on 12 learning activities, such as pointing while reading, introducing words, and teaching letter sounds. 14.5 Parental STEM Attitudes (Factor 2) Included parents' perceptions of their own math and science abilities, confidence in using technology, and their enjoyment or avoidance of math. 8.5 Frequency of Home Numeracy Activities (Factor 3) Included engagement in number games, simple sums, and mental math. 7.9 Parental Play Attitudes and Engagement (Factor 4) Included parents' perspectives on play, enjoyment of building activities, and engagement in board games and pretend play. 5.7 Home Learning Environment (Factor 5) Included the number of books, bedtime reading routines, and unstructured play opportunities. 5.2 Parental Literacy Attitudes (Factor 6) Included enjoyment of reading and writing, confidence in language skills, and a negative association with screen time. 5.0 Predictors and potential covariates of STEM behaviours were examined using linear regressions. These covariates included the child's age in months, sex, parental education (Anders et al., 2012), cognitive capacities measured by various composite scores (i.e., WPPSI-IV’s VCI, VSI, FRI, WMI, PSI, and FSIQ), and EF performance (i.e., HTKS Task). Our within-subjects design allowed each child to experience both conditions; the order of the play conditions was randomly assigned. The play session order was also tested as a covariate to determine whether the sequence in which children were exposed to materials affected their STEM behaviours due to effects such as fatigue, increased familiarity, or a preference for the materials presented earlier. This approach ensured that observed differences in STEM behaviours can be attributed to the materials or activities rather than other factors. Factors Predicting STEM Engagement A linear regression analysis with forward selection was conducted to examine predictors of children’s STEM Engagement Score in the loose parts condition. The final model explained 15.2% of the variance ( R ² = .15, adjusted R ² = .14, RMSE = 0.522) and was statistically significant, F (1, 50) = 8.95, p = .004. Cognitive functioning (FSIQ) emerged as a significant predictor, B = 0.008, SE = 0.003, β = 0.39, t (50) = 2.99, p = .004, indicating that higher overall cognitive ability (FSIQ) is positively associated with higher STEM Engagement Score with loose parts. The intercept was not statistically significant ( B = 0.28, SE = 0.36, t (50) = 0.78, p = .437), indicating that variation in STEM Engagement Score was largely attributed to differences in cognitive functioning (FSIQ). Covariates tested but excluded from the final model were the child’s age, sex, EF performance, parental education, other cognitive functioning composite scores (VCI, VSI, WMI, FRI), play session order, and home learning environment factors. An additional linear regression analysis was conducted to examine predictors of children’s STEM Engagement Score while using toy percussion instruments (control). The final model accounted for 8.1% of the variance ( R ² = .08, adjusted R ² = .06, RMSE = 0.373) and was statistically significant, F (1, 50) = 4.42, p = .040. VCI predicted STEM Engagement, B = 0.007, SE = 0.003, β = 0.29, t (50) = 2.10, p = .040. The intercept was not statistically significant ( B = -0.36, SE = 0.35, t (50) = -1.03, p = .308), indicating that variation in STEM Engagement Score was largely attributed to the predictor. Covariates tested but excluded from the final model were child age, sex, EF Performance, other cognitive functioning composite scores (VSI, WMI, FRI, FSIQ), play session order, and home learning environment factors. Factors Predicting the Constructing Behaviours with Loose Parts In our study, children engaged in constructing structures significantly more during play with loose parts compared to other STEM behaviours and the control condition. We therefore examined the factors associated with increased involvement in constructing behaviours alone. To identify predictors of children's construction with loose parts, we conducted a linear regression analysis using a forward selection approach. We specifically aimed to determine whether the composite scores from the WPPSI-IV (WMI, PSI, VCI, VSI, and FRI) would uniquely predict children’s construction behaviours with loose parts. The final model was statistically significant, F (2, 49) = 6.73, p = .003, and explained 21.6% of the variance in children’s constructing behaviours, R² = .22, Adjusted R² = .18. Both EF score ( β = .35, t = 2.72, p = .009) and Parental play attitudes and engagement (Factor 4; β = .27, t = 2.08, p = .043) were significant predictors. Children with stronger executive functioning and those from families with more positive play attitudes and frequent play engagement constructed more frequently with loose parts. The following covariates were considered during model selection but were not retained due to non-significant contributions: child’s age, sex, EF performance, parental education, cognitive functioning composite scores (VCI, VSI, WMI, FRI, FSIQ), play session order, and other home learning environment factors. Discussion Summary of Results Using a within-subjects design, this study compared children’s STEM behaviours and engagement during unstructured solitary play with two types of materials: versatile everyday objects and materials (i.e., loose parts) and toy percussion instruments (control). Our design enabled direct comparisons while we took individual differences into account in cognitive capacities (Cognitive and Executive Functioning), age, and home learning environment. We explored children’s play for instances of 11 types of STEM behaviours. Children’s STEM Behaviours and Engagement Play Our results demonstrated that children engaged in significantly more STEM behaviours when playing with loose parts than with toy percussion instruments (control), particularly in constructing, communicating intentions, exploring concepts related to math, and explaining mechanisms. These behaviours not only occurred more frequently but also with large effect sizes, suggesting the material affordances of loose parts facilitate more diverse and complex STEM engagement. Researchers who have explored children’s STEM innovation, thinking and learning in early childhood strongly suggest that observing and evaluating children with quantitative methods is necessary (Gold et al., 2015 ; Gull et al., 2022 ; Tselegkaridis & Sapounidis, 2022 ; Zeng & Ng, 2024 ). To our knowledge, this study is the first experimental and observational evidence of connecting a sizable sample of children’s indoor STEM behaviours and engagement with a variety of loose parts (Gold et al., 2015 ; Gull et al., 2022 ). Despite the variability across individual subcategories, the overall proportion of STEM behaviours and engagement was significantly higher in the loose parts condition. These findings extend qualitative work that has claimed that loose parts may lead to a variety of STEM learning opportunities (e.g., Gull et al., 2024 ; Muntomimah & Wijayanti, 2021 ). Our categories of children’s STEM behaviours were in line with previous research (Bairaktarova et al., 2011 ; Gold et al., 2017; Milford & Tippett, 2015 ), and our work provided a comprehensive picture of what children do with a variety of loose parts by themselves. For example, Gold and colleagues conducted a series of studies investigating children's play with specific materials across varied contexts (Gold et al., 2015 , 2021 ; Gold & Elicker, 2020 ). In one study, Gold et al. ( 2015 ) examined children’s engineering behaviours using large, lightweight, movable loose parts, such as foam blocks and wheel-shaped pieces, in both indoor and outdoor environments. Compared to traditional outdoor playgrounds and indoor dramatic play areas, children demonstrated significantly higher frequencies of design and construction behaviours when playing with these materials (e.g., Imagination Playground™). While their study focused exclusively on engineering behaviours and included only one type of loose parts material (large foam blocks), our coding schema captured a broader range of STEM behaviours. Consistent with their findings, we also observed that children engaged more frequently in STEM behaviours when using loose parts. While Gold et al. ( 2015 ) primarily focused on engineering behaviours, other researchers have examined how STEM learning may emerge during different types of play. For example, Thibodeau-Nielsen et al. ( 2025 ) explored contexts where STEM language and learning may occur. Their study found that children produced STEM-related language only 16% of the time during solitary play, which was the second lowest rate among play types they explored (i.e.,play involving peers, such as cooperative, associative, or parallel play). They coded children’s STEM engagement by analyzing verbal expressions across categories, including STEM language, numbers and quantity, ordering, comparing and contrasting, patterns, size, shape, features, direction, spatial language, building, and physics-related talk. Spatial language, number language, and building-related talk were the most frequently observed, highlighting their emphasis on verbal expressions as indicators of STEM thinking. In contrast, our study focused exclusively on solitary play and used a broader coding scheme that captured both verbal and nonverbal STEM behaviours. When children used patterns, numbers, or quantity-related language or gestures, we categorized these behaviours under “Exploring Mathematical Concepts.” This approach provided a more wide-ranging account of children’s engagement with STEM concepts. Do different play materials and toys lead to differentiated STEM behaviours? We found that materials and toys with many affordances support more frequent STEM behaviours and overall engagement. Our within-subjects design strengthens this interpretation, indicating that the increase in STEM behaviours is attributable to the material and toy context rather than variability across children. Toys and play materials play a crucial role in shaping children's play behaviours and their exploration of concepts such as science, math, problem-solving, goal setting and planning (Trawick-Smith, 1990 ; Trawick-Smith et al., 2015 ). Researchers show that different types of toys and materials can stimulate distinct domains of development. For instance, toys that promote creative construction and social fantasy encourage imagination and innovation in children, helping them build complex play scenarios (Moller, 2015). Similarly, a study assessing toys found that certain materials significantly enhanced thinking/learning, creativity, and social interaction, indicating that the nature of toys directly affects how children engage in play and learning (Trawick-Smith et al., 2011 ). These findings emphasize that materials and toys are not just passive playthings but active tools that guide how children think, imagine, and relate to the world. In our study, children were predominantly engaged in construction. In other studies, various STEM behaviours were classified differently as play (e.g., constructive, engineering, or loose parts play; Gull et al., 2022 ; Gold et al., 2021 ; Rubin, 2001 ). Construction with objects is a prominent part of children’s lives in early childhood (Pellegrini & Gustafson, 2005 ; Rubin et al., 1976 ). Yet, construction behaviours are subject to debate as to whether it is play (e.g., Flannigan & Dietze, 2017 ; Rubin et al., 1976 ) or not (e.g., Piaget, 1962 ; Pellegrini & Gustafson, 2005 ). The researchers who do not consider construction play explain that the developmental trajectory of construction behaviours does not follow a traditional inverted U developmental function, like other forms of play. Instead, the construction ability of children under six remains flat (Pellegrini & Gustafson, 2005 ). Rubin and colleagues considered constructive “play” to involve the manipulation of objects to create something, which has been used to generate massive amounts of descriptive data on the ways in which young children use objects (for a full review, see Rubin et al., 1983 ). Children demonstrated a broad range of STEM behaviours during play, with Exploring Mathematical Concepts emerging as one of the most frequent. This finding is consistent with prior research showing that even in early childhood, children exhibit emerging competencies in number sense, spatial reasoning, and pattern recognition (Dehaene, 1997 ; Clements & Sarama, 2014 ). During play, children often engage in classification, enumeration, and magnitude comparison (Ginsburg et al., 2003 ), suggesting that mathematical reasoning is spontaneously activated when children interact with open-ended materials. Sarama and Clements ( 2009 ) refer to this process as mathematization , children’s modelling of real-world experiences using mathematical concepts such as quantity and shape. While earlier studies have primarily emphasized verbal expressions of mathematical thinking, our findings demonstrate that nonverbal behaviours also constitute meaningful forms of mathematical engagement (Hendershot et al., 2016 ; Zippert et al., 2019 ). To capture this complexity, we coded both verbal and nonverbal indicators of children's mathematical engagement during unstructured play. Zippert et al. ( 2019 ) used a coding framework that identified five primary categories of math exploration: enumeration, magnitude, spatial reasoning, classification, and pattern/shape recognition. In their coding, construction is considered under the spatial category. Although their work examined peer-based math exploration and acknowledged construction as relevant behaviour, it did not include problem-solving as a discrete category. In contrast, our coding scheme differentiated between constructing structures, solving problems, and exploring mathematical concepts, allowing for a more detailed account of how children engage with mathematical and engineering-related behaviours. These findings reinforce existing evidence that even in solitary play, children meaningfully engage with foundational math concepts, highlighting the role of unstructured play as a context for applying and extending mathematical knowledge. Factors Related to Children's STEM Engagement with Loose Parts During Play In the loose parts condition, children’s overall cognitive functioning composite score (FSIQ) predicted their STEM engagement. In contrast, in the toy percussion instruments condition (control), only the VCI, which assesses verbal reasoning and language comprehension, predicted variance in STEM engagement. In the loose parts condition, the frequency of children’s STEM behaviours was not significantly associated with any individual cognitive composite scores (VCI, VSI, FRI, WMI, or PSI). However, the FSIQ, which integrates these domains into a comprehensive measure of cognitive functioning, demonstrated stronger predictive power. Given that this study employed a within-subjects design, we were able to observe how different aspects of cognitive functioning were engaged depending on the play materials available. This may suggest that playing with loose parts may draw more broadly on children's overall cognitive resources, including all components of cognitive capacities such as working memory and fluid reasoning. Alternativelyplay with structured, limited-purpose toys like percussion instruments may rely more specifically on children’s verbal abilities in communicating their ideas. VCI assesses children's capacity to understand and use language, which may be particularly relevant in the toy percussion instrument condition, where children were most often engaged in explaining their actions and asking questions. These verbal behaviours likely required the use of expressive language, comprehension, and verbal reasoning. In contrast, loose parts afforded more diverse and cognitively demanding opportunities for construction, symbolic transformation, and problem-solving, engaging a wider range of cognitive processes. Therefore, while FSIQ reflects the broader demands of explorations with loose parts, the selective involvement of VCI in the toy percussion instrument condition suggests that specific cognitive skills may be differentially activated depending on the affordances of the materials. Children’s EF was not a predictor of their STEM Engagement Score, but for their constructing behaviours. This finding was expected, given previous work (e.g., Gold et al., 2021 ) and as construction typically requires planning, spatial reasoning, and problem-solving, all tasks that engage executive function. A hierarchical model outlined a child’s EF development in decision-making and planning (Zelazo et al., 1997 ; Zelazo & Muller, 2002). In this model, EF has distinct phases: problem representation, planning, execution, and evaluation. Development of EF skills may be crucial in children’s ability to entertain multiple conflicting mental representations and plan how to proceed, execute, evaluate and revise their plans—all displayed prominently in play (Carlson et al., 2014 ; Gold et al., 2021 ). This model provides conceptual and theoretical support for the notion that children’s behaviours with toys with many affordances align with EF’s key aspects. Children not only have to symbolically transform what they see within their everyday material collection but also remember the roles they assigned and what to do next; hence, working memory is expected to be a predictor (Trawick-Smith, 1990 ). However, we found that FSIQ was a better predictor of children’s STEM engagement with loose parts. Because FSIQ aggregates across multiple domains (verbal, visual-spatial, fluid reasoning, working memory, and processing speed), capturing general cognitive capacity, itmay better reflect the broad demands of engaging in STEM behaviours with a set of loose parts. STEM behaviours, especially in the loose parts condition, involved construction, problem-solving, symbolic use, and exploratory reasoning, all of which may be more strongly supported by a composite of abilities rather than by isolated executive functioning processes. Children’s construction behaviours during play were positively associated with both executive functioning and the Parental Play Attitudes and Engagement (Factor 4). Play is a culturally mediated activity that varies significantly across sociocultural contexts, shaped by parents’ beliefs, values, and child-rearing practices (Gaskin et al., 2027). This factor included parents’ beliefs about the importance of play, their enjoyment of design and building activities, and the frequency with which they engaged in board or card games and pretend play with their children. These findings suggest that constructing behaviours were more likely to emerge when children possess the cognitive skills to plan and organize their actions (Zelazo et al., 1997 ), and when they experience a positive attitude and engagement in their home environment that supports diverse play experiences (Li & Lin, 2018; Mannweiler et al., 2025 ). Mannweiler and colleagues ( 2025 ) found that parents’ play strategies are associated with preschoolers’ STEM skill development. Specifically, when parents model STEM-related language and conceptual framing, and they prioritize play as a meaningful context for learning, children are more inclined to explore, manipulate, and construct with available materials (Gaskin et al., 2007; Lin & Li, 2018). Additionally, children’s engagement in play is shaped by the quality of parent–child interactions. Highly directive parental involvement, characterized by goal setting and reduced child autonomy, has been linked to lower engagement and diminished independent exploration (Gin et al., 2025 ). For example, in Sobel et al. ( 2021 ), children whose parents were more directive during free play were less engaged by subsequent challenges than children who had no prior exposure to the materials. Those who played with circuit blocks alongside a parent demonstrated greater success in completing challenges and provided more causal explanations of how the circuits functioned. Thus, prior joint play with a parent enhanced children’s STEM learning outcomes. Together, these findings highlight the interplay between internal (i.e., executive functioning) and contextual (i.e., family play culture) factors in supporting children’s construction behaviours. They also point to the importance of home environments that actively scaffold early STEM engagement. Notably, we did not find significant associations between construction behaviours and other indicators of the home learning environment or parental education. This may be attributable to the negatively skewed distribution of parental education in our sample, as discussed in the limitations. Limitations and Future Directions Several limitations warrant consideration when interpreting the findings of this study. First, while the within-subjects experimental design strengthens internal validity by controlling individual differences, the play sessions were time-limited and conducted in a structured environment, which may not fully capture the complexity or spontaneity of children’s naturalistic play in early learning settings (Gardner, 2000 ). Future research should extend these findings by conducting longitudinal or observational studies within early learning and childcare settings or homes to assess how STEM behaviours with loose parts are across contexts. Second, although our observational coding captured a broad range of STEM behaviours, the study primarily focused on overt actions and verbalizations. Additional cognitive processes related to problem-solving or planning undoubtedly occurred internally and were not observable. Incorporating complementary methodologies such as think-aloud protocols or child interviews could offer a richer account of children’s reasoning during play. Additionally, despite our efforts to recruit a diverse sample, the parental education and household income levels were relatively high. Our sample reflected a predominantly urban Canadian context. Although this offers insight into a particular educational and cultural setting, it limits the generalizability of the findings. Future studies should explore children’s STEM behaviours with loose parts across more diverse populations, including families from varied cultural, linguistic, and economic backgrounds. Such research is critical for understanding how social and cultural capital intersect with material affordances to shape STEM engagement in early childhood. Third, while cognitive functioning was identified as a significant predictor, other influential variables, such as children’s prior familiarity with materials or cultural perceptions of STEM, were not examined. These contextual dimensions may moderate children’s engagement and should be systematically explored in future research to inform more inclusive and culturally responsive approaches. Finally, although loose parts were broadly categorized as versatile, there may be meaningful variation in their material properties (e.g., texture, size, familiarity) that differentially afford STEM behaviours. Particularly, in our methods, the technology dimension was not rich, which may have prevented children from including ideas related to technology in their explorations and thinking. Future work could systematically manipulate features of loose parts and the number of materials offered to children to better understand how material characteristics influence specific learning outcomes. These limitations suggest the need for a more nuanced, context-sensitive understanding of how children interact with everyday objects to explore STEM ideas and innovations. Future studies should aim to bridge controlled experimental approaches with ecologically valid designs and include more diverse samples to strengthen generalizability that can inform and support equitable pedagogical practices. Conclusions Despite growing advocacy for loose parts in early childhood settings, empirical investigations into their specific contributions to children's STEM learning remain limited (Gull et al., 2022 ). More critically, observational and quantitative studies with loose parts are limited (Tselegkaridis & Sapounidis, 2022 ). Much of the current literature rests on theoretical claims or qualitative descriptions that lack systematic observational data, leaving a critical gap in understanding how loose parts shape STEM engagement in young children. Notably, few studies have examined the extent to which specific STEM behaviours, such as constructing, goal setting, or explaining causal mechanisms, emerge more frequently in the context of open-ended play compared to play with more constrained, single-purpose toys. Moreover, assumptions that all children benefit equally from loose parts overlook potential variability driven by individual cognitive differences or family-level contextual factors. This lack of precision obscures both how and for whom loose parts play a role in facilitating STEM learning, exploration and innovation. To address these gaps, the present study employed a within-subjects experimental design to examine children’s STEM behaviours in two contrasting play contexts: one using loose parts and the other using limited-function percussion instruments. Drawing on systematic behavioural observations, we assessed the frequency and nature of children’s STEM behaviours, while also incorporating standardized measures of cognitive and executive functioning and parent-reported home learning environments. This integrated approach enables a more differentiated understanding of the conditions under which open-ended materials promote STEM engagement and which child-level characteristics moderate these effects. This study makes three key contributions. First, it provided empirical evidence that loose parts elicit specific STEM behaviours not typically observed in play with limited-purpose toys. Second, it reveals that children’s cognitive functioning and, to a lesser extent, parental education, predict the extent of their STEM engagement, raising important questions about equity and access in play-based learning environments. Finally, by challenging the presumption of universal benefit, this study underscores the need for more targeted and developmentally informed approaches to integrating open-ended materials into early childhood STEM education. These findings carry direct implications for curriculum development, educator training, and policy design aimed at fostering equitable and effective STEM learning from the earliest years. Declarations A statement of ethics approval: This study was approved by the MacEwan University Research Ethics Board (File Number: 101952). All procedures were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. A statement on participant consent: Informed consent was obtained from all participating parents or legal guardians. Verbal assent was obtained from all child participants prior to data collection. References An, G., Wang, J., Yang, Y., & Du, X. (2019). A study on the effects to students' STEM academic achievement with chinese parents' participative styles in school education. