Running head: HOW LEGO 1
How Lego influences different age groups children
HOW LEGO 2
How Lego influences different age groups children
INTRODUCTION
Lego is a family-owned company based in Denmark (Lego, 2008). It is best known for
the manufacture of Lego brick toys that are small bricks, but they can be attached freely and you
can build imaginary architecture. The word Lego came from the Danish words “leg godt”,
meaning play well in English. Coincidentally, the word Lego means “I put it together” in Latin,
and in Italian, it means “I connect” or “I tie” (Robertson, 2013). Nobody knows that this
ingenious name is a deliberate name by Ole Kirk Christiansen (Legos’ father). This is a toy that
adapts to any period of age. Until 1958, the modern brick design was plain creative, and it took
another five years to find the right material for it, ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) polymer
(LEGO, 2008). This material makes more modern Lego sets be produced, and it has become a
world-famous toy. Worldwide, Lego has become the most popular toy for boys and a small part
of girls.
Research Question
1. What’s positive effect for children who play with Lego’s toys and reason
2. What’s negative effect for children who play with Lego’s toys and reason
3. How to adjust and improve negative.
There are three research questions for this paper. Firstly, what’s effect of lego for all age
groups children and how does it influence children. For example, I’ll analyze how lego
influences different ages of children, toddlers, preschoolers, and juveniles and the reason why
lego affect too many different age groups of children. Secondly, I’ll discover positive and
negative influences for children, owing to everything has two sides, and Lego is not an
exception, it has both advantages and disadvantages. Thirdly, based on the second question, a
new problem will be how to eliminate negative effects or lessen those problems at least.
HOW LEGO 3
LITERATURE REVIEW
This research first study goal is to explore an author’s opinion discussed from 2011 to
2016. We’ll get some opinion and summary, and we can keep touch with our paper from those
idea. Nath(2014) discusses that construction play is thought to develop logic-mathematical skills.
His tool is lego, therefore, if he success fully proves that toys are beneficial to logic-
mathematical skill, we can get result that lego is beneficial to children’s logic- mathematical
skill. In order to fill this gap, this study looks at the relationship between Lego construction
ability, cognitive abilities and mathematical performance in 7-year-old, Year 2 primary school
children and sample number is 66. Nath(2014) considers that while studies have focused on the
relationship between mathematics performance and verbal memory, there are limited studies
focusing on visual memory. They would like to test both visual and verbal working memory and
short term memory, as well as non-verbal intelligence. They used a Lego construction task
paradigm based on four task variables found to systematically increase construction task
difficulty. From this process, I can know lego not only is a toy, but also it is an effective
education tool, and that he got some idea to discover relations between mathematics performance
and Lego constructions. Nath’s(2014) results suggest that Lego construction ability is positively
related to mathematics performance, and visuospatial memory fully mediates this relationship.
Undeniably, there are interesting and exact results. His sample is 7-year-old children, so that I
confirm lego is useful for young children (5~7 years old) , it will be a pretty good way to foster
their cognitive skills and develop their mathematical abilities. Finally, Nath’s(2014) describe that
future work of an intervention study using Lego construction training to develop visuospatial
memory, which in turn may improve mathematics performance, is suggested. I think it will be
another good target that develop visuospatial memory, because if you want to exercise children
HOW LEGO 4
this ability, you can set an example initially and make him copy it later. I’ll describe in some
detail the reason why that is a correct opinion in the post.
Lindh (2007) investigates the effect of a one-year regular robotic toys (lego) training on
high grade primary school performance, and he describe that The underlying pedagogical
perspective is the constructionist theory, where the main idea is that knowledge is constructed in
the mind of the pupil by active learning. For both cases Lindh (2007) has constructed and
included control groups. The data was gathered from different pupils from two different age
categories, from different classes, from different schools, and finally from different places in
Sweden. Lindh (2007) has investigated whether the approach of involving the lego training in the
school’s activities might lead to improving the adoption process and that the pupils would
perform better in mathematics and technique. Lindh’s (2007) null hypothesis (null hypothesis is a
