Brain Play
Generations of children have grown up playing with LEGOs. Do they stick around just because they are fun, or do they play an important role in the cognitive and social development of our children?
Written by Michael Carter
Some artifacts, like the Paleolithic hand axe, give us insight into the way humans interacted with the physical world in a time before history. Others, like the ancient Greek perfume jar, the Wedgewood teapot, and the Leica camera, tell a story of technology and advancement in our ability to make new things to perform new functions. Still others, like the medieval castles, the Egyptian pyramids, and the classic Bentley, give us more of a human story that reflects a sense of social design and a progression in the way people thought and interacted through the things they built and used. Some are black boxes with a specific function, others are aesthetic masterpieces with a story, but all of the things we call artifacts seem to jump out at us with one or two striking, wonder-inspiring characteristics. But what seems so special about a little, mass-produced, plastic brick? There are almost half a trillion of them in the world, they come in basic colors, and you would be just as likely to throw one away if you stepped on it as you would be to put it away. LEGOs qualify as an artifact, partially because of their developmental role in the childhoods of generations of people as a ubiquitous toy that gives children the chance to grow their brains socially and conceptually. They serve as an early training ground for the brains of our modern world.
Development and play
As humans, when we first come into the world, we are little more than a set of big eyes and ears. Horse foals can run within hours of birth. Fish fry can swim the instant they hatch. Humans are relatively unique in the animal kingdom in that they spend longer than most other animals live simply learning how to do what a human does – think. In order to do this, children must learn how to interact with the people and things around them. In the introduction to a study on Child culture, play, and development, Thyssen remarks that “the life world of the child consists, on the one hand, of things and, on the other, of humans: children and adults. The humans form their world out of nature by forming things and creating a social life.”
In their process of learning how to be human, children engage in two important cultural activities: reproduction and production. (Thyssen). They learn to reproduce the culture around them by using things in the same way that they observe others using them. For example, a child learns to sit in a chair, and by sitting in the chair, the child perpetuates the cultural understanding of using a chair for sitting. Children also engage in the production of culture, primarily through behaviors broadly ascribed the term “playing”. They explore both practical and fantastical new ways of using items, and they develop and share new relationships between themselves and the objects around them by pretending and playing. For example, a child may reproduce the culture of using a bowl as a vessel for foods and liquids, but may produce culture by turning this bowl upside down on his head and turning it into a helmet. The child has made a new comparison between the similar properties of two objects, and assigned a new pretend function to the bowl. To put this new learning into a social context, the child may show his peers, siblings, or caretakers his new bowl-helmet and further pretend to be a soldier, or a construction worker, or a stunt man. Play behavior such as this is important to the development of a child’s ability to synthesize new connections with the world around him, and communicate about these thoughts and relationships. “When the children for instance build space ships of Lego and then, as space pilots, let them fly through “space”, the children do not just live through a role. They live a life full of excitement in a dangerous and challenging universe” (Thyssen). They learn to imagine themselves in different contexts; they learn socially and intellectually how to interact with a host of situations.
Developmental scientists unanimously agree that playing is one of the most important ways that children grow their intellectual capacities and socialize. An interesting randomized controlled experiment by Christakis et al. investigated the effect of the availability of blocks as a playtoy on verbal and language scores of children. They were interested in the studying the roles of toys in cognitive development in the context of family’s socioeconomic limitations. Some families simply cannot afford toys. The study concluded that distribution of blocks to low- and middle- income families improved language development of children, and may be an effective way of enhancing children’s intellectual foundations even if they come from a socioeconomic background that limits the investments made in their development. Evidence in support of play as an important developmental activity is easy to find, and few people need convincing of this point. The more interesting argument centers around the specific aspects of cognitive development fostered by different kinds of toys.