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice , 19 (1), 41-54. Anders, Y., Rossbach, H. G., Weinert, S., Ebert, S., Kuger, S., Lehrl, S., & Von Maurice, J. (2012). Home and preschool learning environments and their relations to the development of early numeracy skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 27 (2), 231-244. Anthony, C. J., & Ogg, J. (2020). Executive function, learning-related behaviors, and science growth from kindergarten to fourth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology , 112 (8), 1563. Bagiati, A., & Evangelou, D. (2016). Practicing engineering while building with blocks: Identifying engineering thinking. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal , 24 (1), 67-85. Bairaktarova, D., Evangelou, D., Bagiati, A., & Brophy, S. (2011). Early engineering in young children's exploratory play with tangible materials. Children, Youth and Environments , 21 (2), 212-235. Bauer, J. R., & Booth, A. E. (2019). Exploring potential cognitive foundations of scientific literacy in preschoolers: Causal reasoning and executive function. Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 46 , 275-284. Beloglovsky, M., & Daly, L. (2016). Loose parts 2: Inspiring play with infants and toddlers . Redleaf Press. Bers, M. U. (2020). Coding as a playground: Programming and computational thinking in the early childhood classroom . Routledge. Bequette, J. W., & Bequette, M. B. (2012). A place for art and design education in the STEM conversation. Art Education , 65 (2), 40-47. Brenneman, K., Stevenson-Boyd, J., & Frede, E. C. (2009). Math and science in preschool: Policies and practice. Preschool Policy Brief , 19 , 1-12. Brophy, S., & Evangelou, D. (2007, June). Precursors to engineering thinking (PET). In 2007 Annual Conference & Exposition (pp. 12-1169). Burdette, H. L., & Whitaker, R. C. (2005). Resurrecting free play in young children: Looking beyond fitness and fatness to attention, affiliation, and affect. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine , 159 (1), 46-50. Cameron, C. E., Brock, L. L., Hatfield, B. E., Cottone, E. A., Rubinstein, E., LoCasale-Crouch, J., & Grissmer, D. W. (2015). Visuomotor integration and inhibitory control compensate for each other in school readiness. Developmental Psychology , 51 (11), 1529. Campbell, C., Speldewinde, C., Howitt, C. J., & MacDonald, A. (2018). STEM practice in the early years. Creative Education , 9 (1), 11-25. Cankaya, O. (2013). Parents' perspectives on early childhood development: Attitudes towards play, learning, and the home environment. Journal of Early Childhood Studies . Cankaya, O., Leach, J., & Akdemir, K. (2024). The journey of loose parts across educational landscapes and history. American Journal of Play , 16 (2-3), 210-245. Cankaya, O., & LeFevre, J. A. (2016). The home numeracy environment: what do cross-cultural comparisons tell us about how to scaffold young children’s mathematical skills?. Early Childhood Mathematics Skill Development in the Home Environment , 87-104. Cankaya, O., Martin, M., & Haugen, D. (2025). The relationship between children’s indoor loose parts play and cognitive development: A systematic review. Journal of Intelligence , 13 (5), 52. Cankaya, O., Martin, M., & Haugen, D. (in revision). The impact of young children's indoor play with everyday objects on cognitive development: A systematic review. Journal of Intelligence . Cankaya, O., Rohatyn-Martin, N., Leach, J., Taylor, K., & Bulut, O. (2023). Preschool children’s loose parts play and the relationship to cognitive development: A review of the literature. Journal of Intelligence , 11 (8), 151. Carlson, S. M., White, R. E., & Davis-Unger, A. C. (2014). Evidence for a relation between executive function and pretense representation in preschool children. Cognitive Development , 29 , 1-16. Casey, T., & Robertson, J. (2019). Loose parts play: A toolkit (2nd ed.). Play Scotland. Choi, J., & Ae Ohm, J. (2018). Pretend play and social competence in peer play groups of five-year-old boys and girls. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal , 46 (8), 1255-1270. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2014). Developing young children's mathematical thinking and understanding. In The Routledge international handbook of young children's thinking and understanding (pp. 331-344). Routledge. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2016). Math, science, and technology in the early grades. The Future of Children , 75-94. Counsell, S. L., & Wright, B. L. (2016). Science learning for ALL young scientists: exploring, investigating, learning, and growing together with ramps and pathways in diverse settings. Childhood Education , 92 (5), 365-372. Coyle, E. F., & Liben, L. S. (2020). Gendered packaging of a STEM toy influences children's play, mechanical learning, and mothers’ play guidance. Child development , 91 (1), 43-62. Daly, L., & Beloglovsky, M. (2014). Loose parts: Inspiring play in young children (Vol. 1). Redleaf Press. Daly, L., & Beloglovsky, M. (2020). Loose parts 4: Inspiring 21st-Century learning . Redleaf Press. Dauch, C., Imwalle, M., Ocasio, B., & Metz, A. E. (2018). The influence of the number of toys in the environment on toddlers' play. Infant Behavior & Development, 50 , 78-87. Dehaene, S. (1997). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics . Oxford University Press USA. Dewi, A. C., Laini, A., Wahyuni, S. I., & Lestari, M. C. D. (2024). Enhancing early childhood creativity through loose-parts media based on STEAM learning. Aṭfālunā Journal of Islamic Early Childhood Education , 7 (1), 31-46. Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology , 64 (1), 135-168. Dinella, L. M., & Weisgram, E. S. (2018). Gender-typing of children’s toys: Causes, consequences, and correlates. Sex Roles , 79 , 253-259. Field, A. (2025). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics . Sage. Flannigan, C., & Dietze, B. (2017). Children, outdoor play, and loose parts. Journal of Childhood Studies , 53-60. Gardner, F. (2000). Methodological issues in the direct observation of parent–child interaction: Do observational findings reflect the natural behavior of participants?. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review , 3 , 185-198. Gaskins, S., Haight, W., & Lancy, D. F. (2007). The cultural construction of play. In Play and development (pp. 184-207). Psychology Press. Gathercole, S. E., Brown, L., & Pickering, S. J. (2003). Working memory assessments at school entry as longitudinal predictors of National Curriculum attainment levels. Educational and Child Psychology , 20 (3), 109-122. Gibson, J. J. (2014). The theory of affordances: (1979). In The People, Place, and Space Reader (pp. 56-60). Routledge. Gibson, J. L., Cornell, M., & Gill, T. (2017). A systematic review of research into the impact of loose parts play on children’s cognitive, social and emotional development. School Mental Health , 9 (4), 295-309. Gin, S., Yin, H., Boykin, C. M., & Sobel, D. M. (2025). Examining baseline relations between parent–child interactions and STEM engagement and learning. Developmental Science , 28 (2), e13611. Ginsburg, H. P., Lin, C. L., Ness, D., & Seo, K. H. (2003). Young American and Chinese children's everyday mathematical activity. Mathematical Thinking and Learning , 5 (4), 235-258. Gold, Z. S. (2017). Engineering play: Exploring associations with executive function, mathematical ability, and spatial ability in preschool (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University). Gold, Z. S., & Elicker, J. (2020). Engineering peer play: A new perspective on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) early childhood education. Peer Play and Relationships in Early Childhood: International Research Perspectives , 61-75. Gold, Z. S., Elicker, J., Choi, J. Y., Anderson, T., & Brophy, S. P. (2015). Preschoolers' engineering play behaviors: Differences in gender and play context. Children, Youth and Environments , 25 (3), 1-21. Gold, Z. S., Elicker, J., Evich, C. D., Mishra, A. A., Howe, N., & Weil, A. E. (2021). Engineering play with blocks as an informal learning context for executive function and planning. Journal of Engineering Education , 110 (4), 803-818. Gold, Z. S., Perlman, J., Howe, N., Mishra, A. A., DeHart, G. B., Hertik, H., & Buckley, J. (2022). An observational study of children’s problem solving during play with friends. Journal of Cognition and Development , 23 (4), 503-523. Gull, C., Bogunovich, J., Levenson Goldstein, S., & Rosengarten, T. (2019). Definitions of loose parts in early childhood outdoor classrooms: A scoping review. International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education , 6 (3), 37-52. Gull, C., Levenson Goldstein, S., & Rosengarten, T. (2022). STEM learning and loose parts in early elementary classrooms: A scoping review. International Online Journal of Primary Education , 11 (2), 279-292. Gull, C., Levenson Goldstein, S., & Rosengarten, T. (2024). Light, simple machines, sticks, crates, and so much more: A “loose parts learning” approach to STEM for early childhood. Science and Children , 61 (4), 33-40. Guss, S. S., Lim, C. I., Clements, D. H., Sharifnia, E. B., Holland, A. L., Vinh, M., & Sarama, J. (2023). Building learning trajectories for intentional, inclusive, and individualized instructional experiences in STEM. Education Sciences , 14 (1), 8. Haden, C. A., Jant, E. A., Hoffman, P. C., Marcus, M., Geddes, J. R., & Gaskins, S. (2014). Supporting family conversations and children's STEM learning in a children's museum. Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 29 (3), 333-344. Hallgren, K. A. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: an overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8 (1), 23. Hanline, M. F., Milton, S., & Phelps, P. (2001). Young children's block construction activities: Findings from 3 years of observation. Journal of Early Intervention , 24 (3), 224-237. Hendershot, S. M., Berghout Austin, A. M., Blevins-Knabe, B., & Ota, C. (2016). Young children's mathematics references during free play in family childcare settings. Early Child Development and Care , 186 (7), 1126-1141. IBM Corporation (2023). IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 29.0.2.0) [Computer software]. IBM. JASP Team. (2025). JASP (Version 0.19.3) [Computer software]. Kaplan, B. (2023). How children learn the designed actions of objects (Doctoral dissertation, New York University). Kenny, S., Cameron, C., Karing, J., Ahmadi, A., Braithwaite, P., & McClelland, M. (2023). A meta-analysis of the validity of the Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders task in predicting young children's academic performance. Frontiers in Psychology , 14. Kiewra, C., & Veselack, E. (2016). Playing with nature: Supporting preschoolers' creativity in natural outdoor classrooms. International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education , 4 (1), 70-95. Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine , 15 (2), 155-163. Leaper, C., & Brown, C. S. (2014). Sexism in schools. Advances in child development and behavior , 47 , 189-223 LeFevre, J. A., Fast, L., Skwarchuk, S. L., Smith‐Chant, B. L., Bisanz, J., Kamawar, D., & Penner‐Wilger, M. (2010). Pathways to mathematics: Longitudinal predictors of performance. Child Development , 81 (6), 1753-1767. Lin, X., & Li, H. (2019). Chinese mothers’ profile which values both play and academics predicts better developmental outcome in young children. International Journal of Behavioral Development , 43 (1), 61-66. Lifter, K., Mason, E. J., & Barton, E. E. (2011). Children’s play: Where we have been and where we could go. Journal of Early Intervention , 33 (4), 281-297. Lillard, A. S., Lerner, M. D., Hopkins, E. J., Dore, R. A., Smith, E. D., & Palmquist, C. M. (2013). The impact of pretend play on children's development: A review of the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 139 (1), 1–34. Lin, X., & Li, H. (2020). Parents’ play beliefs and engagement in young children’s play at home. In Working with Parents and Families in Early Childhood Education (pp. 5-20). Routledge. Lippard, C. N., Lamm, M. H., Tank, K. M., & Choi, J. Y. (2019). Pre-engineering thinking and the engineering habits of mind in preschool classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal , 47 , 187-198. Lloyd, B., & Howe, N. (2003). Solitary play and convergent and divergent thinking skills in preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18 (1), 22-41. MacDonald, B. L., Tofel-Grehl, C., & Searle, K. A. (2022). Play, problem-solving, STEM conceptions, and efficacy in STEM: An introduction to the STEM in early childhood education special issue. Education Sciences , 12 (5), 352. Makovichuk, L., Hewes, J., Lirette, P., & Thomas, N. (2014). Flight: Alberta’s early learning and care framework. Mannweiler, M. D., Bierman, K. L., & Liben, L. S. (2025). Linking parents’ play strategies with their preschoolers’ STEM skills: The mediating roles of child STEM talk and self-regulated learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology , 249 , 106095. McClelland, M. M., Cameron, C. E., Duncan, R., Bowles, R. P., Acock, A. C., Miao, A., & Pratt, M. E. (2014). Predictors of early growth in academic achievement: The head-toes-knees-shoulders task. Frontiers in Psychology , 5 , 599. Milford, T., & Tippett, C. (2015). The Design and validation of an early childhood STEM classroom observational protocol. International research in early childhood education , 6 (1), 24-37. Miller, N., Kumar, S., Pearce, K. L., & Baldock, K. L. (2022). The perceived benefits of and barriers to nature-based play and learning in South Australian public primary schools: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning , 22 (4), 342-354. Møller, S. J. (2015). Imagination, playfulness, and creativity in children's play with different toys. American Journal of Play , 7 (3), 322-346. Moore, T. J., & Tank, K. M. (2014). Nature-inspired design: A PictureSTEM curriculum for elementary STEM learning. In Annual Meeting of the Association of Science Teacher Educators, San Antonio, TX (pp. 1-7). Muntomimah, S., & Wijayanti, R. (2021, April). The importance of STEAM loose part learning effectiveness in early childhood cognitive learning. In 2nd Annual Conference on Social Science and Humanities (ANCOSH 2020) (pp. 47-52). Atlantis Press. Nicolopoulou, A. (1993). Play, cognitive development, and the social world: Piaget, Vygotsky, and beyond. Human development , 36 (1), 1-23. Niklas, F., & Schneider, W. (2017). Home learning environment and development of child competencies from kindergarten until the end of elementary school. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 49 , 263-274. Pakarinen, E., Imai-Matsumura, K., Yada, A., Yada, T., Leppänen, A., & Lerkkanen, M. K. (2024). Child-centered and teacher-directed practices in two different countries: A descriptive case study in Finnish and Japanese grade 1 classrooms. Journal of Research in Childhood Education , 38 (1), 30-49. Papadakis, S. (2021). Advances in mobile learning educational research (AMLER): Mobile learning as an educational reform. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research , 1 (1), 1-4. Park, J. (2019). A Comparison of the Pretending Elements between Constructive Play and Pretend Play. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET , 18 (4), 1-6. Pellegrini, A. D., & Gustafson, K. (2005). Boys’ and girls’ uses of objects for exploration, play, and tools in early childhood. In A. D. Pellegrini & P. K. Smith (Eds.), The nature of play: Great apes and humans (pp. 113–135). Guilford Press. Peppler, K., & Wohlwend, K. (2018). Theorizing the nexus of STEAM practice. Arts Education Policy Review , 119 (2), 88-99. Petkova, Y. (2023). STEM training in support of child development in the first group of kindergarten. Education and Technologies Journal . Piaget, J. (1962). The relation of affectivity to intelligence in the mental development of the child. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic , 26 (3), 129. Plasman, J. S., Gottfried, M. A., & Williams, D. N. (2020). Following in their footsteps: The relationship between parent STEM occupation and student STEM coursetaking in high school. Journal for STEM Education Research, 4 , 27–46. Ponitz, C. C., McClelland, M. M., Jewkes, A. M., Connor, C. M., Farris, C. L., & Morrison, F. J. (2008). Touch your toes! Developing a direct measure of behavioral regulation in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 23 , 141–158. Prameswari, T. W., & Lestariningrum, A. (2020). STEAM based learning strategies by playing loose parts for the achievement of 4c skills in children 4-5 years. Jurnal Efektor , 7 (1), 24-34. Rahardjo, M. M. (2019). How to use loose-parts in STEAM? Early childhood educators focus group discussion in Indonesia. Jurnal Pendidikan Usia Dini , 13 (2), 310-326. Ramani, G. B., Zippert, E., Schweitzer, S., & Pan, S. (2014). Preschool children's joint block building during a guided play activity. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology , 35 (4), 326-336. Rawson, M. Learning capacities for a multicultural and diverse social world: a challenge for Waldorf schools. https://e-learningwaldorf.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/No-9-Learning-capacities-for-a-multicultural-and-diverse-social-world.pdf Rubin, K. H. (2001). The Play Observation Scale (POS) . College Park: Center for Children, Relationships, and Culture of the University of Maryland. https://studylib.net/doc/8132486/the-play-observation-scale--pos--by-rubin Rubin, K. H., Fein, G. G., & Vandenberg, B. (1983). Play. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 693-774). Wiley. Rubin, K. H., Maioni, T. L., & Hornung, M. (1976). Free play behaviors in middle-and lower-class preschoolers: Parten and Piaget revisited. Child Development , 414-419. Salvatierra, L., & Cabello, V. M. (2022). Starting at home: What does the literature indicate about parental involvement in early childhood STEM education?. Education Sciences , 12 (3), 218. Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). Building blocks and cognitive building blocks: Playing to know the world mathematically. American Journal of Play , 1 (3), 313-337. Saw, G., Chang, C. N., & Chan, H. Y. (2018). Cross-sectional and longitudinal disparities in STEM career aspirations at the intersection of gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Educational Researcher , 47 (8), 525-531. Schmitt, F. J., Golüke, M., & Budisa, N. (2024). Bridging the gap: Enhancing science communication in synthetic biology with specific teaching modules, school laboratories, performance and theater. Frontiers in Synthetic Biology , 2 , 1337860. Schmitt, L., Weber, A., Weber, D., & Leuchter, M. (2024). First insights into preschool teachers’ instructional quality in block play and its associations with children’s knowledge, interest, academic self-concept and cognitive aspects. Early Education and Development , 35 (7), 1501-1523. Schulz, L. E., & Bonawitz, E. B. (2007). Serious fun: Preschoolers engage in more exploratory play when evidence is confounded. Developmental Psychology , 43 (4), 1045. Sénéchal, M. (2006). Testing the Home Literacy Model: Parent involvement in kindergarten is differentially related to grade 4 reading comprehension, fluency, spelling, and reading for pleasure. Scientific Studies of Reading , 10(1), 59–87. Sénéchal, M., & LeFevre, J.-A. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of children's reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development , 73(2), 445–460. Singer, E., Nederend, M., Penninx, L., Tajik, M., & Boom, J. (2014). The teacher's role in supporting young children's level of play engagement. Early Child Development and Care , 184 (8), 1233-1249. Skwarchuk, S. L., Sowinski, C., & LeFevre, J.-A. (2013). Formal and informal home learning activities in relation to children’s early numeracy and literacy skills: The development of a home numeracy model. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology , 114(2), 273–287. Sobel, D. M., Letourneau, S. M., Legare, C. H., & Callanan, M. (2021). Relations between parent–child interaction and children’s engagement and learning at a museum exhibit about electric circuits. Developmental Science , 24 (3), e13057. Solís, J. L., Howard, T., Mosqueda, E., & Bravo, M. A. (2025). “Encontré algo mejor”/“I found something better”: Trans-perspectives and raising critical consciousness with secondary bilingual/multilingual STEM teachers. International Journal of Multicultural Education , 27 (1), 79-115. Swirbul, M. S., Herzberg, O., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2022). Object play in the everyday home environment generates rich opportunities for infant learning. Infant Behavior and Development , 67 , 101712. Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Luo, R., McFadden, K. E., Bandel, E. T., & Vallotton, C. (2019). Early home learning environment predicts children’s 5th grade academic skills. Applied Developmental Science , 23 (2), 153-169. Thibodeau-Nielsen, R. B., Rueda-Posada, M. F., Dier, S. E., Dooley, A. W., Nadler, D. R., & Coxon, S. V. (2025). Exploring playful opportunities for STEM learning in early elementary school. Early Education and Development , 1-16. Titz, C., & Karbach, J. (2014). Working memory and executive functions: Effects of training on academic achievement. Psychological Research , 78 , 852-868. Tong, F., Tang, S., Irby, B. J., Lara-Alecio, R., & Guerrero, C. (2020). The determination of appropriate coefficient indices for inter-rater reliability: Using classroom observation instruments as fidelity measures in large-scale randomized research . International Journal of Educational Research, 99 , 101514. Trawick-Smith, J. (1990). The effects of realistic versus non-realistic play materials on young children's symbolic transformation of objects. Journal of Research in Childhood Education , 5 (1), 27-36. Trawick-Smith, J., Russell, H., & Swaminathan, S. (2011). Measuring the effects of toys on the problem-solving, creative and social behaviours of preschool children. Early Child Development and Care , 181 (7), 909-927. Trawick-Smith, J., Wolff, J., Koschel, M., & Vallarelli, J. (2015). Effects of toys on the play quality of preschool children: Influence of gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Early Childhood Education Journal , 43 , 249-256. Tselegkaridis, S., & Sapounidis, T. (2022). A systematic literature review on STEM research in early childhood. STEM, Robotics, Mobile Apps in Early Childhood and Primary Education: Technology to Promote Teaching and Learning , 117-134. Turner, S. L., Joeng, J. R., Sims, M. D., Dade, S. N., & Reid, M. F. (2019). SES, gender, and STEM career interests, goals, and actions: A test of SCCT. Journal of Career Assessment , 27 (1), 134-150. Vygotsky, L. S. (1967). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet Psychology , 5 (3), 6-18. Wahyuningsih, S., Nurjanah, N. E., Rasmani, U. E. E., Hafidah, R., Pudyaningtyas, A. R., & Syamsuddin, M. M. (2020). STEAM learning in early childhood education: A literature review. International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education , 4 (1), 33-44. Wan, Z. H., Jiang, Y., & Zhan, Y. (2021). STEM education in early childhood: A review of empirical studies. Early Education and Development , 32 (7), 940-962. Wechsler, D. (2012). Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence–Fourth Edition, Canadian (WPPSI–IVCDN): Canadian interpretive report (Canadian norms) . Pearson Clinical Assessment. Weisberg, D. S., Kittredge, A. K., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Klahr, D. (2015). Making play work for education. Phi Delta Kappan , 96 (8), 8-13. Weisberg, D. S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Kittredge, A. K., & Klahr, D. (2016). Guided play: Principles and practices. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 25 (3), 177-182. Zelazo, P. D., Carter, A., Reznick, J. S., & Frye, D. (1997). Early development of executive function: A problem-solving framework. Review of General Psychology , 1 (2), 198-226. Zelazo, P. D., & Müller, U. (2002). Executive function in typical and atypical development. Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development , 445-469. Zeng, H. Q., & Ng, S. C. (2024). Free play matters: Promoting kindergarten children’s science learning using questioning strategies during loose parts play. Early Childhood Education Journal , 1-16. Zippert, E. L., Eason, S. H., Marshall, S., & Ramani, G. B. (2019). Preschool children's math exploration during play with peers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology , 65 , 101072. Zosh, J. M., Verdine, B. N., Filipowicz, A., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh‐Pasek, K., & Newcombe, N. S. (2015). Talking shape: Parental language with electronic versus traditional shape sorters. Mind, Brain, and Education , 9 (3), 136-144. Additional Declarations There is NO Competing Interest. Supplementary Files NatureCommunicationsReportingSummary.pdf reporting-summary Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 05 Dec, 2025 Read the published version in Communications Psychology → Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7134028","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":489162227,"identity":"167467a5-f8ba-4f0a-a369-3bdff4a5de7d","order_by":0,"name":"Ozlem Cankaya","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6337-2421","institution":"MacEwan University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ozlem","middleName":"","lastName":"Cankaya","suffix":""},{"id":489162228,"identity":"8729de11-1dda-4653-8249-fd4432fd45ce","order_by":1,"name":"Natalia Rohatyn-Martin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"MacEwan University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Natalia","middleName":"","lastName":"Rohatyn-Martin","suffix":""},{"id":489162229,"identity":"51397b09-49a7-4cec-a133-a1427d4868bf","order_by":2,"name":"Karen Buro","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"MacEwan University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Karen","middleName":"","lastName":"Buro","suffix":""},{"id":489162230,"identity":"0c3514cc-9482-497d-99d0-195052cd81bd","order_by":3,"name":"Keirsten Taylor","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Keirsten","middleName":"","lastName":"Taylor","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-15 21:20:36","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7134028/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7134028/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-025-00362-y","type":"published","date":"2025-12-05T05:00:00+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":87693491,"identity":"8202c4ec-9528-405c-8664-39718d48c0a2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-28 05:32:28","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":488716,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePlay Session Items.