The History, Development and Design of Blocks
Merredith Portsmore
Abstract
The manipulatives that educators use as tools for helping children to learn date
back to the early 1800s. The block is one of the earliest manipulatives that has served
as one of the key concrete tools used to help children represent and understand
abstract concepts. The evolution of the block has been driven by two forces 1) the need
to represent more complex ideas and 2) the world of children’s toys. This evolution has
transformed the basic wooden shape to a plastic brick with an embedded
microprocessor. However, the new and evolved block does not make the old forms of
the block obsolete and many of the original block manipulatives are still in use today.
As technology continues to advanced, the need to help children represent new complex,
abstract ideas is driving the creation of new types of blocks that can serve as concrete
manipulatives.
Introduction
What is a manipulative?
According to the dictionary (Dictionary.com, 2005) the noun form of the word
doesn’t even exist. However, educators and others apply the term to everything from
the pattern blocks and Cuisenaire rods used to teach mathematics to programmable
digital bricks. The wide application of the term makes it difficult to present a single
definition of the word. However, manipulatives, in the education domain, are generally
described as objects that people can interact with to help make abstract concepts more
concrete. To date there are many objects that could be considered manipulatives (clay,
sticks, paper), however this paper focuses on the evolution of the basic block from
wooden toy to plastic bricks with embedded microprocessors.
Are blocks considered an educational technology?
The latest and greatest manipulatives that include batteries and microprocessors
obviously have the trappings of what is considered technology. However, what about
the simple blocks and bricks that populate many classrooms? If we define technology
as “the science of the application of knowledge to practical purposes” (Dictionary.com,
2005) we see that these materials reflect educators application of knowledge to helping
students to gain greater knowledge and understanding.
Where did blocks come from?
One would think that building or construction toys would be one of the earliest
forms of toys. While this may be true, there is little evidence to support it. Historical
research on toys indicates that children appear to have toys in all cultures dating back
to the early BC era. However only items like carved animals or figures that were made
from materials like ivory or jade. This may be because building toys were created from
more perishable materials like wood or sand. The first definitive indications of the toys
we would recognize today as blocks appear in a few 15th and 16th century paintings of
children and families. However, blocks and other toys did not become widely available
until the 17th and 18th century. These centuries brought a new attitude towards children,
not as miniature adults, but as developing beings. Hence, play was of more value and
this era saw the development of more toys for children and the emergence of some of
the first concrete manipulatives (alphabet blocks). (Read, 1992).
The change in attitudes toward children coincided with the Industrial Revolution
(1760 to 1840) and toy manufacturers emerged as the demand for toys increased. A
great deal of the initial toy manufacturing was concentrated in Germany where
industrialization of toy production was able to bring down the cost of the previously
handmade toys. (toys, 2005). In the early 1800’s the first building blocks, produced by
a German company, appeared. Complete with arches, doorways, and columns, the
sets were designed for building specific structures and left little room for imagination
(Read, 1992). However, they did pave the way for more toys and for educators to begin
to contemplate their use as a learning tool.
Froebel: The beginning of blocks and education
With a thriving toy industry in his backyard producing an array of products,
German Friedrich Froebel was the first educator to seriously contemplate how these
objects like blocks could be used in the education of young people. While there had
been a few essays and efforts prior to Froebel, his efforts were the most systematic and
had the most lasting effects (Hayward, 1979). Froebel is credited with being the
“inventor” of kindergarten, which was the first educational experience available for
children under age 7 at the time (Brosterman, 1997). Froebel was heavily influence by
the pedagogy of Johann Pestalozzi, who advocated hands-on, active education.
Froebel, in turn, focused kindergarten on movement, creation, curiosity, and play in
contrast to the memorization and content driven nature of school. To help children gain
concepts of space, patterns, shapes, and more Froebel selected 20 “gifts”. These gifts
consisted (Figures 1 & 2) of manipulative ranging from balls, blocks, and sticks to clay,
drawing supplies, and weaving materials. Some of the gifts were designed by him and
others were preexisting materials. All were intended to be used by children through
active play (Brosterman, 1997) rather than rigorous adult supervision and direction
(Read, 1992).