In their process of learning how to be human, children engage in two important cultural activities: reproduction and production. (Thyssen). They learn to reproduce the culture around them by using things in the same way that they observe others using them. For example, a child learns to sit in a chair, and by sitting in the chair, the child perpetuates the cultural understanding of using a chair for sitting. Children also engage in the production of culture, primarily through behaviors broadly ascribed the term “playing”. They explore both practical and fantastical new ways of using items, and they develop and share new relationships between themselves and the objects around them by pretending and playing. For example, a child may reproduce the culture of using a bowl as a vessel for foods and liquids, but may produce culture by turning this bowl upside down on his head and turning it into a helmet. The child has made a new comparison between the similar properties of two objects, and assigned a new pretend function to the bowl. To put this new learning into a social context, the child may show his peers, siblings, or caretakers his new bowl-helmet and further pretend to be a soldier, or a construction worker, or a stunt man. Play behavior such as this is important to the development of a child’s ability to synthesize new connections with the world around him, and communicate about these thoughts and relationships. “When the children for instance build space ships of Lego and then, as space pilots, let them fly through “space”, the children do not just live through a role. They live a life full of excitement in a dangerous and challenging universe” (Thyssen). They learn to imagine themselves in different contexts; they learn socially and intellectually how to interact with a host of situations.
Developmental scientists unanimously agree that playing is one of the most important ways that children grow their intellectual capacities and socialize. An interesting randomized controlled experiment by Christakis et al. investigated the effect of the availability of blocks as a playtoy on verbal and language scores of children. They were interested in the studying the roles of toys in cognitive development in the context of family’s socioeconomic limitations. Some families simply cannot afford toys. The study concluded that distribution of blocks to low- and middle- income families improved language development of children, and may be an effective way of enhancing children’s intellectual foundations even if they come from a socioeconomic background that limits the investments made in their development. Evidence in support of play as an important developmental activity is easy to find, and few people need convincing of this point. The more interesting argument centers around the specific aspects of cognitive development fostered by different kinds of toys.
Toys and spatial intelligence
For over a century, developmental psychologists and scientists have identified spatial ability as a distinct element of general mental ability. Spatial ability "refers to skill in representing, transforming, generating, and recalling symbolic, nonlinguistic information" (Linn & Peterson, 1985). Through the years, studies have sought to understand the role of play in developing spatial ability. Often, these studies concern themselves with either explaining or rejecting gender-related differences in spatial ability. One theory suggests that males tend to exhibit greater spatial ability because of biological or evolutionary differences between men and women. The opposing school of though posits instead that the apparent gender-related differences in spatial ability stem from developmental advantages of different kinds of play.
In two studies from 1977 and 1979, Conner and Serbin identified a statistically significant correlation between “male” and “female” play activities and development of different mental abilities. They concluded that playing with “boys’ toys” (trucks, trains, cars, blocks, balls etc.) correlates with development of spatial abilities because of its emphasis on movement and position relative to other items in the play space, while playing with “girls’ toys” (dolls, doll houses and furniture, etc.) tended to correlate with more developed verbal abilities and social intelligence. Their evidence came from spatial ability test scores and tests of vocabulary. These studies identified an interesting correlation, but were not designed to identify a causal relationship.
The link between space and position-related cognitive development and different types of play was corroborated by Brosnan in 1998 in another study specifically linking spatial ability and constructional ability test scores to performance in putting together a LEGO set according to visual instructions. However, this study did not identify any difference between the performances of each gender, adding that female subjects reported familiarity with LEGO playsets more frequently than the male subjects. This evidence suggests that it is not a sex-linked biological mechanism or trait that leads males to enjoy more developed spatial abilities, but rather a result of the toys that they played with as children. Proponents of both theories can be found in the literature, but the recent evidence supports nurture, rather than nature, as the important variable.
The overwhelming majority of studies linking cognitive and spatial development provide evidence only in the form of correlations. This means that there is a well-established association between play with toys such as LEGOs and the development of spatial ability, but it is less clear the toys cause improvement in children’s’ spatial capabilities. We imagine it very plausible that the causality actually works the opposite way around. Children who have more developed spatial abilities may find themselves more drawn to playing with these toys because they are able to exercise their enhanced cognition, and perhaps receive affirmation and reinforcement in the form of positive feedback from peers, teachers, and parents (Tracy, 1987). As a result, we suggest that studies of this link pursue an active intervention in order to identify a causal relationship rather than just a correlation.
