Blocks, Bricks, and Planks - Relationships between Affordance and Visuo-Spatial Constructive Play Objects

Oct 15, 2026

The text examines how distinct visuo-spatial constructive play object types—blocks, bricks, and planks—differ in their attributes and how these differences shape creativity in spatial thinking and higher learning during free play. It argues that understanding each object’s level of affordance clarifies effects on cognitive, scientific, mathematical, and technological foundations. It also contrasts open-ended creative benefits with risks from formulaic, scripted play properties that can hinder self-regulation and creative ideation.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages27

Reading Time1 h 8 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Key Terms and Definitions

Affordance and Its Theoretical Basis

Research Questions and Analytical Approach

Blocks, Bricks, and Planks Relationships between Affordance and Visuo-Spatial Constructive Play Objects s Daniel Ness Stephen J. Farenga ,e authors consider the strengths and weaknesses of three di-erent visuo-spatial constructive play object (VCPO) types—blocks, bricks, and planks—and their impact on the development of creativity in spatial thinking and higher learning during free play. Each VCPO has its own set of attributes, they note, leading to di-erent purposes, functions, aesthetic outcomes, and narratives. ,ey argue that one key to understanding the impact of these toys is to determine, based on the diversity of their attributes, each VCPO’s level of a-ordance. ,e authors suggest that the speci4c qualities of some play materials may help establish the scienti4c, mathematical, and technological foundations required in such professional disciplines as architecture and engineering. In contrast, they argue that the use of VCPOs hobbled by formulaic, scripted play properties may have the opposite e-ect, that the use of products manufactured with specialized, commercialized themes runs the risk of impeding self-regulation and even creative ideation. ,ey hope their 4ndings serve as a starting point for future studies that examine the bene4tsand shortcomings of speci4c play objects on cognitive development and creativity. Key words: a-ordance; block play; brick play; child development; constructive play; plank play; spatial thinking; visuo-spatial constructive play objects Cognitive psychologists and early-childhood and elementary education specialists and practitioners have historically found children’s use of blocks or bricks during free play to be an important measure of intellectual development (Hirsch 1996). Given this time-honored relationship of blocks and bricks to human development, the literature is replete with seemingly intrinsic connections between block play and the work of architects, engineers, scientists, and other professionals who specialize in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and related disciplines (Brosterman 1997; Farenga and Ness 2007; National Research Council 2006; Ness and Farenga 2007; Zevi 1993) . Only recently, however, have researchers expressed an increased interest in the 201 American Journal of Play, volume 8, number 2 © ,e Strong Contact Daniel Ness [at nessd@stjohns.edu](at nessd@stjohns.edu) extent to which block play either correlates or causally relates to mathematical and scienti4c thinking in general and to spatial thinking in particular (Wolfgang, Stannard, and Jones 2001; Ness and Farenga 2007; Verdine et al. 2014) . More empirical research demonstrating such correlations between block play and spatial cognition might answer important questions about whether the type of object that children or adolescents use inXuences the development of their spatial thinking. In considering an analytical framework of play objects used during constructive play, we have concluded that the terms “blocks”(signifying the toy) and “block play”(signifying the task) are too generic and lack clarity and speci4city. ,ese terms prove even thornier when we investigate children’s constructive free play and their everyday, spontaneous concepts or their spatial language development (Farrara et al. 2011) . ,erefore, instead of blocks, we use the term “visuo-spatial constructive play objects”(VCPOs) . VCPOs include blocks (for example, standard wood blocks, plastic blocks, and foam blocks), bricks (such as LEGO bricks and Mega Bloks), and planks (1 × 3 × 15 cm wooden rectangular cuboids) . ,e multifarious uses of VCPOs may provide cognitive researchers with insight about the rates at which children develop their spatial abilities. Because constructive play, unlike other types of play, involves the use of smaller objects as a means for building larger and o]en more elaborate structures, we de4ne VCPOs as those materials individuals use when they model what they imagine and

FAQs

What are the main play object types compared in the text?

The text compares blocks, bricks, and planks as three different visuo-spatial constructive play object (VCPO) types.

How does the concept of affordance relate to VCPOs?

Affordance refers to object qualities that define possible use and clarify how an object can or should be used, and the text connects differing affordance levels to differences in cognitive and creative outcomes.

What potential negative effect does the text warn about?

It argues that formulaic, scripted play properties may hinder self-regulation and even creative ideation compared with more supportive qualities of specific play materials.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by supergirl