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7134028/v1/cd44e268e5a1a168aa6fe2f8.png"},{"id":87693489,"identity":"abf4e05a-75cb-4606-8d5f-aebacf275c52","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-28 05:32:28","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":101455,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 1.\u003c/strong\u003e Mean proportion of time for each observed STEM behaviour during \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;play with loose parts.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7134028/v1/59c75bd92544f7d295731057.png"},{"id":87694296,"identity":"67c2a6f5-6411-4f72-a637-5455d378641f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-28 05:40:28","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":98107,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 2.\u003c/strong\u003e Mean proportion of time for each observed STEM behaviour during play with toy percussion instruments.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7134028/v1/b03c45d1575c811014afca1b.png"},{"id":97957196,"identity":"8ea93cfe-fb36-4294-ae08-20be716e1bdb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-11 08:11:37","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2580655,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7134028/v1/5291b31d-af29-4c5d-a34a-189c3d7b60af.pdf"},{"id":87693492,"identity":"c463ac97-9fb7-416d-9c93-d3674a37633c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-28 05:32:28","extension":"pdf","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":1666587,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"reporting-summary","description":"","filename":"NatureCommunicationsReportingSummary.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7134028/v1/d69936215e81de6548c34e4b.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"There is \u003cb\u003eNO\u003c/b\u003e Competing Interest.","formattedTitle":"Children’s Spontaneous Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Behaviours and Engagement in Play with Loose Parts","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003ePlay is a key developmental process in early childhood and is increasingly recognized as a natural context and effective entry point for foundational science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) engagement and learning that can lead to innovative thinking (Campbell et al., 2018; Gull et al., 2022; MacDonald et al., 2022; Tselegkaridis \u0026amp; Sapounidis, 2022; Wan et al., 2021; Weisberg et al., 2015). In play, children engage in exploration, hypothesis testing, causal reasoning, and problem-solving behaviours that support them in building knowledge by interacting with their environment (Choi \u0026amp; Ae Ohm, 2018; Lifter et al., 2011; Lillard et al., 2013; Nicolopoulou, 1993). Unstructured play in particular offers opportunities for children to manipulate objects and materials, explore their properties, and engage in problem-solving without play partner intervention or scaffolding (Gold \u0026amp; Elicker, 2020; Hanline et al., 2001; Pellegrini \u0026amp; Gustafson, 2005; Vygotsky, 1967).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEducators, researchers, and policymakers increasingly recognize the value of integrating curricular goals with play-based learning (e.g., MacDonald et al., 2022; Makovichuk et al., 2014). One promising approach involves the use of everyday materials and objects commonly referred to as \u0026ldquo;loose parts\u0026rdquo; to enrich children\u0026rsquo;s play. Loose parts are defined as natural or manufactured objects or materials that are not toys but can be repurposed as such by children during play to serve a variety of functions (Beloglovsky \u0026amp; Daly, 2016; Casey \u0026amp; Robertson, 2019; Gull et al., 2022). Loose parts have been widely endorsed for their potential to support STEM learning, education, and innovation (Casey \u0026amp; Robertson, 2019; Gull et al., 2024; Prameswari \u0026amp; Lestariningrum, 2020; Rahardjo, 2019; Wahyuningsih et al., 2020). Yet, despite strong theoretical and qualitative enthusiasm, empirical research on children\u0026rsquo;s engagement in STEM with loose parts remains limited, particularly regarding its role in indoor contexts (e.g., in playrooms in early learning and childcare; Cankaya et al., 2025). Many of the existing studies have focused on outdoor play and gross motor development (e.g., Flannigan \u0026amp; Dietze, 2017; Gull et al., 2019; Kiewra \u0026amp; Veselack, 2016; Olsen \u0026amp; Smith, 2020; for reviews, see Gibson et al., 2017; Cankaya et al., 2025). Only limited research shows that materials and objects similar to loose parts can support children\u0026rsquo;s cognitive outcomes (Cankaya et al., 2025). Explicit quantitative research focusing on young children\u0026rsquo;s STEM behaviours and engagement at home or early learning and child care environments with loose parts does not exist (Cankaya et al., 2025). Understanding the differences in children\u0026rsquo;s play with a variety of materials is necessary for clarifying the types of interactions that support STEM engagement. Foundational research that explores children\u0026rsquo;s spontaneous STEM behaviours with loose parts while taking into account children\u0026rsquo;s cognitive capacities (e.g., executive functioning, IQ) and home learning environment can inform more targeted and developmentally grounded STEM education in early years.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe current study addresses this gap by observing preschool-aged children\u0026rsquo;s STEM behaviours during unstructured solitary play (i.e., when a child plays alone without interacting with others) with loose parts and with toys that offer limited affordance and exploration opportunities (e.g., toy percussion instruments, control). We examined how individual cognitive capacities (IQ and executive function), demographic characteristics (child\u0026rsquo;s age, sex, and parental education), and home learning environment are associated with children\u0026rsquo;s observed STEM behaviours. In doing so, this study provides a nuanced understanding of the cognitive and contextual factors that support early STEM behaviours and engagement. In studies examining children\u0026rsquo;s STEM behaviours and engagement, understanding how cognitive and contextual factors interact is essential for identifying the mechanisms that support the development of STEM interests and competencies. We aimed to document and inform the design of equitable learning environments that align with young children\u0026rsquo;s developmental capacities and scaffold meaningful STEM engagement prior to the introduction of formal instruction or exposure to advanced STEM domains (e.g., robotics, coding).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpontaneous STEM Behaviours in Early Childhood\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch on STEM behaviours in early childhood consistently underscores the importance of play-based and exploratory experiences in fostering foundational STEM competencies that can lead to STEM learning (Gull et al., 2022; Ramani et al., 2014; Lippard et al., 2019; Wan et al., 2021; Weisberg et al., 2016). Zheng and Ng (2024) conducted the only study that focused on unstructured play with loose parts and its power to promote science learning. This teacher action research explored how open-ended questions influence young children\u0026rsquo;s science learning during play with loose parts in a kindergarten classroom in Singapore. Over five weeks, a teacher-researcher engaged five 4- to 5-year-old children in biweekly 30-minute play sessions, posing open-ended questions designed to prompt science process skills. Data was collected through video/audio recordings, observation checklists, and teacher journals, and analyzed using inductive content analysis. The study found that open-ended questions extended children\u0026rsquo;s engagement with science-related skills and increased the complexity of their scientific exploration. Additionally, children often independently initiate exploration of scientific concepts such as motion and material transformation during play. However, the study\u0026rsquo;s small sample size and potential observer bias due to the teacher-researcher\u0026rsquo;s dual role limit the generalizability and objectivity of the findings. The lack of independent assessment of children\u0026apos;s conceptual understanding further restricts the strength of the conclusions. There are many other studies focusing on children\u0026rsquo;s STEM or STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Mathematics) with loose parts. While they may be rich in descriptions, they are qualitative in nature, often include only reflections of the researchers, or have methodological issues which limit generalizability (Dewi et al., 2024; Rahardjo, 2019; Wahyuningsih et al., 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a scoping review, Gull and colleagues (2022) explored how the use of loose parts can address challenges in teaching STEM. They found 20 studies that emphasize that the use of loose parts encourages creativity, problem-solving, and engineering-like thinking through hands-on engagement. Although their study shares how loose parts could be used to improve learning and student engagement in STEM, they did not evaluate the quality of studies, and most of the studies they identified focus on describing qualitative experiences from teachers\u0026rsquo; perspectives. Furthermore, their focus was on older children in elementary classrooms. Systematic reviews point out that the majority of the work with explicit focus on children\u0026rsquo;s experiences with loose parts involves older children; there is a lack of understanding of how younger children engage with loose parts (Gibson et al., 2017).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSTEM in early childhood is a multidimensional domain encompassing distinct disciplines, each grounded in its own theoretical foundations, research base, and pedagogical practices (Brenneman et al., 2009; Clements \u0026amp; Sarama, 2016). Furthermore, the integration of arts into STEM, resulting in STEAM, emphasizes interdisciplinary approaches that combine creative expression with technical reasoning (Bequette \u0026amp; Bequette, 2012; Peppler \u0026amp; Wohlwend, 2018). The recent inclusion of coding, robotics, and artificial intelligence further complicates the landscape, requiring navigation of tensions between developmental suitability, curricular goals and innovation (Bers, 2020; Makovichuk et al., 2014; Papadakis, 2021).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere are many research studies focusing on various STEM experiences, education, and interventions in early childhood with technological advancements. For example, in another systematic review, Wan et al. (2021) documented empirical studies that included children aged 3 to 8. Their goal was to identify integrated STEM activities and their efficacy. They included studies that were related to programming robots, engineering designs, digital games and comprehensive approaches. Similarly, Tselegkaridis and Sapounidis (2022) highlight the effectiveness of integrating robotics and mobile apps in playful, age-appropriate contexts that support cognitive development. Yet, despite the increasing global engagement in advanced STEM options, early learning and childcare centres frequently lack the infrastructure, educator training, or policy support necessary to implement structured opportunities for technology-enhanced STEM learning (Tselegkaridis \u0026amp; Sapounidis, 2022). These gaps highlight the need to first understand how young children naturally explore STEM concepts through play, as well as to identify the cognitive and contextual factors that can impact children\u0026rsquo;s effective STEM engagement. Observational studies can be foundational to the development of STEM environments that are inclusive, effective, and responsive to diverse needs when technology and educator training for STEM are not part of the early childhood education ecosystem (Schmitt et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRelationship Between Toys, Play Materials, and STEM Behaviours\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn play, materials and toys can prompt children to involve themselves in a variety of behaviours, explore new strategies, test hypotheses, or shift between play types (Lloyd \u0026amp; Howe, 2003; Trawick-Smith et al., 2015). The nature of the play changes with each toy (Park, 2019). For example, construction materials like blocks may encourage experimentation with balance, symmetry and constructive play (Park, 2019; Schmitt et al., 2024), while repurposed items such as cardboard or string may stimulate creative solutions to everyday problems (Cankaya et al., 2024). Additionally, dolls can increase language use and the number of scenarios in pretend play (Park, 2019; Lillard et al., 2013). Alongside the nature of toys, the availability of toys and play materials significantly shapes play, influencing children\u0026rsquo;s early learning experiences (Trawick-Smith et al., 2015).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eToys have become increasingly commercialized, themed, and technologically sophisticated; they tend to promote structured, predetermined ways of playing that may limit experiences (Coyle \u0026amp; Liben, 2020). Moreover, the number of toys in children\u0026rsquo;s environment can have an impact on engagement quality (Dauch et al., 2018). Some children, especially those from low socioeconomic backgrounds, do not come into educational settings with the same access to STEM-related toys or experiences as other children (An et al., 2019; Salvatierra L\u0026oacute;pez \u0026amp; Cabello, 2022). This gap may hinder children\u0026apos;s engagement in play, STEM engagement and learning, particularly when classroom environments do not reflect their home cultures or previous play experiences (Lin \u0026amp; Li, 2019; Rawson, 2023). In response, many early learning programs and home environments have embraced the concept of loose parts (Cankaya et al., 2024; 2025; Makovichuk et al., 2014). Parents and educators play a critical role in facilitating meaningful conversations around these materials, using them to support STEM-related skills like spatial reasoning, inquiry, and design thinking (Casey \u0026amp; Robertson, 2019; Gull et al., 2022; Schmitt et al., 2024).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearchers documented that exploring and manipulating physical principles through objects allows young children to formulate scientific intuitions, serving as potential precursors to learning in STEM subjects (Pellegrini \u0026amp; Gustafson, 2005; Solis et al., 2017). For example, Swirbul et al. (2022) investigated how infants engage in play with objects within their home environments and how this behaviour supports development. They found that infants spent about 60% of the observation time (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 88.5 min, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 14.4) interacting with a variety of objects, including both toys and common household items. These interactions were typically brief but occurred frequently throughout the observation period. Researchers concluded that spontaneous, everyday object play generates rich opportunities for learning, contributing to young children\u0026apos;s cognitive development, starting in infancy.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, when children play with objects, they act like scientists collecting evidence for testing hypotheses. For instance, Schulz and Bonawitz (2007) found that preschoolers engage in more exploratory play when presented with confounded evidence, where multiple possible causes were mixed and unclear. Using a free-play paradigm, they demonstrated that children were capable of distinguishing between confounded and unconfounded evidence. When toys presented ambiguous causal relationships, children were more likely to explore those toys over new ones, suggesting they were motivated to resolve the ambiguity. Importantly, children also spontaneously disambiguate variables during their play, indicating that even without formal instruction, their exploration is directed toward understanding cause-and-effect relationships. Thus, ambiguity in evidence can enhance preschoolers\u0026rsquo; learning by prompting more thoughtful and targeted exploration (Schulz \u0026amp; Bonawitz, 2007). These findings suggest that without structured play or specialized toys, children\u0026rsquo;s environments support a wide range of STEM experiences (Swirbul et al., 2022).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLoose parts in children\u0026apos;s environments, such as cardboard tubes, fabric scraps, string, rocks, or containers, can serve as powerful stimuli for STEM exploration and innovation (Gull et al., 2024; Swirbul et al., 2022). Children independently assess which materials to use based on affordances, the perceived possibilities for action that an object offers (Gibson, 2014). These materials can encourage children to observe properties such as weight, texture, flexibility, and balance, prompting them to ask questions, make predictions, and test outcomes in early years (Gull et al., 2025). Because everyday objects and materials with many affordances do not have fixed purposes, they can support open-ended inquiry, encourage problem-solving, and invite children to use trial and error to investigate cause-and-effect relationships. These experiences allow children to transform familiar materials into opportunities for experimentation, reasoning, and scientific thinking in their play (Thibodeau-Nielsen et al., 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen observing children\u0026rsquo;s cognitive development during play with various materials and toys, two core thinking processes are evident: (1) convergent thinking, which focuses on arriving at a single solution, and (2) divergent thinking, which involves generating multiple possibilities (Lloyd \u0026amp; Howe, 2003). Closed-ended materials (e.g., puzzles, percussion instruments) are typically associated with convergent thinking, while versatile materials (e.g., blocks, natural objects) promote divergent thinking by enabling children to explore multiple affordances and outcomes. In a study, Trawick-Smith and colleagues (2015) found that open-ended materials with many affordances, like Duplo Bricks\u0026reg; and Rainbow People\u0026reg;, elicited higher-quality play behaviours. While age did not predict play quality, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES) showed significant interactions with material type, highlighting the importance of both material affordances and individual differences in shaping play activities and outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eChildren\u0026rsquo;s Social Versus Solitary Play\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile social interactions are often credited for enhancing STEM learning (Gold \u0026amp; Elicker, 2020; Gold et al., 2022; Haden et al., 2014; Thibodeau-Nielsen et al., 2025; Zippert et al., 2019), solitary play offers a distinct lens for understanding individual differences in attention, persistence, cognitive flexibility, and problem-solving. In the absence of peer or adult scaffolding, children must independently generate ideas, represent problems, test strategies, and evaluate outcomes, processes that engage multiple cognitive domains (Lloyd \u0026amp; Howe, 2003). Identifying the cognitive demands and affordances of solitary play with different types of materials is essential for designing learning environments.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn solitary play, the absence of external guidance requires children to internally regulate their planning, attention, and goal-setting, further strengthening cognitive capacities associated with early STEM learning. In contrast, toys often signal a limited or fixed function, whereas loose parts can be manipulated in varied ways, inviting flexible thinking, sustained exploration and deep cognitive engagement. (Cankaya et al., under review; Kaplan et al., 2023). Gull and colleagues (2019) describe how loose parts encourage self-guided play, allowing children to manipulate, transform, and innovate. In solitary contexts, this autonomy allows children to exercise critical thinking and engage in inquiry-based learning without relying on social input. For instance, a child playing alone in a sandbox might shape sand into a structure, reinforce it with sticks, and decorate it with leaves, testing stability and aesthetic choices simultaneously (Gold \u0026amp; Elicker, 2020; Moore \u0026amp; Tank, 2014). These tasks foster divergent thinking, as children must continuously problem-solve and adapt their approaches (Lloyd \u0026amp; Howe, 2003). Thus, they enable children to combine and reconfigure materials in countless ways, supporting open-ended, self-directed learning experiences (Cankaya et al., 2023; 2024; Daly \u0026amp; Beloglovsky, 2014). These interactions promote executive functioning and self-regulation, while encouraging children to engage in higher-level thinking (Cankaya et al., 2023; Gold et al., 2015).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite growing emphasis on early STEM education, there remains a significant lack of empirical data on how young children engage with STEM concepts during unstructured, solitary play with a variety of versatile materials. Much of the existing literature focuses on interventions, adult-led instruction or collaborative group settings, leaving a critical gap in our understanding of children\u0026rsquo;s independent STEM exploration. While previous research has explored how play materials support high-quality play and cognitive development, limited attention has been paid to how children engage with loose parts independently to explore STEM concepts. This study addresses that gap by examining how young children use loose parts in solitary play to engage in STEM behaviours, focusing on the types of behaviours that emerge and how they compare to play with other toys with limited function.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRelationship between Cognitive Development and STEM Behaviours\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExecutive function (EF) refers to a set of cognitive processes\u0026mdash;including working memory, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility \u0026ndash; that enable goal-directed behaviour, self-regulation, and problem-solving in early childhood (Diamond, 2013).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEF plays a critical role in children\u0026apos;s ability to engage in complex processes and learning tasks (Zelazo et al., 1997). It is particularly relevant in play-based problem-solving, where children must set goals, plan strategies, execute actions, and evaluate outcomes. Zelazo\u0026rsquo;s four-phase framework of EF, representation, planning, execution, and evaluation, maps onto how children may engage with STEM during play. For instance, when attempting to construct a functional marble run, children must represent the problem (e.g., noticing the marble does not roll), plan a solution (e.g., gather blocks to create an incline), execute their plan, and evaluate the outcome (e.g., adjust the angle or support structure). These cognitive processes are embedded in play and provide a developmental pathway for strengthening EF, STEM thinking and learning simultaneously.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring play, children often demonstrate behaviours that reflect core components of their developing EF capacity, including working memory, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility (Bagiati \u0026amp; Evangelou, 2016; Bairaktarova et al., 2011; Brophy \u0026amp; Evangelou, 2007). EF skills have been shown to predict achievement in STEM domains, particularly, mathematics (Diamond, 2013; Gathercole et al., 2003; Titz \u0026amp; Karbach, 2014) and science (Anthony \u0026amp; Ogg, 2020; Bauer \u0026amp; Booth, 2019; Gathercole et al., 2003) and engineering ( Gold et al., 2021).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen children interact with toys that do not allow them to immerse in deep exploration, their cognitive capacities, particularly EF, may not be demanded as much (Cankaya et al., 2023; M\u0026oslash;ller, 2015; Zosh et al., 2015).\u0026nbsp;This aligns with the hierarchical models of EF development (Zelazo et al., 1997; Zelazo \u0026amp; M\u0026uuml;ller, 2002). However, during solitary play with loose parts, children are challenged to hold multiple mental representations in mind, navigate trial and error, and revise strategies, all without external scaffolding (Carlson et al., 2014; Gold et al., 2021). Children\u0026rsquo;s capacity for self-regulation and strategic problem-solving increases with age, but the variability is also shaped by individual differences in cognitive functioning, environmental support, and prior experiences (Campbell et al., 2018; Clements \u0026amp; Sarama, 2016). While unstructured play may facilitate cognitive development and STEM-related competencies, empirical clarity on this relationship remains limited (Cankaya et al., 2025).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFoundational research is needed to delineate how children\u0026rsquo;s EF, overall cognitive functioning, and STEM engagement interact during early play experiences to inform more targeted and developmentally grounded STEM education in early years.