In two studies from 1977 and 1979, Conner and Serbin identified a statistically significant correlation between “male” and “female” play activities and development of different mental abilities. They concluded that playing with “boys’ toys” (trucks, trains, cars, blocks, balls etc.) correlates with development of spatial abilities because of its emphasis on movement and position relative to other items in the play space, while playing with “girls’ toys” (dolls, doll houses and furniture, etc.) tended to correlate with more developed verbal abilities and social intelligence. Their evidence came from spatial ability test scores and tests of vocabulary. These studies identified an interesting correlation, but were not designed to identify a causal relationship.
The link between space and position-related cognitive development and different types of play was corroborated by Brosnan in 1998 in another study specifically linking spatial ability and constructional ability test scores to performance in putting together a LEGO set according to visual instructions. However, this study did not identify any difference between the performances of each gender, adding that female subjects reported familiarity with LEGO playsets more frequently than the male subjects. This evidence suggests that it is not a sex-linked biological mechanism or trait that leads males to enjoy more developed spatial abilities, but rather a result of the toys that they played with as children. Proponents of both theories can be found in the literature, but the recent evidence supports nurture, rather than nature, as the important variable.
The overwhelming majority of studies linking cognitive and spatial development provide evidence only in the form of correlations. This means that there is a well-established association between play with toys such as LEGOs and the development of spatial ability, but it is less clear the toys cause improvement in children’s’ spatial capabilities. We imagine it very plausible that the causality actually works the opposite way around. Children who have more developed spatial abilities may find themselves more drawn to playing with these toys because they are able to exercise their enhanced cognition, and perhaps receive affirmation and reinforcement in the form of positive feedback from peers, teachers, and parents (Tracy, 1987). As a result, we suggest that studies of this link pursue an active intervention in order to identify a causal relationship rather than just a correlation.
Learning and LEGOs
Advanced constructional play with LEGOs among preschoolers as a predictor of later school achievement in mathematics
Published in the scholarly journal, Early Child Development and Care, this paper reports this findings of a research study conducted by Charles Wolfgang, Laura Stannard, and Ithel Jones from Florida State University. The study represents a data-driven investigation of the relationship between the spatial ability and constructional aptitude of children in preschool and their success in mathematics disciplines later in life. As one of their tools for evaluating preschool construction, investigators observed and assessed the children as they played with LEGOs. The paper, in its introduction and discussion sections, highlights and summarizes literature that suggests that extensive constructional play develops the spatial and associational intelligence that children need in order to think representationally and mathematically. The authors begin by broadly explaining the importance of play, and then separate the broad topic into three subcategories: “(1) sensori-motor play (large and small motor activity); (2) symbolic play, which involves representational abilities and includes the fantasy play of socio-dramatic play; and (3) construction play, which involves symbolic product formation with LEGOS, blocks, carpentry, and similar materials”. Interestingly, they derived these categories from theory presented by Piaget, whose theory of intelligence we learned about in the context of the archeological evaluation of the intelligence of prehistoric humans.
The study presents some interesting findings about the relationship between constructional LEGO play as a child and later success in mathematics. Researchers evaluated the LEGO construction play of preschool-aged children on the Lunzer Scale, a metric based on the Piagetian framework of intelligence development, and administered a standard McCarty IQ test. They collected data on the children through their lower school, middle school, and high school years, including standardized test results, teacher-awarded grades, and number of honors classes taken. The study found no statistical relationship between preschool LEGO play and early mathematical achievement (lower school and most of middle school), but it identified multiple strong correlations with late middle school and high school success. The researchers explain that this trend manifests as a result of the nature of mathematical evaluation at these different educational times. During early education, an emphasis is placed on memorization and simple, concrete information. Later on, students are required to think representationally and spatially in courses like algebra, geometry, and calculus, and the cognitive capabilities related to LEGO play come under evaluation. The research reveals an association between LEGOs and a child’s success later in life in mathematics, in a well-conducted study and a scientific context.