Figure 1: Gift 1 (left) the balls with string and Gift 2 (Right) the cubes, spheres,
cylinder and sticks (http://www.froebelgifts.com)
Figure 2: Gift 3 (1”cubes) (left) and Gift 7 (shape tiles) (right)
Froebel’s blocks (Gifts 3-6) serve as the foundation for blocks as an educational tool.
The blocks in his gifts were of specific dimensions with the idea that students would find
relationships by using them. Gift 3 for example consisted of eight 1” cubes that could
be combined to form a 2”x2”x2” cube as well as other shapes.
With Froebel and his trained teachers as advocates, kindergarten, and therefore
the gifts, exploded in popularity in Germany and abroad. Several great 20 th century
minds (namely architect Frank Lloyd Wright and Albert Einstein) participated in a
version of Froebel’s kindergarten system and attributed some of their success to the
system. Frank Lloyd Wright stated in his autobiography “The maple-wood blocks...are
in my fingers to this day," (Wright, 2005)
Froebel had a carefully constructed method of training kindergarten teachers to
present the gifts in a prescribed method. However, how the gifts were used that was
altered as kindergarten was disseminated throughout the world. In the U.S, Milton
Bradley and his family were among the first to adopt kindergarten. In addition to starting
a kindergarten, Bradley’s company began manufacturing the gifts but with a diluted
sense of their original purpose. The gifts meaning and use was tailored to capture the
attention of a newly immigrated population seeking to become better citizens.
Moreover, Milton Bradley also began manufacturing other block products that were
similar to the gifts but without the educational goals and thoughtfulness of Froebel’s gifts
to capitalize on the popularity of kindergarten products. (Brosterman, 1997).
How much can you change about a block?: Montessori and more
Froebel and his gifts sparked excitement and change and by the early 1900s
several other educators were creating their own versions of kindergarten that that
integrated manipulatives – particularly blocks. Maria Montessori took a similar
approach to Froebel with using manipulatives as an integral part of learning. She
created her own set of blocks, similar to geometric that students were to use to
complete specific tasks (create a set of stairs or a tower of specified height and width).
(Montessori, 1912; Read, 1992) Montessori’s method was much more structured than
Froebel’s with less emphasis on play and more emphasis on “spontaneous” discovery
of a specific outcome. Similar to Froebel, Montessori designed blocks that had specific
mathematical properties (Figure 3) and tasked students to arrange them in particular
ways.
Figure 3: A child playing with blocks designed by Maria Montessori (the slotted
cylinder
Blocks continued to be redesigned as educators incorporated them into their
educational methods. Patty Smith Hill, from Louisville, Kentucky, responded to
Froebel’s method and the materials. She further redesigned Froebel’s blocks by
making them much larger so students could build very sizable structures (Read, 1992)
Hill imbued her implementation of kindergarten with a more Deweyan approach and
wanted students to be able to interact in everyday tasks and form a community. Hence,
she wanted blocks that could create structures large enough for students to walk under
or play in. (Rudnitski, 1995) Another American educator Caroline Pratt was more
interested in the mathematic principles and construction principles inherent in blocks.
Pratt expanded on Froebel’s concept of mathematical relationships of blocks by creating
more types of blocks and presenting them to children as a single set of materials rather
than in small packages. The outcome of her work is the unit blocks (Figure 4) found in
nearly every kindergarten and preschool classroom. (Read, 1992)
Figure 4: The current unit blocks found in many classrooms were originally
developed by Caroline Pratt
In the early 1950’s Belgium School teacher Georges Cuisenaire created his own
modification of the Froebel’s blocks furthering the concept of mathematics. His blocks
were composed of individual units (1 cm per unit) with colors representing different
lengths (Figure 5). (Gattegno-Cuisenaire, 2005). Cuisenaire worked with a Dr. Caleb
Gattegno, a mathematics educator, to refine and promote what would be come to be
know as “Cuisenaire Rods” to help bring math to primary and secondary school
students. (The Froebel Web, 2005) Cuisenaire Rods completely departed from blocks
as a building toy and used them strictly as manipulative for representing abstract math
concepts of arithmetic to young children.