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOther Factors Associated with Children\u0026rsquo;s STEM Behaviours\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudies show that children as young as three years old can meaningfully engage in STEM through guided exploration and experimentation, setting the stage for deeper interest and competency as they grow (Petkova, 2023). However, the nature of this exploration and the behaviours observed can vary significantly by age. Younger children often participate in STEM through sensory-based, open-ended play such as manipulating materials or observing physical effects, whereas older ones tend to demonstrate more advanced behaviours like making predictions, testing hypotheses, and engaging in problem-solving (Counsell \u0026amp; Wright, 2016). Learning trajectories of children of different ages is important for STEM education and can determine how progressively complex skills can be supported as children move through developmental stages (Guss et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSTEM opportunities can be out of reach for some children due to the uneven distribution of educational resources, parental support, and learning environments (Plasman et al., 2020). The family investment model posits that higher SES enables access to tools and environments that promote cognitive and academic development. In the context of STEM, this means that children from higher-SES families are more likely to have access to age-appropriate toys, electronics, extracurricular programs, and informal learning spaces such as science museums or libraries (Salvatierra L\u0026oacute;pez \u0026amp; Cabello, 2022). By contrast, lower-income families may face barriers such as limited financial resources, reduced access to quality early education, or lack of parental familiarity with STEM content, which can hinder both early exposure and sustained interest in these fields (An et al., 2019). Researchers also indicate that children from lower-income households may receive less support in developing STEM skills at home, which can influence long-term academic trajectories (An et al., 2019). Furthermore, higher-income households with more educated parents tend to exhibit stronger STEM achievement and more positive attitudes toward STEM, partly due to differences in early cognitive stimulation and academic support (Turner et al., 2019; Saw et al., 2018).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChildren\u0026rsquo;s engagement with STEM is also shaped by the social and cultural contexts of their play, which are influenced by parental attitudes. Gendered socialization, including the marketing and packaging of toys, influences children\u0026apos;s interest in and access to STEM activities. Studies show that even subtle cues such as labelling a mechanical toy as \u0026ldquo;for boys\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;for girls\u0026rdquo; can alter both children\u0026rsquo;s behaviours and parental involvement during play (Coyle \u0026amp; Liben, 2020). This gendered patterning can have downstream effects on self-efficacy, interest, and persistence in STEM fields (Weisgram \u0026amp; Dinella, 2018; Leaper \u0026amp; Brown, 2014). The home learning environment, comprising both parental attitudes and the availability of cognitively stimulating activities, has been linked to STEM outcomes (Campbell et al., 2018). In studies examining children\u0026rsquo;s STEM behaviours and engagement, understanding how cognitive and contextual factors interact is essential for identifying the mechanisms that support the development of STEM interests and competencies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCurrent Study\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch on young children\u0026apos;s STEM behaviours and explorations, particularly in the context of observation of play with loose parts, remains limited. Few researchers have examined how young children engage in engineering play (Gold et al., 2020; Gold \u0026amp; Elicker, 2020; Gold et al., 2021), and even fewer have implemented observational methods (Tselegkaridis \u0026amp; Sapounidis, 2022). A precise, developmentally grounded understanding of children\u0026rsquo;s STEM behaviours with loose parts could enhance both instructional design in early STEM education and scholarly insights into cognitive development and school readiness. Further research is needed to examine how children\u0026rsquo;s engagement in STEM behaviours, such as problem-solving, hypothesis testing, and construction, relates to cognitive development, including EF and cognitive functioning. Such an inquiry can help situate early STEM behaviours and engagement within broader developmental and educational frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study addresses two key gaps in the literature on early childhood STEM learning. First, although prior research has examined how early STEM exposure supports cognitive development (e.g., Gold et al., 2015), much of this work has focused on social contexts. Far less attention has been given to how children engage in STEM behaviours during solitary play, despite its relevance for understanding individual cognitive processes. Particularly, research has yet to systematically examine how the affordances of different play materials, such as versatile versus limited-function toys, influence the emergence and frequency of STEM behaviours in unstructured, solitary contexts. Understanding how materials like loose parts shape children\u0026apos;s independent STEM behaviours is critical for informing early learning environments and guiding educators and parents in selecting developmentally supportive materials.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, although the importance of play for supporting cognitive, social, and emotional development is well established, a shift toward structured academic early education, particularly in certain cultural contexts, has contributed to declining opportunities for unstructured play (Cankaya \u0026amp; LeFevre, 2016; Lin \u0026amp; Li, 2020; Pakarinen et al., 2024). This trend may compromise the development of self-regulatory capacities such as EF, attentional control, and behavioural regulation, skills that strongly predict school readiness (Burdette \u0026amp; Whitaker, 2005; Cameron et al., 2015; Miller et al., 2022). Despite these links, play research has largely overlooked how individual differences, such as children\u0026apos;s cognitive abilities and home learning environments, influence STEM engagement during solitary play (Cankaya et al., under review).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn response to these gaps, the present study examines how material type (loose parts vs. limited-purpose toys) influences the frequency and type of STEM behaviours during solitary play. It also investigates how individual and contextual factors, including cognitive functioning, EF, age, sex, parental education, and home learning environment, relate to variation in children\u0026rsquo;s STEM behaviours. The study was guided by the following research questions:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"1\" type=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWhat types of STEM behaviours do children exhibit when playing with loose parts compared to toys that allow limited opportunities for exploration?\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHow do young children\u0026apos;s STEM behaviours and engagement with loose parts vary with cognitive functioning, executive function, parental education, child\u0026rsquo;s age, sex, and home learning environment?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipants\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChildren and their parents were recruited for the study from private and not-for-profit daycares in a large city in western Canada. In this data analysis, we included 60 children who participated in both play sessions, completed all cognitive assessments, and had parents who completed the parental questionnaire. Table 1 below includes the characteristics of our participants, which were gathered through parent questionnaires.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParticipant Characteristics\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"420\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 231px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCharacteristic\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003en\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 231px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSex (n, % of total sample)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 231px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Male\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28 (46.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 231px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Female\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32 (53.3%)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 231px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParent Answered Questionnaire\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 231px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Mother\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50 (83.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 231px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Father\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9 (15.0%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 231px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Other\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (1.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 231px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHome Language\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 231px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Monolingual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28 (46.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 231px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Multilingual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32 (53.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 231px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChildren\u0026rsquo;s Birth Country\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 231px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Canada\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57 (95.0%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 231px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Other\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (5.0%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 231px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParents\u0026rsquo; Birth Country\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 231px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Canada\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50 (83.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 231px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Other\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10 (16.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMost parents identified as mothers (83%), were born in Canada (83%), and reported their child was also born in Canada (95%). Monolingual children accounted for 47% of the sample, while children who may be exposed to more than one language at home accounted for 53%. Parental education was measured on a 6-point scale, from 1 = less than high school, to 6 = post-graduate degree. The median level of parental education was 5.00 (University Graduate; \u003cem\u003eIQR\u003c/em\u003e =1.00). The quantity of books in the home was measured on a 6-point scale, from 1 = 0\u0026ndash;25, to 6 = 200 or more. The median number of children\u0026rsquo;s books at home was 4.00 (76 to 100 books, \u003cem\u003eIQR\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 3.00). The median number of adult books at home was 4.00 (76 to 100 books, \u003cem\u003eIQR\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 2.50). Reading to children was measured on a 9-point scale, from 1 = never, to 9 = more than 7 times a week. The median number of readings that occurred per week at bedtime was 8.00 (7 times a week, \u003cem\u003eIQR\u003c/em\u003e = 1.00) and 5.00 at other times (4 times a week, \u003cem\u003eIQR\u003c/em\u003e = 2.00).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMeasures\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCognitive Assessments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiven the potential influence of cognitive development on children\u0026rsquo;s play behaviours, two assessments were employed to evaluate cognitive functioning: the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, Fourth Edition: Canadian (WPPSI-IV; Wechsler, 2012) and the Heads-Toes-Knees-Shoulders Task (HTKS Task; McClelland et al., 2014), which assesses EF performance. The sequence of the HTKS Task and the WPPSI-IV administration was randomized.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe WPPSI-IV CDN\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis standardized assessment is designed to evaluate children\u0026apos;s cognitive abilities (ages\u0026nbsp;2:6 to 7:7). The assessment included 15 subtests organized into cognitive domains. Raw scores were first converted into scaled scores and used for creating composite scores used in the analysis as follows: Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) assesses verbal reasoning and language comprehension; Visual Spatial Index (VSI) evaluates visual perception and spatial problem-solving; Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI) measures logical thinking and problem-solving with novel information; Working Memory Index (WMI) examines short-term memory and manipulation of visual or spatial information; Processing Speed Index (PSI) assesses the speed and accuracy of visual information processing. Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ), derived from five subtests for younger and six for older children, provides a comprehensive measure of overall cognitive functioning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHTKS Task\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe HTKS task measures EF performance in young children, particularly cognitive flexibility, working memory, and inhibitory control (Kenny et al., 2023), as conceptualized by Ponitz et al. (2008). It involves behavioural regulation through structured instructions. The task required children to perform actions opposite to verbal instructions they received, challenging their ability to suppress automatic responses and apply rule-based behaviours. Children received 0 for incorrect responses (e.g., touching the prompted body part, such as \u0026quot;head\u0026quot;), 1 for self-corrected responses, and 2 for correct responses (e.g., touching the opposite body part, such as \u0026quot;toes\u0026quot;). The measure is scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 62. Task duration varied depending on the child\u0026rsquo;s performance and ability to progress through the stages.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParent Questionnaire\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe parent questionnaire was designed to collect information on children\u0026rsquo;s play experiences, home environments, and parental perspectives. The quality of the home learning environment plays a critical role in children\u0026apos;s play and development (Anders et al., 2012; LeFevre et al., 2010; Niklas \u0026amp; Schneider, 2017; S\u0026eacute;n\u0026eacute;chal, 2006; S\u0026eacute;n\u0026eacute;chal \u0026amp; LeFevre, 2002; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe first section gathered detailed demographic and socioeconomic data about the child and the parent. Parents provided information on their child\u0026rsquo;s sex, date of birth, country of birth, as well as their relationship to the child, including their sex, country of birth, and postal code. Additionally, they reported their highest level of education and language use at home. The questionnaire also included items on the number of books in the home and how often parents or household members read to the child each week, distinguishing between bedtime reading and other reading times. The questionnaire also assessed parents\u0026rsquo; attitudes toward early childhood literacy, math, science, screen time, and play, using a four-point Likert scale from \u0026quot;strongly agree\u0026quot; to \u0026quot;strongly disagree.\u0026quot; Parents also reported how frequently their child engaged in various activities and how often they participated together, including math (e.g., counting games), reading (e.g., pointing to letters), and creative play (e.g., building, pretend play), using a five-point scale from \u0026quot;never\u0026quot; to \u0026quot;always.\u0026quot; These items were adapted from prior studies on parental beliefs and practices related to children\u0026rsquo;s education and development (Cankaya, 2013; Skwarchuk et al., 2013).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePlay Materials and Toys\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe play session materials for this study were organized into two distinct sets, labelled Box A and Box B. The toy boxes used in this study were 12.9-quart clear plastic, providing a uniform and secure storage solution for the materials in Box A (toy percussion instruments, control) and Box B (loose parts). Please see Figure 1 below for the contents of Boxes A and B.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe first set, Box A, consisted of toy percussion instruments. The second set, Box B, consisted of a diverse range of loose parts (see Appendix II for the complete list). The loose parts materials, objects and toys were selected to be gender-neutral and free of explicit play cues. To ensure consistency, they were presented to children in a standardized arrangement. Similarly, the percussion instruments were a varied set, rather than a standalone toy, ensuring that both conditions offered diverse interaction opportunities while differing in their affordances and constraints.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProcedures\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePlay Sessions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChildren participated in two play sessions, each lasting up to 30 minutes. They were randomly assigned to one of the conditions first: playing with loose parts or toy percussion instruments. Children played with the alternative box in the next play session, at least two days after the first session. In the session\u0026apos;s final minutes or if the child indicated they were done, the researcher asked what the child was doing. This approach encouraged children to reflect on and explain their play while preserving the natural flow of interaction.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCognitive Assessment Session\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Session 3, the researcher administered the WPPSI-IV and the HTKS task in a quiet, distraction-free room. The assessments were conducted individually, following standardized procedures. WPPSI-IV was administered in a standardized order, tailored to the child\u0026rsquo;s age group. The assessment was split into two shorter sessions if the child needed a break.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eObservational Data Coding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePlay Duration\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe play sessions were observed and coded on a minute-by-minute basis (Singer et al., 2014). This coding process involved identifying when children\u0026rsquo;s play started and ended. In rare cases, if children took a break (e.g., used the bathroom), the researcher stopped, resumed the time, and recorded the minutes of play.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSTEM Behaviours\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe observed STEM behaviours were coded using the STEM Play Behaviour Scale, which consists of eleven subtypes, outlined in Table 2. This scale was adapted from previous research focusing on children\u0026rsquo;s engineering play behaviours (Bairaktarova et al., 2011; Gold et al., 2017; Milford \u0026amp; Tippett, 2015).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSTEM Behaviour Descriptors\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"666\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 234px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTEM Behaviours\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 432px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDescription\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 234px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAsking Questions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 432px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePose questions to gather information about the function of an object or materials.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 234px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCommunicating Goals\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 432px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eState their objectives and plans.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 234px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSolving Problems\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 432px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePropose solutions to challenges.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 234px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExploring Mathematical Concepts\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 432px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvolve spatial reasoning, pattern recognition, or common mathematical domains.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 234px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstructing\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 432px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGather, sort, or stack materials to create a structure or design.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 234px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExplaining How Things Are Built or Work\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 432px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDescribe their creation(s) either during or after construction.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 234px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTesting Hypotheses\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 432px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAn element of curiosity while redesigning a constructed item.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 234px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUsing STEM-Specific Language\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 432px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUse language specific to the field of STEM (e.g., ramp, gravity, stability).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 234px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntegrating Technological Ideas\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 432px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncorporate elements of technology where there is no technology (e.g., \u0026ldquo;The machine will pull this up\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 234px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFollowing Prototypes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 432px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComparison of how something looks in the real world and recreating it with their materials.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 234px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEvaluating Design\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 432px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTest the function of a completed design.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearchers watched video recordings of each play session and coded children\u0026rsquo;s STEM behaviours. Children were assigned either 1 or 0 for each minute across all STEM behaviours, indicating whether the behaviours occurred or did not occur during the one-minute time frame. Some of the STEM behaviours require a verbal component, such as \u0026lsquo;Communicating Goals,\u0026rsquo; whereas some only require a non-verbal component (e.g., Constructing Structures). Higher quality play could feature multiple STEM behaviours in a minute. A sum for each behaviour was calculated for the play session and then divided by the duration to create a ratio. For instance, if a child\u0026rsquo;s play session lasted 10 minutes and they engaged in a specific STEM behaviour during 5 of the 10 minutes, the child\u0026rsquo;s frequency for that exploration would be 0.5 (i.e., 50%). This adjustment ensured that the resulting frequencies reflected the prevalence and distribution of STEM behaviours within each play session. A STEM Engagement Score was calculated by summing all observed STEM behaviours. To provide a broader perspective, a second score (i.e., the Composite STEM Score) was computed by summing all STEM behaviours except constructing structures. Given that constructive play typically dominated children\u0026apos;s activities (Cankaya et al., under review), we wanted to examine their engagement with other types of STEM behaviours.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInterrater Reliability Assessment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn interrater reliability assessment was conducted to ensure the reliability of the coding process. A team of four researchers coded the data. During the initial training, our research team observed play sessions together, discussing and categorizing STEM behaviours within each category. Researchers independently coded STEM behaviours and then compared the results. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion with the first author.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterrater reliability was assessed using a subset of 13 randomly selected participant sessions (21% of the total 60 sessions). A subset was chosen due to the time-intensive nature of video coding. While conducting reliability analysis on the full dataset would offer the most comprehensive check, randomly selecting a portion is a widely accepted practice in observational research (Hallgreen, 2012). Each selected play session was independently coded by multiple researchers, and the resulting codes were compared to evaluate consistency. Following Tong et al. (2020), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used as they were appropriate for assessing interrater reliability with ratio-level data and multiple raters. ICCs were specifically calculated for the STEM Engagement Score to determine agreement across coders. Based on the guidelines procured by Koo and Li (2016), the ICC was calculated using a one-way random-effects model. For the STEM Engagement Score, the single measure ICC was 0.914 (95% CI [0.901, 0.926], \u003cem\u003eF\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(623,624 = 22.4, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001), indicating excellent interrater reliability. ICCs were not correlated to the child\u0026rsquo;s gender, age, or multilingualism.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStatistics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStatistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 29.0.2.0; IBM Corp., 2023) and JASP (Version 0.19.3.0; JASP, 2025). A significance level of \u0026alpha; = .05 was used unless stated otherwise. Data were summarized using medians, IQR, and range (min-max). Spearman\u0026rsquo;s correlation coefficients were reported for all numerical measures. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare the median frequencies of STEM behaviours between the two conditions (loose parts and toy percussion instruments), as these measures were not normally distributed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn exploratory factor analysis was conducted to develop composite scores and summarize the results from the parental questionnaire. The identified composite scores and other measurements were included in a forward selection linear regression to determine which factors predicted children\u0026rsquo;s STEM behaviours with loose parts. Using forward selection avoids multi-collinearity and over-fitting issues while identifying the most impactful predictors of STEM Engagement Score (Field et al., 2025). Entering all predictors simultaneously could have led to overfitting, notably when some predictors (e.g., Cognitive functioning, EF performance, age) were related, making the model unreliable. Multicollinearity may have reduced the precision of the estimated coefficients, potentially affecting the interpretability of the model. Forward regression allowed us to mitigate these risks by selecting the most important predictors step by step. We added each predictor with the strongest relationship to the outcome and then sequentially included other predictors that continued to improve the model. This process was repeated until no additional variables significantly enhanced the model.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the Wilcoxon t-test analysis, a Bonferroni correction was applied to the significance level to account for multiple comparisons across different measures of children\u0026apos;s STEM behaviours. In this case, we performed 13 tests, leading to a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0038, or 0.38%. This conservative adjustment ensured that the significant results reported were less likely to be due to random chance and more likely to reflect true differences.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDescriptives\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3 below presents the medians, IQR, and range of scores for key variables in the study.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMedians and IQR of Key Variables\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"623\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 377px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKey Variables\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMdn\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIQR\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMin - Max\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 377px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVerbal Comprehension Index (VCI)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e105.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58-141\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 377px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVisual Spatial Index (VSI)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e107.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65-145\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 377px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFluid Reasoning Index (FRI)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e97.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58-127\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 377px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWorking Memory Index (WMI)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e103.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45-129\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 377px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProcessing Speed Index (PSI)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e66-123\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 377px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFull-Scale IQ (FSIQ)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e131.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57-170\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 377px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEF Performance (HTSK Task)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0-62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 377px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlay Duration (Loose Parts)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5-30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 377px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlay Duration (Control)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10-30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 377px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSTEM\u0026nbsp;Engagement Score (Loose Parts)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0-2.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 377px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSTEM Engagement Score (Control)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0-1.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNote.\u003c/strong\u003e FRI and PSI have lower \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e due to age criteria for administering these measures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCorrelational Analyses\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Spearman correlation analysis indicated several significant relationships among cognitive functioning sub, executive functioning, and children\u0026rsquo;s STEM behaviours with loose parts and toy percussion instruments (see Table 4). Children\u0026rsquo;s age was positively correlated with FSIQ, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .57, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001, and EF performance (HTKS), \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .65, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001. FSIQ was significantly correlated with all its subscales and EF Performance, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .53, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001. STEM engagement Score in the loose parts condition was significantly correlated with FSIQ, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .27, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .045, and with total STEM Engagement score in the control condition, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .49,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"908\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"13\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 908px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSpearman Correlations between Variables\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. Age (in months)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. Parent Education\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.041\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. Verbal Comprehension Index\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.180\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.010\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4. Visual Spatial Index\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.178\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.152\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.246\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5. Fluid Reasoning Index\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.020\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.308*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.474***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6. Working Memory Index\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.032\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.107\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.304*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.396**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.296*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7. Processing Speed Index\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.019\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.397**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.294*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.353*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.389**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8. Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.570***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.233\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.379**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.600***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.369**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.293*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.437**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9. EF Performance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.646***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.115\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.280*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.147\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.166\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.142\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.345*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.533***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10. Play Duration (Control)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.185\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.190\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.159\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.017\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.043\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.013\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.049\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.152\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.290*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11. Play Duration (Loose Parts)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.084\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.066\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.123\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.141\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.044\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.239\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.131\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.090\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.392**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12. STEM Engagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(Control)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.110\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.110\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.228\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.105\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.115\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.093\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.187\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.024\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.212\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.032\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13. STEM Engagement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(Loose Parts)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.112\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.180\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.071\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.078\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.143\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.020\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.271*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.139\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.094\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.146\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.492***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"8\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 587px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e*\u0026nbsp;p \u0026lt; .05, ** p \u0026lt; .01, *** p \u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDifferences in Children\u0026rsquo;s STEM Behaviours and Engagement in Play\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA series of Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were conducted to examine differences in children\u0026rsquo;s STEM behaviours between the loose parts and toy percussion instrument (control) conditions. Table 5 below shows the results for STEM behaviours and Engagement Scores. A Bonferroni correction was applied to control for Type I error across 14 comparisons, establishing a significance threshold of \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .0036. Effect sizes are reported as matched rank biserial correlations (\u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e), with corresponding standard errors and 95% confidence intervals. We also included the duration of each condition for benchmarking children\u0026rsquo;s play length (Cankaya et al., under review).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 5\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePaired Samples Wilcoxon T-Test Results for STEM Explorations\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"869\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStatistics (\u003cem\u003eU\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEffect Size\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSE Effect Size\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLower\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUpper\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAsking Questions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e394.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.072\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommunicating Goals\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e724.00\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.80\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e59\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;.001*\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.68\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.18\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.45\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.83\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSolving Problems\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e141.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.373\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConstructing Structures\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1711.00\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6.62\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e59\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;.001*\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.00\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.15\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.00\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.00\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExploring Mathematical Concepts\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e969.00\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.10\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e59\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;.001*\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.87\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.17\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.77\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.93\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExplaining How Things are Built/Work\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1188.50\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.32\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e59\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;.001*\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.86\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.16\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.76\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.93\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTesting Hypotheses\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e137.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.026\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUsing STEM-Specific Language\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.751\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntegrating Technological Ideas\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.112\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFollowing Prototypes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e239.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.412\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEvaluating Design\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.015\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.93\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.98\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTEM Engagement Score\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1770.00\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6.68\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e59\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;.001*\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.00\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.15\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.00\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.00\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTEM Engagement Score\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(Excluding Construction)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1520.50\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.89\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e59\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;.001*\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.91\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.15\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.83\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.95\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePlay Session Duration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e734.50\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.54\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e59\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt; .001*\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.63\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.18\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.37\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.79\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eThe effect size is reported as the matched rank biserial correlation. Results are considered significant only if the p-value is below 0.05/14 (i.e., 0.0036) and marked with a * sign if they were significant.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommunicating Goals\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003eChildren were significantly more likely to communicate goals in the loose parts condition. This difference was significant at the adjusted threshold, \u003cem\u003eU\u003c/em\u003e = 724.00, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e = 3.80, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e = 0.68, SE = 0.18, 95% CI [0.45, 0.83], indicating a moderate-to-large effect.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConstructing Structures\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003eConstructive play involving the building of structures was substantially more frequent with loose parts. This difference was highly significant, \u003cem\u003eU\u003c/em\u003e = 1711.00, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e = 6.62, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e = 1.00, SE = 0.15, 95% CI [1.00, 1.00], indicating a very large effect.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExploring Mathematical Concepts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003eChildren involved mathematical concepts in their play significantly more often when playing with loose parts. This difference was statistically significant, \u003cem\u003eU\u003c/em\u003e = 969.00, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e = 5.10, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e = 0.87, SE = 0.17, 95% CI [0.77, 0.93], indicating a large effect.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExplaining How Things Are Built/Work\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003eChildren explained mechanisms or structures significantly more often when playing with loose parts. The difference was statistically significant, \u003cem\u003eU\u003c/em\u003e = 1188.50, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e = 5.32, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e = 0.86, SE = 0.16, 95% CI [0.76, 0.93], reflecting a large effect.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTEM Engagement Score\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe total number of STEM-related behaviours was significantly higher in the loose parts condition, \u003cem\u003eU\u003c/em\u003e = 1770.00, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e = 6.68, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e = 1.00, SE = 0.15, 95% CI [1.00, 1.00]. There were no significant between-subjects effects in STEM engagement based on children\u0026rsquo;s gender, home language, or their interaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTEM Engagement Score (Excluding construction)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConstructing Structures was common with loose parts, and in order to explore if children are involved in STEM behaviours beyond constructing, we explored a total score that does not include constructing structures. The STEM Engagement (Excluding Construction), reflecting the mean across categories, was also significantly higher when children interacted with loose parts, \u003cem\u003eU\u003c/em\u003e = 1520.50, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e = 5.89, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e = 0.91, SE = 0.15, 95% CI [0.83, 0.95].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNon-Significant Differences in STEM Behaviours Across Play Conditions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough several STEM behaviours occurred more frequently during play with everyday objects, these differences did not reach statistical significance after Bonferroni correction. Children tested hypotheses through trial and error and evaluated their designs slightly more often with loose parts, but these effects did not meet the adjusted threshold. No significant differences were found for asking questions, solving problems, using STEM-specific language, integrating technological ideas, or following prototypes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDifferences in STEM Behaviours within Each Condition\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTwo graphs were created to examine the percentage of children\u0026rsquo;s play that involves each STEM behaviour (see Figures 1 and 2). To compare the frequency of observed STEM behaviours within each condition, two repeated-measures one-way ANOVAs were conducted to test for differences in the mean proportion of time children engaged in each of the STEM behaviours. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction were conducted to identify \u0026nbsp;differences between specific behaviours. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResults showed that \u0026ldquo;constructing structures\u0026rdquo; occupied a significantly greater portion of time than all other STEM behaviours (\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .001). The second most significant STEM behaviour was \u0026ldquo;explaining how things work,\u0026rdquo; which was also occupied significantly more time than all other STEM behaviours (\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .001). The third most significant STEM behaviour was \u0026ldquo;exploring math concepts,\u0026rdquo; and was significantly greater than \u0026ldquo;testing hypotheses\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .043), \u0026ldquo;using STEM language,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;integrating technology,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;evaluating design\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001). \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePost hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction were conducted to identify differences between STEM behaviours. Results showed that \u0026ldquo;asking questions\u0026rdquo; occupied a significantly greater portion of time than \u0026ldquo;communicating goals\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .019), \u0026ldquo;exploring math concepts\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e =.020), \u0026ldquo;solving problems,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;testing hypotheses,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;integrating technology,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;using STEM language,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;evaluating design\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001). The second most significant STEM behaviour was \u0026ldquo;explaining how things work,\u0026rdquo; which occupied significantly more time than \u0026ldquo;testing hypotheses\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .013), \u0026ldquo;using STEM language\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .005), \u0026ldquo;integrating technology\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .003), evaluating design (\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .004). The third most common STEM behaviour was \u0026ldquo;constructing structures,\u0026rdquo; which was not significantly greater than any other STEM behaviour. \u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExamining Sex Differences in STEM Engagement, Cognitive Functioning, and Executive Function\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA series of multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were conducted to examine whether sex had a significant effect on children\u0026apos;s cognitive capacities (as measured by the WPPSI-IV and the HTKS Task) and their STEM behaviours across both play conditions. None of the MANOVAs revealed a significant effect, indicating that children\u0026apos;s cognitive capacities and STEM behaviours did not differ significantly by sex.