The study presents some interesting findings about the relationship between constructional LEGO play as a child and later success in mathematics. Researchers evaluated the LEGO construction play of preschool-aged children on the Lunzer Scale, a metric based on the Piagetian framework of intelligence development, and administered a standard McCarty IQ test. They collected data on the children through their lower school, middle school, and high school years, including standardized test results, teacher-awarded grades, and number of honors classes taken. The study found no statistical relationship between preschool LEGO play and early mathematical achievement (lower school and most of middle school), but it identified multiple strong correlations with late middle school and high school success. The researchers explain that this trend manifests as a result of the nature of mathematical evaluation at these different educational times. During early education, an emphasis is placed on memorization and simple, concrete information. Later on, students are required to think representationally and spatially in courses like algebra, geometry, and calculus, and the cognitive capabilities related to LEGO play come under evaluation. The research reveals an association between LEGOs and a child’s success later in life in mathematics, in a well-conducted study and a scientific context.
LEGO Therapy and the Social Use of Language Programme: An Evaluation of Two Social Skills Interventions for Children with High Functioning Autism and Asperger Syndrome
LEGOs are not only praised for their beneficial role in the spatial and cognitive development of children. A research study conducted by Owens et al., published in Springer Science and Business Media focuses on the role of LEGOs in social development. This study sought to test “LEGO therapy” as an intervention to help children with high-functioning autism and Asperger’s Syndrome to develop social skills and minimize some of the symptoms and maladaptive behaviors of their syndromes.
Playing with LEGOs in a social context, a child is forced not only to understand the rules of space and relative positions of objects, but also his or her own actions in relation to playmates. LEGO therapy, as implemented in this study, provided further rules for the children involved. Researchers mandated that each subject perform a specific role in a group. One child had to be the “engineer”, one the “supplier”, and one the “builder”. Dividing the task up in such a way forced the children to collaborate, and the mixing of children with and without autism or Asperger’s ensured that the subjects of the study received social feedback organically in real-time. The study compared this intervention with a method that involves strategic story-telling which highlights social rules and guidelines (called SULP for Social Use of Language Program). Both of these interventions were compared to a control that received no therapy. Researchers evaluated the behavior of the subjects in all groups according to standard diagnostic and characterization tools for maladaptive behaviors, and with autism rating scales.
The study found that LEGO therapy reduced autism-specific social difficulties, and highlighted positive effects of both LEGO therapy and SULP for various other metrics of socialization such as communication and reduction of maladaptive behaviors. Since this study actually imposed an intervention and compared to control groups, we can say that LEGO played a causal role in the development of social skills. These results are encouraging for the prospect of LEGO therapy as a viable treatment of the social difficulties associated with autism and Asperger’s. This study provides strong causal evidence for the link between LEGOs and cognitive development in children.
Playing with LEGOs in a social context, a child is forced not only to understand the rules of space and relative positions of objects, but also his or her own actions in relation to playmates. LEGO therapy, as implemented in this study, provided further rules for the children involved. Researchers mandated that each subject perform a specific role in a group. One child had to be the “engineer”, one the “supplier”, and one the “builder”. Dividing the task up in such a way forced the children to collaborate, and the mixing of children with and without autism or Asperger’s ensured that the subjects of the study received social feedback organically in real-time. The study compared this intervention with a method that involves strategic story-telling which highlights social rules and guidelines (called SULP for Social Use of Language Program). Both of these interventions were compared to a control that received no therapy. Researchers evaluated the behavior of the subjects in all groups according to standard diagnostic and characterization tools for maladaptive behaviors, and with autism rating scales.
The study found that LEGO therapy reduced autism-specific social difficulties, and highlighted positive effects of both LEGO therapy and SULP for various other metrics of socialization such as communication and reduction of maladaptive behaviors. Since this study actually imposed an intervention and compared to control groups, we can say that LEGO played a causal role in the development of social skills. These results are encouraging for the prospect of LEGO therapy as a viable treatment of the social difficulties associated with autism and Asperger’s. This study provides strong causal evidence for the link between LEGOs and cognitive development in children.