Figure 5: Cuisenaire Rods range from 1 to 10 units long with each color
corresponding to a different lengths
From the current literature on mathematics learning, we see that the versions of
unit blocks, pattern blocks, and Cuisenaire rods are still used in the K-5 classrooms
(Ericson & Niess, 1996). Research on the use mathematics manipulatives continues to
show that students achieve better with lessons that use manipulatives than those that
do not (Sudyham et all, 1977; Driscoll, 1981). However, many researchers emphasize
that proper teacher education is key to the implementation and success of
manipulatives (Moch, 2001).
More Building Toys: Erector, Meccano, Tinker Toys, and Lincoln Logs
While educators in kindergarten refined blocks, the inventors and entrepreneurs
of the early 1900s (Table 1) were developing a number of toys that would become the
next generation of building toys. It is with these toys that we see more of an emphasis
on the realism of the end product and less on the mathematical properties of the
materials.
Toy
Meccano
Tinker Toys
Year
1906
1910
Inventor
Frank Hornby
Charles Pajeau and
Robert Petit
Erector Sets
1911
A.C. Gilbert
Lincoln Logs
1924
John Lloyd Wright
Table 1: Early Building & Construction Toys (The National Toy Hall of Fame, 2005)
The Meccano and Erector companies capitalized on the rapid growth of real
world engineering projects in the early 1900s by providing kits and pieces that allowed
children to build realistic models of actual buildings and machines (Figure 6 ). The
metal pieces in both toys mimicked real building and engineering materials (steel
beams, pulleys, and gears). Erector also became the first construction toy to
incorporate a motor, giving children the power to add motion to their creations.
(Petroski, 1998)
Figure 6: Meccano (left) was the first to market while Erector (right) followed,
complete with an electric motor.
Lincoln Logs arrived on the market just after Meccano and Erector in 1924. The
wooden construction toy that mimicked real log construction were the brain child of John
Lloyd Wright, son of architect Frank Lloyd Wright. Wright came up with the concept
while watching the construction of one of his father’s buildings. Lincoln Logs (Figure 7)
has a strong theme associated with them of the American West – implying that by users
would have a frontier experience. The set mixed specialty pieces (like roof tiles and
doors) with log “primitives” of basic lengths.
All three sets of toys came with specific directions on how to build models.
However, the 3 companies, particularly Meccano and Erector, acknowledged and
supported other creations with their products through magazines with new ideas and
design contents.
Figure 7: Lincoln Logs sets centered around the theme of the American Frontier.
While Meccano, Erector, and Lincoln Logs, allowed for very literal constructions,
Tinkertoys, on the other hand, were much more free form. They were developed after
inventors Pajeau and Petit watched “children create endless abstract shapes with
sticks, pencils, and old spools of thread” (The National Toy Hall of Fame, 2005). From
that experience, the two worked to develop a system that would allow for the rods and
sticks to combine in an infinite number of ways. Tinkertoys (Figure 8) extended the
abstract building concept with new shapes, objects, and connections. Tinkertoys
originally had no plans for models but allowed complete free form building. However, as
the toy evolved model plans were included so that buyers could build the spectacular
structures that were used in advertisements more easily.
Figure 8: Tinkertoys gave children toys to extend their existing play.
Meccano, Erector, Tinkertoys and Lincoln Logs were not designed to be part of formal
educational settings. Nor, for the most part, were they adopted into educational settings
as a part of the official instruction. Hence, there is little information available on what
type of impact these toys may have had on their users. Though, it could be surmised
that they influenced spatial and problem solving skills. However, present day engineers
cite these types of toys as integral to their choice career of engineering as well as
providing formidable lessons in engineering and design.
“Children who played with cans and boxes and Meccano and Erector sets
and grew up to be engineers have seldom forgotten those early
experiences. The lessons they learned about how things stand up and
how they fall down, about how order is superior to chaos, and about how
careful planning is as important as good design – all lesson gathered from
childhood construction toys – have made them better engineers.”
(Petroski, 1998)
Despite, the innovation and their initial success only Tinker Toys and Lincoln Logs
remain a significant presence on toy shelves today. Meccano has a small presence in
parts of Europe while Erector went out of business in the 1980s and has been recently
revived on a smaller scale.