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRegressions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExploratory Factor Analysis and Composite Score Development\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExploratory Factor Analysis was conducted in JASP to identify underlying patterns among variables by focusing on the shared variance that reflects psychological constructs (See Table 6). The analysis identified six factors explaining 46.7% of the variance in the parental questionnaire data. These composite scores were used for further analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 6 Summary of Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for Home Learning Environment Variables\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"649\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e \u0026nbsp;\u003cp\u003eFactor\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariance Explained (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrequency of Home Learning Activities\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(Factor 1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncluded parents\u0026apos; reports on 12 learning activities, such as pointing while reading, introducing words, and teaching letter sounds.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParental STEM Attitudes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(Factor 2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncluded parents\u0026apos; perceptions of their own math and science abilities, confidence in using technology, and their enjoyment or avoidance of math.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrequency of Home Numeracy Activities (Factor 3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncluded engagement in number games, simple sums, and mental math.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParental Play Attitudes and Engagement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(Factor 4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncluded parents\u0026apos; perspectives on play, enjoyment of building activities, and engagement in board games and pretend play.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHome Learning Environment\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(Factor 5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncluded the number of books, bedtime reading routines, and unstructured play opportunities.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParental Literacy Attitudes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(Factor 6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncluded enjoyment of reading and writing, confidence in language skills, and a negative association with screen time.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePredictors and potential covariates of STEM behaviours were examined using linear regressions. These covariates included the child\u0026apos;s age in months, sex, parental education (Anders et al., 2012), cognitive capacities measured by various composite scores (i.e., WPPSI-IV\u0026rsquo;s VCI, VSI, FRI, WMI, PSI, and FSIQ), and EF performance (i.e., HTKS Task).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur within-subjects design allowed each child to experience both conditions; the order of the play conditions was randomly assigned. The play session order was also tested as a covariate to determine whether the sequence in which children were exposed to materials affected their STEM behaviours due to effects such as fatigue, increased familiarity, or a preference for the materials presented earlier. This approach ensured that observed differences in STEM behaviours can be attributed to the materials or activities rather than other factors.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFactors\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Predicting STEM Engagement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA linear regression analysis with forward selection was conducted to examine predictors of children\u0026rsquo;s STEM Engagement Score in the loose parts condition. The final model explained 15.2% of the variance (\u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026sup2; = .15, adjusted \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026sup2; = .14, RMSE = 0.522) and was statistically significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 50) = 8.95, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .004. Cognitive functioning (FSIQ) emerged as a significant predictor, \u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e = 0.008, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e = 0.003, \u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.39, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(50) = 2.99, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .004, indicating that higher overall cognitive ability (FSIQ) is positively associated with higher STEM Engagement Score with loose parts. The intercept was not statistically significant (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e = 0.28, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e = 0.36, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(50) = 0.78, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .437), indicating that variation in STEM Engagement Score was largely attributed to differences in cognitive functioning (FSIQ). Covariates tested but excluded from the final model were the child\u0026rsquo;s age, sex, EF performance, parental education, other cognitive functioning composite scores (VCI, VSI, WMI, FRI), play session order, and home learning environment factors.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn additional linear regression analysis was conducted to examine predictors of children\u0026rsquo;s STEM Engagement Score while using toy percussion instruments (control). The final model accounted for 8.1% of the variance (\u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026sup2; = .08, adjusted \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026sup2; = .06, RMSE = 0.373) and was statistically significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 50) = 4.42, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .040. VCI predicted STEM Engagement, \u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e = 0.007, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e = 0.003, \u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.29, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(50) = 2.10, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .040. The intercept was not statistically significant (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e = -0.36, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e = 0.35, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(50) = -1.03, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .308), indicating that variation in STEM Engagement Score was largely attributed to the predictor. Covariates tested but excluded from the final model were child age, sex, EF Performance, other cognitive functioning composite scores (VSI, WMI, FRI, FSIQ), play session order, and home learning environment factors.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFactors Predicting the Constructing Behaviours with Loose Parts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn our study, children engaged in constructing structures significantly more during play with loose parts compared to other STEM behaviours and the control condition. We therefore examined the factors associated with increased involvement in constructing behaviours alone. To identify predictors of children\u0026apos;s construction with loose parts, we conducted a linear regression analysis using a forward selection approach. We specifically aimed to determine whether the composite scores from the WPPSI-IV (WMI, PSI, VCI, VSI, and FRI) would uniquely predict children\u0026rsquo;s construction behaviours with loose parts. The final model was statistically significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 49) = 6.73, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .003, and explained 21.6% of the variance in children\u0026rsquo;s constructing behaviours, \u003cem\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .22, Adjusted \u003cem\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .18. Both EF score (\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e = .35, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 2.72, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .009) and Parental play attitudes and engagement (Factor 4; \u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e = .27, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 2.08, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .043) were significant predictors. Children with stronger executive functioning and those from families with more positive play attitudes and frequent play engagement constructed more frequently with loose parts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe following covariates were considered during model selection but were not retained due to non-significant contributions: child\u0026rsquo;s age, sex, EF performance, parental education, cognitive functioning composite scores (VCI, VSI, WMI, FRI, FSIQ), play session order, and other home learning environment factors.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSummary of Results\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsing a within-subjects design, this study compared children\u0026rsquo;s STEM behaviours and engagement during unstructured solitary play with two types of materials: versatile everyday objects and materials (i.e., loose parts) and toy percussion instruments (control). Our design enabled direct comparisons while we took individual differences into account in cognitive capacities (Cognitive and Executive Functioning), age, and home learning environment. We explored children\u0026rsquo;s play for instances of 11 types of STEM behaviours.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eChildren\u0026rsquo;s STEM Behaviours and Engagement Play\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur results demonstrated that children engaged in significantly more STEM behaviours when playing with loose parts than with toy percussion instruments (control), particularly in constructing, communicating intentions, exploring concepts related to math, and explaining mechanisms. These behaviours not only occurred more frequently but also with large effect sizes, suggesting the material affordances of loose parts facilitate more diverse and complex STEM engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearchers who have explored children\u0026rsquo;s STEM innovation, thinking and learning in early childhood strongly suggest that observing and evaluating children with quantitative methods is necessary (Gold et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Gull et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Tselegkaridis \u0026amp; Sapounidis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR118\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Zeng \u0026amp; Ng, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR130\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). To our knowledge, this study is the first experimental and observational evidence of connecting a sizable sample of children\u0026rsquo;s indoor STEM behaviours and engagement with a variety of loose parts (Gold et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Gull et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Despite the variability across individual subcategories, the overall proportion of STEM behaviours and engagement was significantly higher in the loose parts condition. These findings extend qualitative work that has claimed that loose parts may lead to a variety of STEM learning opportunities (e.g., Gull et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Muntomimah \u0026amp; Wijayanti, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur categories of children\u0026rsquo;s STEM behaviours were in line with previous research (Bairaktarova et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Gold et al., 2017; Milford \u0026amp; Tippett, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), and our work provided a comprehensive picture of what children do with a variety of loose parts by themselves. For example, Gold and colleagues conducted a series of studies investigating children's play with specific materials across varied contexts (Gold et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Gold \u0026amp; Elicker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In one study, Gold et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) examined children\u0026rsquo;s engineering behaviours using large, lightweight, movable loose parts, such as foam blocks and wheel-shaped pieces, in both indoor and outdoor environments. Compared to traditional outdoor playgrounds and indoor dramatic play areas, children demonstrated significantly higher frequencies of design and construction behaviours when playing with these materials (e.g., Imagination Playground\u0026trade;). While their study focused exclusively on engineering behaviours and included only one type of loose parts material (large foam blocks), our coding schema captured a broader range of STEM behaviours. Consistent with their findings, we also observed that children engaged more frequently in STEM behaviours when using loose parts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile Gold et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) primarily focused on engineering behaviours, other researchers have examined how STEM learning may emerge during different types of play. For example, Thibodeau-Nielsen et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR112\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) explored contexts where STEM language and learning may occur. Their study found that children produced STEM-related language only 16% of the time during solitary play, which was the second lowest rate among play types they explored (i.e.,play involving peers, such as cooperative, associative, or parallel play). They coded children\u0026rsquo;s STEM engagement by analyzing verbal expressions across categories, including STEM language, numbers and quantity, ordering, comparing and contrasting, patterns, size, shape, features, direction, spatial language, building, and physics-related talk. Spatial language, number language, and building-related talk were the most frequently observed, highlighting their emphasis on verbal expressions as indicators of STEM thinking. In contrast, our study focused exclusively on solitary play and used a broader coding scheme that captured both verbal and nonverbal STEM behaviours. When children used patterns, numbers, or quantity-related language or gestures, we categorized these behaviours under \u0026ldquo;Exploring Mathematical Concepts.\u0026rdquo; This approach provided a more wide-ranging account of children\u0026rsquo;s engagement with STEM concepts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDo different play materials and toys lead to differentiated STEM behaviours?\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe found that materials and toys with many affordances support more frequent STEM behaviours and overall engagement. Our within-subjects design strengthens this interpretation, indicating that the increase in STEM behaviours is attributable to the material and toy context rather than variability across children. Toys and play materials play a crucial role in shaping children's play behaviours and their exploration of concepts such as science, math, problem-solving, goal setting and planning (Trawick-Smith, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR115\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e; Trawick-Smith et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR117\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Researchers show that different types of toys and materials can stimulate distinct domains of development. For instance, toys that promote creative construction and social fantasy encourage imagination and innovation in children, helping them build complex play scenarios (Moller, 2015). Similarly, a study assessing toys found that certain materials significantly enhanced thinking/learning, creativity, and social interaction, indicating that the nature of toys directly affects how children engage in play and learning (Trawick-Smith et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR116\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). These findings emphasize that materials and toys are not just passive playthings but active tools that guide how children think, imagine, and relate to the world.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn our study, children were predominantly engaged in construction. In other studies, various STEM behaviours were classified differently as play (e.g., constructive, engineering, or loose parts play; Gull et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Gold et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Rubin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR95\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). Construction with objects is a prominent part of children\u0026rsquo;s lives in early childhood (Pellegrini \u0026amp; Gustafson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Rubin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR97\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1976\u003c/span\u003e). Yet, construction behaviours are subject to debate as to whether it is play (e.g., Flannigan \u0026amp; Dietze, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Rubin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR97\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1976\u003c/span\u003e) or not (e.g., Piaget, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1962\u003c/span\u003e; Pellegrini \u0026amp; Gustafson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). The researchers who do not consider construction play explain that the developmental trajectory of construction behaviours does not follow a traditional inverted U developmental function, like other forms of play. Instead, the construction ability of children under six remains flat (Pellegrini \u0026amp; Gustafson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Rubin and colleagues considered constructive \u0026ldquo;play\u0026rdquo; to involve the manipulation of objects to create something, which has been used to generate massive amounts of descriptive data on the ways in which young children use objects (for a full review, see Rubin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR96\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eChildren demonstrated a broad range of STEM behaviours during play, with Exploring Mathematical Concepts emerging as one of the most frequent. This finding is consistent with prior research showing that even in early childhood, children exhibit emerging competencies in number sense, spatial reasoning, and pattern recognition (Dehaene, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Clements \u0026amp; Sarama, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). During play, children often engage in classification, enumeration, and magnitude comparison (Ginsburg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e), suggesting that mathematical reasoning is spontaneously activated when children interact with open-ended materials. Sarama and Clements (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR99\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) refer to this process as \u003cem\u003emathematization\u003c/em\u003e, children\u0026rsquo;s modelling of real-world experiences using mathematical concepts such as quantity and shape. While earlier studies have primarily emphasized verbal expressions of mathematical thinking, our findings demonstrate that nonverbal behaviours also constitute meaningful forms of mathematical engagement (Hendershot et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Zippert et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR132\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e To capture this complexity, we coded both verbal and nonverbal indicators of children's mathematical engagement during unstructured play. Zippert et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR132\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) used a coding framework that identified five primary categories of math exploration: enumeration, magnitude, spatial reasoning, classification, and pattern/shape recognition. In their coding, construction is considered under the spatial category. Although their work examined peer-based math exploration and acknowledged construction as relevant behaviour, it did not include problem-solving as a discrete category. In contrast, our coding scheme differentiated between constructing structures, solving problems, and exploring mathematical concepts, allowing for a more detailed account of how children engage with mathematical and engineering-related behaviours. These findings reinforce existing evidence that even in solitary play, children meaningfully engage with foundational math concepts, highlighting the role of unstructured play as a context for applying and extending mathematical knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFactors Related to Children's STEM Engagement with Loose Parts During Play\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the loose parts condition, children\u0026rsquo;s overall cognitive functioning composite score (FSIQ) predicted their STEM engagement. In contrast, in the toy percussion instruments condition (control), only the VCI, which assesses verbal reasoning and language comprehension, predicted variance in STEM engagement. In the loose parts condition, the frequency of children\u0026rsquo;s STEM behaviours was not significantly associated with any individual cognitive composite scores (VCI, VSI, FRI, WMI, or PSI). However, the FSIQ, which integrates these domains into a comprehensive measure of cognitive functioning, demonstrated stronger predictive power.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGiven that this study employed a within-subjects design, we were able to observe how different aspects of cognitive functioning were engaged depending on the play materials available. This may suggest that playing with loose parts may draw more broadly on children's overall cognitive resources, including all components of cognitive capacities such as working memory and fluid reasoning. Alternativelyplay with structured, limited-purpose toys like percussion instruments may rely more specifically on children\u0026rsquo;s verbal abilities in communicating their ideas. VCI assesses children's capacity to understand and use language, which may be particularly relevant in the toy percussion instrument condition, where children were most often engaged in explaining their actions and asking questions. These verbal behaviours likely required the use of expressive language, comprehension, and verbal reasoning. In contrast, loose parts afforded more diverse and cognitively demanding opportunities for construction, symbolic transformation, and problem-solving, engaging a wider range of cognitive processes. Therefore, while FSIQ reflects the broader demands of explorations with loose parts, the selective involvement of VCI in the toy percussion instrument condition suggests that specific cognitive skills may be differentially activated depending on the affordances of the materials.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eChildren\u0026rsquo;s EF was not a predictor of their STEM Engagement Score, but for their constructing behaviours. This finding was expected, given previous work (e.g., Gold et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and as construction typically requires planning, spatial reasoning, and problem-solving, all tasks that engage executive function. A hierarchical model outlined a child\u0026rsquo;s EF development in decision-making and planning (Zelazo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR128\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Zelazo \u0026amp; Muller, 2002). In this model, EF has distinct phases: problem representation, planning, execution, and evaluation. Development of EF skills may be crucial in children\u0026rsquo;s ability to entertain multiple conflicting mental representations and plan how to proceed, execute, evaluate and revise their plans\u0026mdash;all displayed prominently in play (Carlson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Gold et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This model provides conceptual and theoretical support for the notion that children\u0026rsquo;s behaviours with toys with many affordances align with EF\u0026rsquo;s key aspects. Children not only have to symbolically transform what they see within their everyday material collection but also remember the roles they assigned and what to do next; hence, working memory is expected to be a predictor (Trawick-Smith, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR115\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e). However, we found that FSIQ was a better predictor of children\u0026rsquo;s STEM engagement with loose parts. Because FSIQ aggregates across multiple domains (verbal, visual-spatial, fluid reasoning, working memory, and processing speed), capturing general cognitive capacity, itmay better reflect the broad demands of engaging in STEM behaviours with a set of loose parts. STEM behaviours, especially in the loose parts condition, involved construction, problem-solving, symbolic use, and exploratory reasoning, all of which may be more strongly supported by a composite of abilities rather than by isolated executive functioning processes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eChildren\u0026rsquo;s construction behaviours during play were positively associated with both executive functioning and the Parental Play Attitudes and Engagement (Factor 4). Play is a culturally mediated activity that varies significantly across sociocultural contexts, shaped by parents\u0026rsquo; beliefs, values, and child-rearing practices (Gaskin et al., 2027). This factor included parents\u0026rsquo; beliefs about the importance of play, their enjoyment of design and building activities, and the frequency with which they engaged in board or card games and pretend play with their children.