Conclusion
What makes us human is our ability to think like no other creature on earth. It is a gift that has landed us in a modern era of technology, abundance, and dominance over our planet, and a skill that we spend years practicing. We use toys and playtime as children to learn how to think and how to interact with the things and people that make up our reality. LEGOs, as an artifact, represent the way in which we prepare the next generations to grab hold of the torch of human knowledge, by fostering cognitive and social development.
Works Cited
M. J. BROSNAN. Spatial ability in children’s play with lego blocks. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87(1):19–28, 2014/12/08 1998.
Christakis DA and Zimmerman FJ and Garrison MM. Effect of block play on language acquisition and attention in toddlers: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Archives of Pediatrics \& Adolescent Medicine, 161(1):967–971, 2007.
J. M. Connor and L. A. Serbin. Behaviorally based masculine- and feminine-activity-preference scales for preschoolers: Correlates with other classroom behaviors and cognitive tests. Child Development, 48(4):1411–1416, 12 1977.
M. C. Linn and A. C. Petersen. Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56(6):1479–1498, 12 1985.
G. Owens, Y. Granader, A. Humphrey, and S. Baron-Cohen. Lego therapy and the social use of language programme: An evaluation of two social skills interventions for children with high functioning autism and asperger syndrome. 38(10):1944–1957, 2008.
L. A. Serbin, J. M. Connor, C. J. Burchardt, and C. C. Citron. Effects of peer presence on sex-typing of children’s play behavior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 27(2):303–309, 4 1979.
S. Thyssen. Child culture, play and child development. Early Child Development and Care, 173(6):589– 612, 2014/12/08 2003.
D. Tracy. Toys, spatial ability, and science and mathematics achievement: Are they related? 17(3- 4):115–138, 1987.
C. Wolfgang, L. Stannard, and I. Jones. Advanced constructional play with legos among preschoolers as a predictor of later school achievement in mathematics. Early Child Development and Care, 173(5):467– 475, 2014/12/08 2003.
Christakis DA and Zimmerman FJ and Garrison MM. Effect of block play on language acquisition and attention in toddlers: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Archives of Pediatrics \& Adolescent Medicine, 161(1):967–971, 2007.
J. M. Connor and L. A. Serbin. Behaviorally based masculine- and feminine-activity-preference scales for preschoolers: Correlates with other classroom behaviors and cognitive tests. Child Development, 48(4):1411–1416, 12 1977.
M. C. Linn and A. C. Petersen. Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56(6):1479–1498, 12 1985.
G. Owens, Y. Granader, A. Humphrey, and S. Baron-Cohen. Lego therapy and the social use of language programme: An evaluation of two social skills interventions for children with high functioning autism and asperger syndrome. 38(10):1944–1957, 2008.
L. A. Serbin, J. M. Connor, C. J. Burchardt, and C. C. Citron. Effects of peer presence on sex-typing of children’s play behavior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 27(2):303–309, 4 1979.
S. Thyssen. Child culture, play and child development. Early Child Development and Care, 173(6):589– 612, 2014/12/08 2003.
D. Tracy. Toys, spatial ability, and science and mathematics achievement: Are they related? 17(3- 4):115–138, 1987.
C. Wolfgang, L. Stannard, and I. Jones. Advanced constructional play with legos among preschoolers as a predictor of later school achievement in mathematics. Early Child Development and Care, 173(5):467– 475, 2014/12/08 2003.
Image Credits
http://www.managingyourblessings.com/2013/05/03/lego-math-facts-hands-on-learning/
http://becuo.com/children-playing-at-school
http://one-eighty.org.uk/lego-therapy/
http://www.oregonlive.com/happy-valley/index.ssf/2012/06/things_to_do_in_clackamas_esta.html
http://becuo.com/children-playing-at-school
http://one-eighty.org.uk/lego-therapy/
http://www.oregonlive.com/happy-valley/index.ssf/2012/06/things_to_do_in_clackamas_esta.html