Research in early childhood settings demonstrates that children's social interactions are deeply shaped by their environment (Rinaldi, 2021). If the setup of materials and spaces can either encourage or limit collaboration, then it is worth re-examining the environments we provide. One example is our large sensory play table, which has been mostly unused since I arrived—occasionally filled with dry pasta or rice, but not in a planned way. When it was briefly set up with water on a hot day, I noticed something different. Children naturally engaged—one child's pouring changed another's play, requiring negotiation and response. Siraj-Blatchford (2009) note that sensory experiences promote joint problem-solving and sustained shared thinking. I now wonder if systematic use of sensory play tables could transform competition into collaboration.

Burns et al. (2024) distinguish between process-oriented collaboration (the quality of interactions during activities) and product-oriented collaboration (the end result). My sensory table observations align with their finding that early childhood settings often default to measuring products rather than processes.

My evolving understanding:

• Process focus: The negotiations, turn-taking, and joint problem-solving happening at the sensory table

• Product focus: Whether children successfully created bubbles or completed a pouring sequence

The research suggests process-oriented collaboration provides richer understanding of peer interactions, yet it's harder to measure. How do I document the subtle moments of shared discovery without reducing them to checkboxes?

2. The Five Domains Framework

Burns et al. (2024) identify five domains of peer collaboration that I see emerging at our sensory table:

• Communication skills: The verbal and non-verbal exchanges when children discover water properties

• Shared goals: When children spontaneously decide "Let's make it overflow!"

• Knowledge exchange: One child teaching another the whirlpool technique

• Collaborative prosocial skills: Helping, perspective-taking, managing conflicts over space

• Resolution: Problem-solving when water isn't flowing as expected

This framework helps me move beyond vague notions of "working together" to identify specific collaborative behaviors I can support through material choices.

3. Symmetrical Interactions and Peer Scaffolding

The review (Burns et al., 2024) emphasizes how symmetrical peer interactions differ fundamentally from asymmetrical adult-child exchanges. Building on Piaget (1970) and recent findings, peers engage in "authentic negotiation" that's less likely with adults present.

This challenges my assumption about needing to facilitate. The evidence suggests:

• Children paired in dyads showed varied collaborative patterns (54.5% of interventions used pairs)

• Mixed findings on adult guidance - sometimes stepping back was more effective

• Peer scaffolding through Vygotsky's ZPD occurs naturally when materials create knowledge gaps

My question: At what point does adult intervention shift from supportive to disruptive of peer collaboration?

4. Collaborative Emergence

Recent research describes spontaneous cooperation that bubbles up from shared sensory exploration—not because an adult said "work together," but because the materials and space naturally invite it (Gibson et al., 2017). This aligns with Malaguzzi's concept of children as capable co-constructors of knowledge.

I keep imagining scenarios:

• What if soap creates unexpected bubbles that children investigate together?

• Could they assign themselves roles without adult direction?

• Can we design for emergence without controlling it?

This connects to the Reggio Emilia idea of "environment as third teacher"—but specifically, how sensory materials might teach social skills on their own.

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-017-9220-9

Rinaldi, C. (2021). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, researching and learning (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2009). Conceptualising progression in the pedagogy of play and sustained shared thinking in early childhood education: A vygotskian perspective. Educational and Child Psychology, 26(2), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsecp.2009.26.2.77

• Systematic review of 18 studies on peer collaboration interventions in early education

• Identified 5 domains: communication, shared goals, knowledge exchange, collaborative prosocial skills, resolution

• 54.5% of successful interventions used dyads (pairs)

• Over half grouped children intentionally (by friendship, ability, or gender)

This comprehensive review gives me a framework for understanding what I'm actually trying to support at the sensory table. Rather than vaguely hoping for "more collaboration," I now see five specific domains where children can grow. When 2 children negotiate who pours while the other holds the funnel, they're developing collaborative prosocial skills. When one child shows others his whirlpool technique, that's knowledge exchange in action.

The finding about dyads is liberating—I don't need to force larger groups at our small table. Quality matters more than quantity. I'm now thinking about intentional pairings: What if I pair a child who loves sensory exploration with one who prefers storytelling? Could their different strengths create richer collaborative play?

The review also shows that successful interventions often assigned roles and created material-sharing situations. This inspires me to design activities where collaboration is necessary, not optional—like providing one pitcher for two children, or materials that require four hands to operate effectively.

• Water elicited 54% functional/exploratory play but more solitary behavior (36% solitary-functional)

• Sand promoted constructive play and social interaction (15% social-constructive vs 4% with water)

• Surface properties fundamentally restructure social dynamics

• Interaction effects between surface type, objects provided, and dyad composition

Morgante's experimental precision reveals something profound: materials aren't neutral—they actively shape social possibilities. Water's fluidity prevents ownership ("that's MY water" doesn't work) but also seems to dissolve collaborative structures. Sand's moldability invites shared construction because creations persist long enough to become joint projects.

This research transforms how I'll sequence materials.

The interaction effects Morgante found (surface × objects × dyad type) remind me that I'm designing a system, not just choosing materials. Pairing minimally structured objects with sand increased parallel-constructive play. This suggests my loose parts collection needs careful curation based on which surface is available.

• Initial problem: sensory table rarely used despite varied materials

• Solution: children made boats, then voted on materials to add

• Result: engagement increased from sporadic to 15+ minutes per child

• Children developed complex narratives across multiple sessions

This action research from practitioners speaks directly to my situation. Their breakthrough wasn't finding better materials—it was shifting power to children. When children voted on what to add to the sensory table, they became invested. When they brought their handmade boats, the table became personally meaningful.