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese findings suggest that constructing behaviours were more likely to emerge when children possess the cognitive skills to plan and organize their actions (Zelazo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR128\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e), and when they experience a positive attitude and engagement in their home environment that supports diverse play experiences (Li \u0026amp; Lin, 2018; Mannweiler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Mannweiler and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) found that parents\u0026rsquo; play strategies are associated with preschoolers\u0026rsquo; STEM skill development. Specifically, when parents model STEM-related language and conceptual framing, and they prioritize play as a meaningful context for learning, children are more inclined to explore, manipulate, and construct with available materials (Gaskin et al., 2007; Lin \u0026amp; Li, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, children\u0026rsquo;s engagement in play is shaped by the quality of parent\u0026ndash;child interactions. Highly directive parental involvement, characterized by goal setting and reduced child autonomy, has been linked to lower engagement and diminished independent exploration (Gin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). For example, in Sobel et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR108\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), children whose parents were more directive during free play were less engaged by subsequent challenges than children who had no prior exposure to the materials. Those who played with circuit blocks alongside a parent demonstrated greater success in completing challenges and provided more causal explanations of how the circuits functioned. Thus, prior joint play with a parent enhanced children\u0026rsquo;s STEM learning outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTogether, these findings highlight the interplay between internal (i.e., executive functioning) and contextual (i.e., family play culture) factors in supporting children\u0026rsquo;s construction behaviours. They also point to the importance of home environments that actively scaffold early STEM engagement. Notably, we did not find significant associations between construction behaviours and other indicators of the home learning environment or parental education. This may be attributable to the negatively skewed distribution of parental education in our sample, as discussed in the limitations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLimitations and Future Directions\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeveral limitations warrant consideration when interpreting the findings of this study. First, while the within-subjects experimental design strengthens internal validity by controlling individual differences, the play sessions were time-limited and conducted in a structured environment, which may not fully capture the complexity or spontaneity of children\u0026rsquo;s naturalistic play in early learning settings (Gardner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). Future research should extend these findings by conducting longitudinal or observational studies within early learning and childcare settings or homes to assess how STEM behaviours with loose parts are across contexts. Second, although our observational coding captured a broad range of STEM behaviours, the study primarily focused on overt actions and verbalizations. Additional cognitive processes related to problem-solving or planning undoubtedly occurred internally and were not observable. Incorporating complementary methodologies such as think-aloud protocols or child interviews could offer a richer account of children\u0026rsquo;s reasoning during play.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, despite our efforts to recruit a diverse sample, the parental education and household income levels were relatively high. Our sample reflected a predominantly urban Canadian context. Although this offers insight into a particular educational and cultural setting, it limits the generalizability of the findings. Future studies should explore children\u0026rsquo;s STEM behaviours with loose parts across more diverse populations, including families from varied cultural, linguistic, and economic backgrounds. Such research is critical for understanding how social and cultural capital intersect with material affordances to shape STEM engagement in early childhood.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThird, while cognitive functioning was identified as a significant predictor, other influential variables, such as children\u0026rsquo;s prior familiarity with materials or cultural perceptions of STEM, were not examined. These contextual dimensions may moderate children\u0026rsquo;s engagement and should be systematically explored in future research to inform more inclusive and culturally responsive approaches. Finally, although loose parts were broadly categorized as versatile, there may be meaningful variation in their material properties (e.g., texture, size, familiarity) that differentially afford STEM behaviours. Particularly, in our methods, the technology dimension was not rich, which may have prevented children from including ideas related to technology in their explorations and thinking. Future work could systematically manipulate features of loose parts and the number of materials offered to children to better understand how material characteristics influence specific learning outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese limitations suggest the need for a more nuanced, context-sensitive understanding of how children interact with everyday objects to explore STEM ideas and innovations. Future studies should aim to bridge controlled experimental approaches with ecologically valid designs and include more diverse samples to strengthen generalizability that can inform and support equitable pedagogical practices.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eDespite growing advocacy for loose parts in early childhood settings, empirical investigations into their specific contributions to children's STEM learning remain limited (Gull et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). More critically, observational and quantitative studies with loose parts are limited (Tselegkaridis \u0026amp; Sapounidis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR118\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Much of the current literature rests on theoretical claims or qualitative descriptions that lack systematic observational data, leaving a critical gap in understanding how loose parts shape STEM engagement in young children. Notably, few studies have examined the extent to which specific STEM behaviours, such as constructing, goal setting, or explaining causal mechanisms, emerge more frequently in the context of open-ended play compared to play with more constrained, single-purpose toys. Moreover, assumptions that all children benefit equally from loose parts overlook potential variability driven by individual cognitive differences or family-level contextual factors. This lack of precision obscures both how and for whom loose parts play a role in facilitating STEM learning, exploration and innovation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo address these gaps, the present study employed a within-subjects experimental design to examine children\u0026rsquo;s STEM behaviours in two contrasting play contexts: one using loose parts and the other using limited-function percussion instruments. Drawing on systematic behavioural observations, we assessed the frequency and nature of children\u0026rsquo;s STEM behaviours, while also incorporating standardized measures of cognitive and executive functioning and parent-reported home learning environments. This integrated approach enables a more differentiated understanding of the conditions under which open-ended materials promote STEM engagement and which child-level characteristics moderate these effects.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study makes three key contributions. First, it provided empirical evidence that loose parts elicit specific STEM behaviours not typically observed in play with limited-purpose toys. Second, it reveals that children\u0026rsquo;s cognitive functioning and, to a lesser extent, parental education, predict the extent of their STEM engagement, raising important questions about equity and access in play-based learning environments. Finally, by challenging the presumption of universal benefit, this study underscores the need for more targeted and developmentally informed approaches to integrating open-ended materials into early childhood STEM education. These findings carry direct implications for curriculum development, educator training, and policy design aimed at fostering equitable and effective STEM learning from the earliest years.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eA statement of ethics approval:\u003c/strong\u003e This study was approved by the MacEwan University Research Ethics Board (File Number: 101952). All procedures were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. A statement on participant consent: Informed consent was obtained from all participating parents or legal guardians. Verbal assent was obtained from all child participants prior to data collection.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAn, G., Wang, J., Yang, Y., \u0026amp; Du, X. (2019). A study on the effects to students\u0026apos; STEM academic achievement with chinese parents\u0026apos; participative styles in school education. \u003cem\u003eEducational Sciences: Theory and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(1), 41-54.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnders, Y., Rossbach, H. G., Weinert, S., Ebert, S., Kuger, S., Lehrl, S., \u0026amp; Von Maurice, J. (2012). Home and preschool learning environments and their relations to the development of early numeracy skills. \u003cem\u003eEarly Childhood Research Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(2), 231-244.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnthony, C. J., \u0026amp; Ogg, J. (2020). Executive function, learning-related behaviors, and science growth from kindergarten to fourth grade. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Educational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e112\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1563.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBagiati, A., \u0026amp; Evangelou, D. (2016). Practicing engineering while building with blocks: Identifying engineering thinking. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Early Childhood Education Research Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(1), 67-85.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBairaktarova, D., Evangelou, D., Bagiati, A., \u0026amp; Brophy, S. (2011). Early engineering in young children\u0026apos;s exploratory play with tangible materials. \u003cem\u003eChildren, Youth and Environments\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(2), 212-235.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBauer, J. R., \u0026amp; Booth, A. E. (2019). Exploring potential cognitive foundations of scientific literacy in preschoolers: Causal reasoning and executive function. \u003cem\u003eEarly Childhood Research Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e, 275-284.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeloglovsky, M., \u0026amp; Daly, L. (2016). \u003cem\u003eLoose parts 2: Inspiring play with infants and toddlers\u003c/em\u003e. Redleaf Press. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBers, M. U. (2020). \u003cem\u003eCoding as a playground: Programming and computational thinking in the early childhood classroom\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBequette, J. W., \u0026amp; Bequette, M. B. (2012). A place for art and design education in the STEM conversation. \u003cem\u003eArt Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e65\u003c/em\u003e(2), 40-47.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrenneman, K., Stevenson-Boyd, J., \u0026amp; Frede, E. C. (2009). Math and science in preschool: Policies and practice. \u003cem\u003ePreschool Policy Brief\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e, 1-12.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrophy, S., \u0026amp; Evangelou, D. (2007, June). Precursors to engineering thinking (PET). In \u003cem\u003e2007 Annual Conference \u0026amp; Exposition\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 12-1169).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurdette, H. L., \u0026amp; Whitaker, R. C. (2005). Resurrecting free play in young children: Looking beyond fitness and fatness to attention, affiliation, and affect. \u003cem\u003eArchives of Pediatrics \u0026amp; Adolescent Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e159\u003c/em\u003e(1), 46-50.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCameron, C. E., Brock, L. L., Hatfield, B. E., Cottone, E. A., Rubinstein, E., LoCasale-Crouch, J., \u0026amp; Grissmer, D. W. (2015). Visuomotor integration and inhibitory control compensate for each other in school readiness. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e51\u003c/em\u003e(11), 1529.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCampbell, C., Speldewinde, C., Howitt, C. J., \u0026amp; MacDonald, A. (2018). STEM practice in the early years. \u003cem\u003eCreative Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(1), 11-25.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCankaya, O. (2013). Parents\u0026apos; perspectives on early childhood development: Attitudes towards play, learning, and the home environment. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Early Childhood Studies\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCankaya, O., Leach, J., \u0026amp; Akdemir, K. (2024). The journey of loose parts across educational landscapes and history. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Play\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(2-3), 210-245.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCankaya, O., \u0026amp; LeFevre, J. A. (2016). The home numeracy environment: what do cross-cultural comparisons tell us about how to scaffold young children\u0026rsquo;s mathematical skills?. \u003cem\u003eEarly Childhood Mathematics Skill Development in the Home Environment\u003c/em\u003e, 87-104.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCankaya, O., Martin, M., \u0026amp; Haugen, D. (2025). The relationship between children\u0026rsquo;s indoor loose parts play and cognitive development: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Intelligence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(5), 52.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCankaya, O., Martin, M., \u0026amp; Haugen, D. (in revision). The impact of young children\u0026apos;s indoor play with everyday objects on cognitive development: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Intelligence\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCankaya, O., Rohatyn-Martin, N., Leach, J., Taylor, K., \u0026amp; Bulut, O. (2023). Preschool children\u0026rsquo;s loose parts play and the relationship to cognitive development: A review of the literature. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Intelligence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(8), 151.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarlson, S. M., White, R. E., \u0026amp; Davis-Unger, A. C. (2014). Evidence for a relation between executive function and pretense representation in preschool children. \u003cem\u003eCognitive Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e, 1-16.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCasey, T., \u0026amp; Robertson, J. (2019). \u003cem\u003eLoose \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eparts play: A toolkit\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed.). Play Scotland. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChoi, J., \u0026amp; Ae Ohm, J. (2018). Pretend play and social competence in peer play groups of five-year-old boys and girls. \u003cem\u003eSocial Behavior and Personality: An International Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1255-1270.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClements, D. H., \u0026amp; Sarama, J. (2014). Developing young children\u0026apos;s mathematical thinking and understanding. In \u003cem\u003eThe Routledge international handbook of young children\u0026apos;s thinking and understanding\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 331-344). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClements, D. H., \u0026amp; Sarama, J. (2016). Math, science, and technology in the early grades. \u003cem\u003eThe Future of Children\u003c/em\u003e, 75-94. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCounsell, S. L., \u0026amp; Wright, B. L. (2016). Science learning for ALL young scientists: exploring, investigating, learning, and growing together with ramps and pathways in diverse settings. \u003cem\u003eChildhood Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e92\u003c/em\u003e(5), 365-372. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCoyle, E. F., \u0026amp; Liben, L. S. (2020). Gendered packaging of a STEM toy influences children\u0026apos;s play, mechanical learning, and mothers\u0026rsquo; play guidance. \u003cem\u003eChild development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e91\u003c/em\u003e(1), 43-62.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDaly, L., \u0026amp; Beloglovsky, M. (2014). \u003cem\u003eLoose parts: Inspiring play in young children\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 1). Redleaf Press. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDaly, L., \u0026amp; Beloglovsky, M. (2020). \u003cem\u003eLoose parts 4: Inspiring 21st-Century learning\u003c/em\u003e. Redleaf Press. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDauch, C., Imwalle, M., Ocasio, B., \u0026amp; Metz, A. E. (2018). The influence of the number of toys in the environment on toddlers\u0026apos; play. \u003cem\u003eInfant Behavior \u0026amp; Development, 50\u003c/em\u003e, 78-87.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDehaene, S. (1997). \u003cem\u003eThe number sense: How the mind creates mathematics\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press USA. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDewi, A. C., Laini, A., Wahyuni, S. I., \u0026amp; Lestari, M. C. D. (2024). Enhancing early childhood creativity through loose-parts media based on STEAM learning. \u003cem\u003eAṭfālunā Journal of Islamic Early Childhood Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(1), 31-46.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDiamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e64\u003c/em\u003e(1), 135-168.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDinella, L. M., \u0026amp; Weisgram, E. S. (2018). Gender-typing of children\u0026rsquo;s toys: Causes, consequences, and correlates. \u003cem\u003eSex Roles\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e79\u003c/em\u003e, 253-259.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eField, A. (2025). \u003cem\u003eDiscovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics\u003c/em\u003e. Sage.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFlannigan, C., \u0026amp; Dietze, B. (2017). Children, outdoor play, and loose parts. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Childhood Studies\u003c/em\u003e, 53-60.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGardner, F. (2000). Methodological issues in the direct observation of parent\u0026ndash;child interaction: Do observational findings reflect the natural behavior of participants?. \u003cem\u003eClinical Child and Family Psychology Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e, 185-198.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGaskins, S., Haight, W., \u0026amp; Lancy, D. F. (2007). The cultural construction of play. In \u003cem\u003ePlay and development\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 184-207). Psychology Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGathercole, S. E., Brown, L., \u0026amp; Pickering, S. J. (2003). Working memory assessments at school entry as longitudinal predictors of National Curriculum attainment levels. \u003cem\u003eEducational and Child Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(3), 109-122.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGibson, J. J. (2014). The theory of affordances: (1979). In \u003cem\u003eThe \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ePeople, Place, and Space Reader\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 56-60). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGibson, J. L., Cornell, M., \u0026amp; Gill, T. (2017). A systematic review of research into the impact of loose parts play on children\u0026rsquo;s cognitive, social and emotional development. \u003cem\u003eSchool Mental Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(4), 295-309.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGin, S., Yin, H., Boykin, C. M., \u0026amp; Sobel, D. M. (2025). Examining baseline relations between parent\u0026ndash;child interactions and STEM engagement and learning. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(2), e13611.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGinsburg, H. P., Lin, C. L., Ness, D., \u0026amp; Seo, K. H. (2003). Young American and Chinese children\u0026apos;s everyday mathematical activity. \u003cem\u003eMathematical Thinking and Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(4), 235-258.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGold, Z. S. (2017). \u003cem\u003eEngineering play: Exploring associations with executive function, mathematical ability, and spatial ability in preschool\u003c/em\u003e (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGold, Z. S., \u0026amp; Elicker, J. (2020). Engineering peer play: A new perspective on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) early childhood education. \u003cem\u003ePeer Play and Relationships in Early Childhood: International Research Perspectives\u003c/em\u003e, 61-75.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGold, Z. S., Elicker, J., Choi, J. Y., Anderson, T., \u0026amp; Brophy, S. P. (2015). Preschoolers\u0026apos; engineering play behaviors: Differences in gender and play context. \u003cem\u003eChildren, Youth and Environments\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1-21.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGold, Z. S., Elicker, J., Evich, C. D., Mishra, A. A., Howe, N., \u0026amp; Weil, A. E. (2021). Engineering play with blocks as an informal learning context for executive function and planning. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Engineering Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e110\u003c/em\u003e(4), 803-818.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGold, Z. S., Perlman, J., Howe, N., Mishra, A. A., DeHart, G. B., Hertik, H., \u0026amp; Buckley, J. (2022). An observational study of children\u0026rsquo;s problem solving during play with friends. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cognition and Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(4), 503-523.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGull, C., Bogunovich, J., Levenson Goldstein, S., \u0026amp; Rosengarten, T. (2019). Definitions of loose parts in early childhood outdoor classrooms: A scoping review. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(3), 37-52.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGull, C., Levenson Goldstein, S., \u0026amp; Rosengarten, T. (2022). STEM learning and loose parts in early elementary classrooms: A scoping review. \u003cem\u003eInternational Online Journal of Primary Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(2), 279-292.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGull, C., Levenson Goldstein, S., \u0026amp; Rosengarten, T. (2024). Light, simple machines, sticks, crates, and so much more: A \u0026ldquo;loose parts learning\u0026rdquo; approach to STEM for early childhood. \u003cem\u003eScience and Children\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e61\u003c/em\u003e(4), 33-40.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuss, S. S., Lim, C. I., Clements, D. H., Sharifnia, E. B., Holland, A. L., Vinh, M., \u0026amp; Sarama, J. (2023). Building learning trajectories for intentional, inclusive, and individualized instructional experiences in STEM. \u003cem\u003eEducation Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(1), 8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHaden, C. A., Jant, E. A., Hoffman, P. C., Marcus, M., Geddes, J. R., \u0026amp; Gaskins, S. (2014). Supporting family conversations and children\u0026apos;s STEM learning in a children\u0026apos;s museum. \u003cem\u003eEarly Childhood Research Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(3), 333-344.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHallgren, K. A. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: an overview and tutorial. \u003cem\u003eTutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8\u003c/em\u003e(1), 23.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHanline, M. F., Milton, S., \u0026amp; Phelps, P. (2001). Young children\u0026apos;s block construction activities: Findings from 3 years of observation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Early Intervention\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(3), 224-237.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHendershot, S. M., Berghout Austin, A. M., Blevins-Knabe, B., \u0026amp; Ota, C. (2016). Young children\u0026apos;s mathematics references during free play in family childcare settings. \u003cem\u003eEarly Child Development and Care\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e186\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1126-1141.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIBM Corporation (2023). \u003cem\u003eIBM SPSS Statistics\u003c/em\u003e (Version 29.0.2.0) [Computer software]. IBM.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJASP Team. (2025). \u003cem\u003eJASP\u003c/em\u003e (Version 0.19.3) [Computer software].\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKaplan, B. (2023). \u003cem\u003eHow children learn the designed actions of objects\u003c/em\u003e (Doctoral dissertation, New York University).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKenny, S., Cameron, C., Karing, J., Ahmadi, A., Braithwaite, P., \u0026amp; McClelland, M. (2023). A meta-analysis of the validity of the Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders task in predicting young children\u0026apos;s academic performance. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 14. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKiewra, C., \u0026amp; Veselack, E. (2016). Playing with nature: Supporting preschoolers\u0026apos; creativity in natural outdoor classrooms. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 70-95.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKoo, T. K., \u0026amp; Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Chiropractic Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(2), 155-163.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeaper, C., \u0026amp; Brown, C. S. (2014). Sexism in schools. \u003cem\u003eAdvances in child development and behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e47\u003c/em\u003e, 189-223\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeFevre, J. A., Fast, L., Skwarchuk, S. L., Smith‐Chant, B. L., Bisanz, J., Kamawar, D., \u0026amp; Penner‐Wilger, M. (2010). Pathways to mathematics: Longitudinal predictors of performance. \u003cem\u003eChild Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e81\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1753-1767.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLin, X., \u0026amp; Li, H. (2019). Chinese mothers\u0026rsquo; profile which values both play and academics predicts better developmental outcome in young children. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Behavioral Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(1), 61-66.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLifter, K., Mason, E. J., \u0026amp; Barton, E. E. (2011). Children\u0026rsquo;s play: Where we have been and where we could go. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Early Intervention\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(4), 281-297.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLillard, A. S., Lerner, M. D., Hopkins, E. J., Dore, R. A., Smith, E. D., \u0026amp; Palmquist, C. M. (2013). The impact of pretend play on children\u0026apos;s development: A review of the evidence. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin, 139\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;34.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLin, X., \u0026amp; Li, H. (2020). Parents\u0026rsquo; play beliefs and engagement in young children\u0026rsquo;s play at home. In \u003cem\u003eWorking with Parents and Families in Early Childhood Education\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 5-20). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLippard, C. N., Lamm, M. H., Tank, K. M., \u0026amp; Choi, J. Y. (2019). Pre-engineering thinking and the engineering habits of mind in preschool classroom. \u003cem\u003eEarly Childhood Education Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e47\u003c/em\u003e, 187-198.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLloyd, B., \u0026amp; Howe, N. (2003). Solitary play and convergent and divergent thinking skills in preschool children. \u003cem\u003eEarly Childhood Research Quarterly, 18\u003c/em\u003e(1), 22-41.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMacDonald, B. L., Tofel-Grehl, C., \u0026amp; Searle, K. A. (2022). Play, problem-solving, STEM conceptions, and efficacy in STEM: An introduction to the STEM in early childhood education special issue. \u003cem\u003eEducation Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(5), 352.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMakovichuk, L., Hewes, J., Lirette, P., \u0026amp; Thomas, N. (2014). \u003cem\u003eFlight: Alberta\u0026rsquo;s early learning and care framework. \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMannweiler, M. D., Bierman, K. L., \u0026amp; Liben, L. S. (2025). Linking parents\u0026rsquo; play strategies with their preschoolers\u0026rsquo; STEM skills: The mediating roles of child STEM talk and self-regulated learning. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Child Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e249\u003c/em\u003e, 106095.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcClelland, M. M., Cameron, C. E., Duncan, R., Bowles, R. P., Acock, A. C., Miao, A., \u0026amp; Pratt, M. E. (2014). Predictors of early growth in academic achievement: The head-toes-knees-shoulders task. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e, 599.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMilford, T., \u0026amp; Tippett, C. (2015). The Design and validation of an early childhood STEM classroom observational protocol. \u003cem\u003eInternational research in early childhood education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 24-37.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiller, N., Kumar, S., Pearce, K. L., \u0026amp; Baldock, K. L. (2022). The perceived benefits of and barriers to nature-based play and learning in South Australian public primary schools: A cross-sectional study. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(4), 342-354.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eM\u0026oslash;ller, S. J. (2015). Imagination, playfulness, and creativity in children\u0026apos;s play with different toys. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Play\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(3), 322-346. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoore, T. J., \u0026amp; Tank, K. M. (2014). Nature-inspired design: A PictureSTEM curriculum for elementary STEM learning. In \u003cem\u003eAnnual Meeting of the Association of Science Teacher Educators, San Antonio, TX\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 1-7).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMuntomimah, S., \u0026amp; Wijayanti, R. (2021, April). The importance of STEAM loose part learning effectiveness in early childhood cognitive learning. In \u003cem\u003e2nd Annual Conference on Social Science and Humanities (ANCOSH 2020)\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 47-52). Atlantis Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNicolopoulou, A. (1993). Play, cognitive development, and the social world: Piaget, Vygotsky, and beyond. \u003cem\u003eHuman development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-23.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNiklas, F., \u0026amp; Schneider, W. (2017). Home learning environment and development of child competencies from kindergarten until the end of elementary school. \u003cem\u003eContemporary Educational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e, 263-274.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePakarinen, E., Imai-Matsumura, K., Yada, A., Yada, T., Lepp\u0026auml;nen, A., \u0026amp; Lerkkanen, M. K. (2024). Child-centered and teacher-directed practices in two different countries: A descriptive case study in Finnish and Japanese grade 1 classrooms. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Research in Childhood Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(1), 30-49.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePapadakis, S. (2021). Advances in mobile learning educational research (AMLER): Mobile learning as an educational reform. \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Mobile Learning Educational Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-4.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePark, J. (2019). A Comparison of the Pretending Elements between Constructive Play and Pretend Play. \u003cem\u003eTurkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1-6.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePellegrini, A. D., \u0026amp; Gustafson, K. (2005). Boys\u0026rsquo; and girls\u0026rsquo; uses of objects for exploration, play, and tools in early childhood. In A. D. Pellegrini \u0026amp; P. K. Smith (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eThe nature of play: Great apes and humans\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 113\u0026ndash;135). Guilford Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeppler, K., \u0026amp; Wohlwend, K. (2018). Theorizing the nexus of STEAM practice. \u003cem\u003eArts Education Policy Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e119\u003c/em\u003e(2), 88-99.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePetkova, Y. (2023). STEM training in support of child development in the first group of kindergarten. \u003cem\u003eEducation and Technologies Journal\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePiaget, J. (1962). The relation of affectivity to intelligence in the mental development of the child. \u003cem\u003eBulletin of the Menninger Clinic\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(3), 129.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePlasman, J. S., Gottfried, M. A., \u0026amp; Williams, D. N. (2020). Following in their footsteps: The relationship between parent STEM occupation and student STEM coursetaking in high school. \u003cem\u003eJournal for STEM Education Research, 4\u003c/em\u003e, 27\u0026ndash;46.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePonitz, C. C., McClelland, M. M., Jewkes, A. M., Connor, C. M., Farris, C. L., \u0026amp; Morrison, F. J. (2008). Touch your toes! Developing a direct measure of behavioral regulation in early childhood. \u003cem\u003eEarly Childhood Research Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e, 141\u0026ndash;158.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePrameswari, T. W., \u0026amp; Lestariningrum, A. (2020). STEAM based learning strategies by playing loose parts for the achievement of 4c skills in children 4-5 years. \u003cem\u003eJurnal Efektor\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(1), 24-34.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRahardjo, M. M. (2019). How to use loose-parts in STEAM? Early childhood educators focus group discussion in Indonesia. \u003cem\u003eJurnal Pendidikan Usia Dini\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(2), 310-326.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRamani, G. B., Zippert, E., Schweitzer, S., \u0026amp; Pan, S. (2014). Preschool children\u0026apos;s joint block building during a guided play activity. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Developmental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(4), 326-336.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRawson, M. Learning capacities for a multicultural and diverse social world: a challenge for Waldorf schools. https://e-learningwaldorf.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/No-9-Learning-capacities-for-a-multicultural-and-diverse-social-world.pdf \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRubin, K. H. (2001). \u003cem\u003eThe Play Observation Scale (POS)\u003c/em\u003e. College Park: Center for Children, Relationships, and Culture of the University of Maryland. https://studylib.net/doc/8132486/the-play-observation-scale--pos--by-rubin \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRubin, K. H., Fein, G. G., \u0026amp; Vandenberg, B. (1983). Play. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 693-774). Wiley.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRubin, K. H., Maioni, T. L., \u0026amp; Hornung, M. (1976). Free play behaviors in middle-and lower-class preschoolers: Parten and Piaget revisited. \u003cem\u003eChild Development\u003c/em\u003e, 414-419.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSalvatierra, L., \u0026amp; Cabello, V. M. (2022). Starting at home: What does the literature indicate about parental involvement in early childhood STEM education?. \u003cem\u003eEducation Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(3), 218.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSarama, J., \u0026amp; Clements, D. H. (2009). Building blocks and cognitive building blocks: Playing to know the world mathematically. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Play\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(3), 313-337.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaw, G., Chang, C. N., \u0026amp; Chan, H. Y. (2018). Cross-sectional and longitudinal disparities in STEM career aspirations at the intersection of gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. \u003cem\u003eEducational Researcher\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e47\u003c/em\u003e(8), 525-531.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchmitt, F. J., Gol\u0026uuml;ke, M., \u0026amp; Budisa, N. (2024). Bridging the gap: Enhancing science communication in synthetic biology with specific teaching modules, school laboratories, performance and theater. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Synthetic Biology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e, 1337860.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchmitt, L., Weber, A., Weber, D., \u0026amp; Leuchter, M. (2024). First insights into preschool teachers\u0026rsquo; instructional quality in block play and its associations with children\u0026rsquo;s knowledge, interest, academic self-concept and cognitive aspects. \u003cem\u003eEarly Education and Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1501-1523.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchulz, L. E., \u0026amp; Bonawitz, E. B. (2007). Serious fun: Preschoolers engage in more exploratory play when evidence is confounded. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1045.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS\u0026eacute;n\u0026eacute;chal, M. (2006). Testing the Home Literacy Model: Parent involvement in kindergarten is differentially related to grade 4 reading comprehension, fluency, spelling, and reading for pleasure. \u003cem\u003eScientific Studies of Reading\u003c/em\u003e, 10(1), 59\u0026ndash;87.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS\u0026eacute;n\u0026eacute;chal, M., \u0026amp; LeFevre, J.-A. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of children\u0026apos;s reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. \u003cem\u003eChild Development\u003c/em\u003e, 73(2), 445\u0026ndash;460.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSinger, E., Nederend, M., Penninx, L., Tajik, M., \u0026amp; Boom, J. (2014). The teacher\u0026apos;s role in supporting young children\u0026apos;s level of play engagement. \u003cem\u003eEarly Child Development and Care\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e184\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1233-1249.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSkwarchuk, S. L., Sowinski, C., \u0026amp; LeFevre, J.-A. (2013). Formal and informal home learning activities in relation to children\u0026rsquo;s early numeracy and literacy skills: The development of a home numeracy model. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Child Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 114(2), 273\u0026ndash;287.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSobel, D. M., Letourneau, S. M., Legare, C. H., \u0026amp; Callanan, M. (2021). Relations between parent\u0026ndash;child interaction and children\u0026rsquo;s engagement and learning at a museum exhibit about electric circuits. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(3), e13057.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSol\u0026iacute;s, J. L., Howard, T., Mosqueda, E., \u0026amp; Bravo, M. A. (2025). \u0026ldquo;Encontr\u0026eacute; algo mejor\u0026rdquo;/\u0026ldquo;I found something better\u0026rdquo;: Trans-perspectives and raising critical consciousness with secondary bilingual/multilingual STEM teachers. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Multicultural Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(1), 79-115.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSwirbul, M. S., Herzberg, O., \u0026amp; Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2022). Object play in the everyday home environment generates rich opportunities for infant learning. \u003cem\u003eInfant Behavior and Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e67\u003c/em\u003e, 101712.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTamis-LeMonda, C. S., Luo, R., McFadden, K. E., Bandel, E. T., \u0026amp; Vallotton, C. (2019). Early home learning environment predicts children\u0026rsquo;s 5th grade academic skills. \u003cem\u003eApplied Developmental Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(2), 153-169.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThibodeau-Nielsen, R. B., Rueda-Posada, M. F., Dier, S. E., Dooley, A. W., Nadler, D. R., \u0026amp; Coxon, S. V. (2025). Exploring playful opportunities for STEM learning in early elementary school. \u003cem\u003eEarly Education and Development\u003c/em\u003e, 1-16.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTitz, C., \u0026amp; Karbach, J. (2014). Working memory and executive functions: Effects of training on academic achievement. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e78\u003c/em\u003e, 852-868.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTong, F., Tang, S., Irby, B. J., Lara-Alecio, R., \u0026amp; Guerrero, C. (2020). The determination of appropriate coefficient indices for inter-rater reliability: Using classroom observation instruments as fidelity measures in large-scale randomized research\u003cem\u003e. International Journal of Educational Research,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e99\u003c/em\u003e, 101514.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTrawick-Smith, J. (1990). The effects of realistic versus non-realistic play materials on young children\u0026apos;s symbolic transformation of objects. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Research in Childhood Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(1), 27-36.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTrawick-Smith, J., Russell, H., \u0026amp; Swaminathan, S. (2011). Measuring the effects of toys on the problem-solving, creative and social behaviours of preschool children. \u003cem\u003eEarly Child Development and Care\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e181\u003c/em\u003e(7), 909-927.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTrawick-Smith, J., Wolff, J., Koschel, M., \u0026amp; Vallarelli, J. (2015). Effects of toys on the play quality of preschool children: Influence of gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. \u003cem\u003eEarly Childhood Education Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e, 249-256.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTselegkaridis, S., \u0026amp; Sapounidis, T. (2022). A systematic literature review on STEM research in early childhood. \u003cem\u003eSTEM, Robotics, Mobile Apps in Early Childhood and Primary Education: Technology to Promote Teaching and Learning\u003c/em\u003e, 117-134.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTurner, S. L., Joeng, J. R., Sims, M. D., Dade, S. N., \u0026amp; Reid, M. F. (2019). SES, gender, and STEM career interests, goals, and actions: A test of SCCT. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Career Assessment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(1), 134-150.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVygotsky, L. S. (1967). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. \u003cem\u003eSoviet Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(3), 6-18.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWahyuningsih, S., Nurjanah, N. E., Rasmani, U. E. E., Hafidah, R., Pudyaningtyas, A. R., \u0026amp; Syamsuddin, M. M. (2020). STEAM learning in early childhood education: A literature review. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 33-44.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWan, Z. H., Jiang, Y., \u0026amp; Zhan, Y. (2021). STEM education in early childhood: A review of empirical studies. \u003cem\u003eEarly Education and Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(7), 940-962.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWechsler, D. (2012). \u003cem\u003eWechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence\u0026ndash;Fourth Edition, Canadian (WPPSI\u0026ndash;IVCDN): Canadian interpretive report (Canadian norms)\u003c/em\u003e. Pearson Clinical Assessment.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeisberg, D. S., Kittredge, A. K., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., \u0026amp; Klahr, D. (2015). Making play work for education. \u003cem\u003ePhi Delta Kappan\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e96\u003c/em\u003e(8), 8-13.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeisberg, D. S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Kittredge, A. K., \u0026amp; Klahr, D. (2016). Guided play: Principles and practices. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Directions in Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(3), 177-182.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZelazo, P. D., Carter, A., Reznick, J. S., \u0026amp; Frye, D. (1997). Early development of executive function: A problem-solving framework. \u003cem\u003eReview of General Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(2), 198-226.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZelazo, P. D., \u0026amp; M\u0026uuml;ller, U. (2002). Executive function in typical and atypical development. \u003cem\u003eBlackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development\u003c/em\u003e, 445-469.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZeng, H. Q., \u0026amp; Ng, S. C. (2024). Free play matters: Promoting kindergarten children\u0026rsquo;s science learning using questioning strategies during loose parts play. \u003cem\u003eEarly Childhood Education Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 1-16.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZippert, E. L., Eason, S. H., Marshall, S., \u0026amp; Ramani, G. B. (2019). Preschool children\u0026apos;s math exploration during play with peers. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Developmental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e65\u003c/em\u003e, 101072.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZosh, J. M., Verdine, B. N., Filipowicz, A., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh‐Pasek, K., \u0026amp; Newcombe, N. S. (2015). Talking shape: Parental language with electronic versus traditional shape sorters. \u003cem\u003eMind, Brain, and Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(3), 136-144.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"nature-portfolio","isNatureJournal":true,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Nature Portfolio","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":false,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"early childhood education, loose parts, play, STEM, STEM behaviours, STEM engagement, mathematical reasoning, unstructured play, cognitive functioning, executive function, home learning environment, toys","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7134028/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7134028/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eChildren incorporate what they find in their environment into their play, transforming everyday objects and materials into creativity and exploration. Termed loose parts, these versatile, natural or manufactured materials (e.g., cardboard, pipes, buttons, beads) are widely recommended for supporting young children’s early STEM engagement. While engaging, there is limited empirical work documenting young children’s indoor STEM behaviours through direct observation. Foundational research is needed to delineate how children’s cognitive capacities, home learning environment, and STEM engagement interact during early play to inform more targeted and developmentally grounded STEM education in early years.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUsing a within-subjects experimental design, we examined children’s STEM behaviours and engagement (N = 60, 32 girls, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 58.6 months, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 10.9) during unstructured solitary play with loose parts and with toys with limited function and affordance (i.e., toy percussion instruments, control). Children’s cognitive functioning, executive function, and home learning environment were assessed via standardized measures and parent reports.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChildren demonstrated significantly more STEM behaviours with loose parts, particularly constructing, exploring mathematical concepts, communicating intentions, and reasoning about how things work. These behaviours did not differ by sex. Linear regression analyses showed that cognitive functioning predicted STEM engagement with loose parts, while verbal comprehension was the strongest predictor in the control condition. Construction behaviours were the most common STEM behaviours. Parents’ attitudes toward play and children’s executive functioning predicted construction behaviours.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFindings underscore the importance of aligning play-based learning environments with children’s cognitive profiles and home experiences, rather than assuming uniform benefits from loose parts across all children.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Children’s Spontaneous Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Behaviours and Engagement in Play with Loose Parts","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-28 05:32:22","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7134028/v1","editorialEvents":[],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"communications-psychology","isNatureJournal":true,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"commspsychol","sideBox":"Learn more about [Communications Psychology](http://www.nature.com/commspsychol/)","snPcode":"44271","submissionUrl":"https://mts-commspsychol.nature.com/cgi-bin/main.plex","title":"Communications Psychology","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"Communications Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"12c4a72c-1525-4fe9-8518-9c48717d3fd6","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 28th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[{"id":51931287,"name":"Social science/Psychology/Human behaviour"},{"id":51931288,"name":"Social science/Education"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-12-11T08:11:31+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-7134028","link":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-025-00362-y","journal":{"identity":"communications-psychology","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Communications Psychology"},"publishedOn":"2025-12-05 05:00:00","publishedOnDateReadable":"December 5th, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-28 05:32:22","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1038/s44271-025-00362-y","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-025-00362-y","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7134028","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7134028","identity":"rs-7134028","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}