Models and Building Toys
In 1932, a Danish carpenter, Ole Kirk Christiansen, started a toy company
(LEGO) which made wooden toys and blocks for several years. However in 1949 the
company started to experiment with first plastic making machine. This yielded
“Automatic Binding Bricks” which are the predecessors of the LEGO bricks we know
today. The official LEGO brick appears in 1953 and during the first decade of its
existence, the LEGO company sold a combination of models and free building
brick/block sets – effectively addressing the Erector and Tinkertoy/Block market. (LEGO
Company, 2005). Similar to other construction toys, the primary sales were as toys play
at home. However, LEGO maintained the tradition of Froebel and Caroline Pratt in their
design of their components by having the basic building pieces maintained specific
mathematical relationships (3 plates make up a brick). (Martin, 1995). Hence, LEGO
effectively became the first material to incorporate the educational traditions of Froebel
with the building toy concepts of the early model kits (Erector, Meccano etc…)
In the early 1960’s the company sold a few sets for schools (Terapi I, II and III) but
didn’t make any significant educational efforts until 1982 when it establishes the LEGO
Educational Division (also called LEGO Dacta). Motivations for the creation of the
division, according to a former R& D Director, include:
“1. Sampling effect.- When you see/experience the product in daycare/schools it can influence the "Christmas wish list"
2. Keeping the competition out. - If they don't use LEGO products - they
will use something else
3. Business opportunity - another way to make money for the company.”
(Rasmussen, electronic mail, April 1, 2005)
As a business they were primarily interested in education to generate interest in their
product for their retail division and to generate additional funds as a new venture. The
Educational Division did however, have it’s own Research & Design group which started
to address the issue of combining computers and manipulatives. In 1986, LEGO
released its first interface (Figure 9) that allows structures that employ LEGO materials,
electric motors and sensors to be controlled by the computer.
Figure 9: Interface A is LEGO’s first attempt to combine LEGO bricks with the
computer
LEGO revises the concept working to implement more sensors and a better connecting
between the motors and more sensors. The revised Interface B (better known as
Control Lab) was widely released in 1993. Both interfaces connected to the computer
by serial cable which keeps constructions from traveling too far from the computer.
Figure 10: Interface B features more inputs and outputs and supports the four
newly designed LEGO Sensors (light, temperature, rotation, and touch)
The LEGO Education Division experienced moderate success with their products selling
to educators who were interested in design and basic physics concepts (simple
machines, energy). Their kits are similar to the Erector kits with real world plastic
pieces (gears, pulleys) and extensive building directions. (LEGO Company, 2005)
The most significant investment LEGO, as a company, made in education and in
research and development is their partnership with Seymour Papert and MIT’s Media
Lab (starting in 1985 and continuing to today). LEGO funds professorships and
graduate students at the Media Lab and therefore has the right to license technology
and ideas the lab produces. In the mid 90s, Mitch Resnick, Fred Martin, Randy
Sargent, and Brian Silverman were interested in concepts of embedded computing
(placing computers inside the LEGO bricks) (Resnick et al, 1996) and developed the
Programmable Brick (Figure 11). MIT’s Programmable Brick can be considered the first
digital manipulative – a manipulative with embedded electronic capabilities beyond its
physical attributes.
Figure 11: The MIT version of the programmable LEGO brick featured
expandable ports and rechargeable batteries (MIT Programmable Brick, 2005)
The Programmable Brick allows users to transfer programs from the computer to the
brick to run motors and sensors. The brick is not tethered to the computers and allows
for autonomous creations.
The Programmable Brick, as a digital manipulative, allows
users to explore complex concepts. Where blocks allow for mathematical concepts,
building toys for how things work, the Programmable Brick allows for concepts of
control, feedback, and artificial intelligence,
LEGO exercised their licensing option and re-engineered the Programmable
Brick for sale on the retail market. Features in MIT’s design, like rechargeable batteries
and expandable ports, were removed for cost and to meet retail toy standards of safety.