Their "question of the day" voting system will become part of my practice. But more importantly, their findings about narrative development reshape my goals. They observed children returning day after day to continue storylines—sharks attacking boats, rescue missions, treasure hunts. This isn't just sustained attention; it's collaborative world-building.

The study shows that educators' roles shifted from directors to "listeners and interrogators." Instead of predetermining what shells or rocks meant, they asked children to explain their play narratives. This will guide my observation stance—less evaluating against predetermined outcomes, more discovering what collaborative stories children are already creating.

What is the optimal ratio of resources to children at sensory play tables that maximizes collaborative problem-solving while minimizing aggressive conflicts? I'm genuinely puzzled about the mathematics of sharing. If I have six children and two funnels, will they naturally form three partnerships? Or will two children dominate while four watch? What happens with odd numbers - five children, two tools? I wonder if slight scarcity (4 children: 3 tools) creates gentler negotiations than extreme scarcity (6 children: 1 tool). Will children invent fair systems ("Everyone gets ten scoops") or will the strongest personalities control the resources?

Can sensory materials create inclusive collaboration pathways? For children like Jackson (sensory-seeking) and Desmond (speech delay), verbal negotiation is challenging. Could the sensory table become a space where gesture, demonstration, and parallel action are legitimate forms of collaboration? Will water's predictable cause-and-effect create a shared language that doesn't need words?

Pending...

（How do different teacher facilitation strategies (modeling, scaffolding, parallel play, minimal intervention) impact the development of peer negotiation skills during sensory table activities? This question keeps me awake. My training says model sharing, scaffold turn-taking, guide with words like "How could we solve this?" But what if my helpful hovering actually prevents authentic problem-solving? When I demonstrate "proper" pouring technique, do children stop experimenting? If I praise "Good sharing!" do I interrupt their natural negotiations? I'm torn between being the supportive guide and wondering if my absence might be more supportive. Should I count to 100? Only intervene for safety? How will I recognize when stepping back is actually stepping up?）

Week 1: Material Comparison (Constant Resources)

• Tuesday: Water + 6 tools (establishing baseline)

• Wednesday: Dry sand + 6 tools (testing moldability)

• Thursday-Friday: Wet sand (or non-Newtonian fluid) + 6 tools (testing hybrid properties)

Rationale: Isolates material properties as single variable. Answers: "Do different materials inherently afford different collaboration patterns?"

Week 2: Resource Ratio Testing (Optimal Material)

• Tuesday: Best material + abundant tools (6 children: 8 tools)

• Wednesday: Same material + balanced ratio (6 children: 4 tools)

• Thursday-Friday: Same material + scarce resources (6 children: 2 tools)

Rationale: Tests scarcity hypothesis with proven collaborative material. Answers: "Does resource limitation enhance or inhibit collaboration?"

For quantitative data, I'm planning to track conflict frequency - creating a simple tally system for territorial disputes in the week before implementing sensory tables and then throughout the eight weeks. Will conflicts actually decrease? They might initially increase as children navigate new social demands.

The qualitative piece feels essential. I want to use audio recording (10-minute segments, 2-3 times weekly) to capture the actual words children use, the problems they pose to each other, the solutions they develop. I'm listening for:

• Problem-posing: "How can we make the boat go faster?" "Why won't this float?"

• Knowledge sharing: "Look, if you do this..." "I know how!" "Watch me"

• Negotiation: "You pour, I'll hold" "Can I have a turn?" "Let's both..."

• Narrative language: "Pretend this is..." "Oh no, the sharks!" "We need to rescue..."

  
  

Photography will document spatial arrangements through interval sampling - one photo every 10 minutes showing:

• Body positioning (facing away = parallel play, facing each other = interactive)

• Hand positions (how many hands in the water, whose materials are where)

• Material distribution (clustered with one child, shared in middle, divided equally)

I'm imagining a photo series showing progression from individual work to shared creations - if that progression actually happens.

Children's voice will happen weekly. I'll ask: "Draw yourself playing at the sensory table with friends." I'll use these prompts:

• "What were you doing?"

• "Who was with you?"

• "What were you making/discovering together?"

Will their representations shift from drawing themselves alone to including others? Will shared materials appear in later drawings?

Observation Documentation

Anecdotal records targeting:

• Moments of spontaneous teaching between children

• Problem-solving sequences (problem identified → solutions attempted → resolution)

• Instances of children referencing previous sensory play experiences

• Role assignments and negotiations ("You pour, I'll catch")

Conversation transcripts for:

• Circle time discussions about material choices

• Peer explanations of discoveries ("The heavy rocks sink because...")

• Conflict resolution dialogues

• Collaborative narrative segments

Running records (10-minute segments) documenting:

• Movement patterns around table

• Material handling sequences

• Verbal/non-verbal communication ratios

• Adult intervention points and child responses

Burns, S., Yu, E., Brathwaite, L., Masum, M., White, L., Dhuey, E., & Perlman, M. (2024). Improving young children’s peer collaboration in early educational settings: A systematic review. Review of Education, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3484

Morgante, J. D. (2010). What’s in your table? The ecological influence of sensory table materials on preschoolers’ play behavior. University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks. https://doi.org/10.7275/1670313

Or

How can the intentional use of a sensory play table support preschool children (3-5 years) to develop collaborative play and peer interactions?

🙋 for Erin: Which one would be better? I prefer the first one...