LEGO’s version, the RCX (Figure 12), debuts in September 1998 to rave reviews and
becomes a best selling product (Knudsen, 2000).
Figure 12: The LEGO RCX features 3 inputs, 3 outputs and an IR interface for
communicating with other RCXs.
The RCX product has unparalleled success in the educational division where it is
adopted in more than 20 countries, a number of which had little previous interest in
educational LEGO products. Qualitative descriptions of programs using LEGOs for
actual classroom use (Portsmore et al, 2001, Murray & Bartelmay, 2005) describe a
range of use from math and science (primarily physics) to engineering, robotics and
computer programming. The research examining the effectiveness of these
manipulatives is mixed with some studies showing students have increased content
knowledge and problem solving abilities and other showing no difference between
traditional instruction and those involving digital manipulatives like LEGOs (Wagner,
1999). However, the research methods employed (controlled groups in relatively short
time periods) may not be appropriate for assessing the effectiveness of the materials.
Cutting Edge Tools and Manipulatives:
Blocks continue to evolve as technology enables size, shape, color, and
computational capacities to change. MIT’s Media Lab is continuing with the concept of
digital manipulatives looking to add computation in more effective and different ways.
While the RCX offers students the opportunity to manipulate computation in a form that
is easy for them to work with it remains an external device primarily used for
constructing LEGO creations that stand alone in the world. However, The Cricket, is a
much smaller microprocessor based device that can be more easily integrated into the
outside world. This allows students to manipulate their actual environment by creating
devices that can control their environment or collect information from it. (Resnick et al,
1998) -- effectively empowering them to make a manipulative out of almost anything.
Figure 13: (left) The Cricket is about the size of a 9V battery allowing it to be
integrated into projects like windshield wipers for your glasses (right)
The Systems Blocks project at the Media Lab is another new way of thinking
about digital manipulatives. Pattern blocks and Cuisenaire rods help make abstract
mathematical concepts concrete. However, in our increasingly technological world
there are new abstract concepts to be explored like algorithms and data flow. System
blocks allow users to create a concrete representation of the flow of information and use
different types of blocks to alter its state and direction. (Zuckerman & Resnick, 2003)
Figure 14: Pattern blocks show the flow (direction and speed) of information
through an arrangement of blocks.
Challenges and Gaps:
In examining the history of blocks, I see a strong and accepted connection
between basic blocks and mathematical learning, particularly in the early grades. That
same connection does not appear to exist between the more advanced manipulatives
like LEGO and the RCX. The research community has yet to establish the measures
that effectively assess what they hope these newer blocks help to achieve and the
educational community, as a whole, does not seem vested in their use as an integral
part of education. While amazing projects like System Blocks emerge, education still
seems to be struggling to use manipulatives beyond the early grades. A question
posed by a parent in a mathematics educators magazine reflects this disconnect - “I
know that my child needed blocks and other objects to help her learn to count and
understand math in the early grades but does he still need those things in middle
school?” (Martnie, 1994)
The acceptance of manipulatives (blocks) at the older grades and in forms other
than the derivatives of Froebel’s gifts seems to be an obstacle that I intuitively feel
needs to be overcome. The use of LEGO-type manipulatives offers the opportunity for
meaningful learning and the development of higher order thinking and learning skills.
However, high stakes testing and federal legislation like No Child Left Behind don’t offer
means to facilitate this acceptance. The key to altering this content only mentality
seems to be to look to industry to demand skills and quality beyond pure content. As it
is members of industry who reflect most fondly on the toys that influence their
knowledge and careers (Petroski, 1998).
Conclusions:
When you research the history of many technologies, cars or computers, you see
that the latest technology is an outgrowth of the old inventions. The old inventions may
employ the same principles but they are not as useful as the newest inventions. The
same is not true for blocks and manipulatives -- perhaps because certain elements of
the knowledge we value, like adding and subtracting, are far more timeless and fixed
that fuel efficiency or processor speed. However, what are considered important
understandings is evolving and changing as technology and engineering alter the world.
New manipulatives are being added to the toolset of educators to address those issues
by a select few. The future looks bright for the continual creation of manipulatives to
address new issues despite the difficulty in the actual adoption and assessment of
these new blocks.
References:
Brosterman, N. (1997). Inventing Kindergarten. New York: Harry N. Adams Inc.
Dictionary.com (2005) Retrieved March 31, 2005 from
http://dictionary.reference.com/
Driscoll, M. (1981) Research within Reach: Elementary School Mathematics. Reston,
Va.: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Erickson, D & Niess, M. (1996) Focusing on NCTM’s Standards: Teachers’ Choices and
Decisions Related to Student Achievement in Middle School Mathematics. Research In
Middle Level Education Quarterly. 19 (1996): 23-42.
The Froebel Web (2005) Retrieved March 31, 2005 from
http://www.froebelweb.org/web2026.html
Gattegno-Cuisenaire. Britannica Student Encyclopedia. Retrieved April 6, 2005, from
Encyclopedia Britannica Online.
<http://80-www-search-eb-com.ezproxy.library.tufts.edu/ebi/article?tocId=9324354>
Hayward, F.H.. (1979) The educational ideas of Pestalozzi and Froebel.
Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
Knudsen, J. (2000) LEGO Mindstorms: An Introduction. Retrieved March 28, 2005 from
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2000/01/31/mindstorms/index.html
LEGO Company Corporate Information (2005) Retrieved March 31, 2005 from
http://www.lego.com/eng/info/
Martin, F., (1995) The Art of LEGO Design (PDF). The Robotics Practitioner: The
Journal for Robot Builders, volume 1, number 2, Spring 1995.
Moch, P.L., (2001) Manipulatives Work! The Educational Forum. Vol 66 Fall 2001.
MIT Programmable Brick (2005) Retrieved March 29, 2005 from
http://lcs.www.media.mit.edu/groups/el/projects/programmable-brick/
Montessori, M. (1912). The Montessori Method. New York: Frederick Stokes Co.
Murray, J. & Bartelmay, K. (2005) Inventors in the Making. Science & Children (Pending
Publication)
The National Toy Hall of Fame (2005) Retrieved March 31, 2005 from
http://www.strongmuseum.org/NTHoF/
Petroski, H. (1998). The Toys That Built America. Invention & Technology Spring 1998
(40-44)
Portsmore, M. ,Kearns, S.A., Rogers, C.M., Barsosky, J., Rogers, C.B., (2001)
Successful methods for introducing engineering into the first grade classroom.
Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education Annual Exposition and
Conference, New Mexico, June 2001
Rasmussen, R. (Robert@tuscanex.com) (2005, April 1). Dacta History. E-mail to M.
Portsmore (mportsmo@tufts.edu)
Read, J. (1992). A Short History of Children’s Building Blocks. In Pat Gura (Ed.),
Exploring learning: Young children and blockplay. London: Paul Chapman Publishing
Ltd.
Resnick, M. Martin, F.G., Sargent, R., & Silverman, B., (1996) Programmable bricks:
Toys to Think With. IBM Systems Journal, 35,(3&4), 443-452.
Resnick, M., Martin, F., Berg, R., Borovoy, R., Colella, V., Kramer, K., and Silverman, B.
(1998). Digital Manipulatives. Proceedings of the CHI '98 conference, Los Angeles, April
1998.
Rudnitski, R. A. (1995). Patty Smith Hill, gifted early childhood educator of the
progressive era. Roeper Review 18(1): 19–24.
Sudyham, M.N., Higgins, J.L., (1977) Activity Based Learning in Elementary School
Mathematics: Recommendations from Research. Columbus. Ohio: ERIC/SMEAC
toys. Britannica Student Encyclopedia. (2005) Retrieved April 1, 2005, from
Encyclopedia Britannica Premium Service.
http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article?tocId=209012
Wagner, S. (1999) Robotics and Children: Science Achievement and Problem Solving.
Information Technology in Childhood Education. Annual 1999 p. 1-24
Wright, Frank Lloyd (2005) Frank Lloyd Wright: An Autobiography. New Your:
Pomegranate.
Zuckerman, O., and Resnick, M. (2003). System Blocks: A Physical Interface for
System Dynamics Learning. International System Dynamics Conference, New York.