View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Making with LEGOs to Improve the Writing of Young Children

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Making with LEGOs to Improve the Writing of Young Children
Language: English
Authors: Qianyi Gao (ORCID 0000-0002-3161-8909), Anna Hall, Virginia Theriault
Source: Early Childhood Education Journal. 2025 53(6):2053-2062.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Early Childhood Education
Grade 3
Primary Education
Descriptors: Shared Resources and Services, Toys, Elementary School Students, Grade 3, Young Children, Literacy Education, Small Group Instruction, Expository Writing, Attention, Accuracy
DOI: 10.1007/s10643-025-01869-z
ISSN: 1082-3301
1573-1707
Abstract: The Maker Movement has gained popularity in educational settings due to its emphasis on hands-on creation and fostering creative expression. While making is often associated with STEM disciplines, literacy educators are increasingly interested in exploring the intersection between making and writing. This qualitative study examines the impact of LEGO building on young children's writing. Over the course of eight weeks, five participants from a third-grade classroom engaged in small group sessions that integrated LEGO building with writing tasks. Participants demonstrated enhanced expository writing skills, increased concentration and focus during writing tasks, and a shift in emphasis from spelling accuracy to content clarity. The findings underscore the potential of LEGO building as a valuable tool for improving the writing of young children and highlight the promise of integrating making activities to writing instruction.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1479539
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHHaF_eq4GI7RsCKeRzPnAQAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJmn6Z5ro3cY-ATujAIBEICBm-t6ifnX0C3RhCJxZr18sl0SdMoM0muFsBsPg_APpfS6OGHcKk5vhM1oyDbZ5D0MSmyCBmQLL5b5EdG67t3N57weOwvhVw7lXpXwuFE0WleG-lqDbYHvbfbcGzLQVeOOQqUQ0qQlrho5rK6fsaKf1yD6kZb_Zatc7zNd2n0oe6P_SSCIkRROmqwA9nZEJ_isVbgtB0o8ZACVJ78V
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187189991;5mx01aug.25;2025Aug11.03:06;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187189991-1">Making with LEGOs to Improve the Writing of Young Children </title> <p>The Maker Movement has gained popularity in educational settings due to its emphasis on hands-on creation and fostering creative expression. While making is often associated with STEM disciplines, literacy educators are increasingly interested in exploring the intersection between making and writing. This qualitative study examines the impact of LEGO building on young children's writing. Over the course of eight weeks, five participants from a third-grade classroom engaged in small group sessions that integrated LEGO building with writing tasks. Participants demonstrated enhanced expository writing skills, increased concentration and focus during writing tasks, and a shift in emphasis from spelling accuracy to content clarity. The findings underscore the potential of LEGO building as a valuable tool for improving the writing of young children and highlight the promise of integrating making activities to writing instruction.</p> <p>Keywords: Maker movement; Writing; LEGO; Hands-on; Psychology and Cognitive Sciences Psychology Education Specialist Studies In Education</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0187189991-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Over the past two decades, there has been an increase in the number of people who actively engage in the creation and production of artifacts and who share their processes and products with others on different forums (Halverson & Sheridan, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref1">12</reflink>]). With this hot trend, the Maker Movement, and a variety of other maker initiatives (e.g., Makerspaces, Techshops, Tinkering Labs) have appeared and gradually made their way into the world of education (Nadelson, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref2">20</reflink>]; Papavlasopoulou et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref3">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although making has been closely associated with STEM disciplines, maker practices and culture are garnering increased interest from literacy educators (Wargo & Alvarado, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref4">33</reflink>]; Woodard, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref5">35</reflink>]). Scholars are examining the links between making and literacy development, specifically in writing because both writing and making are acts of communication that allow people to express themselves and make meaning of their thoughts through creation. In their pursuit of understanding the impact of hands-on creation on writing motivation and proficiency, literacy educators are dedicated to uncovering the relationship between writing and making (Brownell, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>]; Woodard, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref7">35</reflink>]). The current study aims to explore the intersection of making and literacy development, particularly how hands-on creation activities like building with LEGO blocks can influence students' writing.</p> <hd id="AN0187189991-3">The Maker Movement</hd> <p>The first publication of <emph>Make</emph> magazine in 2005 and the first Maker Faire in the following year led to the idea of the Maker Movement. Although the Maker Movement started in out-of-school spaces and has mostly involved adult participants, there is a growing interest in bringing making into K-12 education to enhance student engagement in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and more recently literacy practices (Martin, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref8">16</reflink>]). However, the role of making in education and its importance in learning is not novel and has been studied for decades.</p> <p>Educational theorists have long argued that making, playing, building, and interacting with the real world are valuable ways of learning (Piaget, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref9">26</reflink>]; Vygotsky, 1980). "Father of the Maker Movement and the theory of constructionism", Seymour Papert, proposed the concept of "learning by making" (Martinez & Stager, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref10">18</reflink>]; Papert & Harel, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref11">22</reflink>]). Papert's constructionism theory demonstrates the need to learn through creative making processes and emphasizes discovering knowledge rather than passively receiving it (Papert & Harel, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref12">22</reflink>]). Constructionism emphasizes the active role that students can take in constructing their learning through direct engagement with problems in the world, and it posits the process of building something as a rich context for both the development and representation of understanding (Papert & Harel, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref13">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>Making encourages firsthand engagement with materials, which links directly to the potential for learning (Bevan, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref14">5</reflink>]). Honey and Kanter ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref15">13</reflink>]) defined it as "building or adapting objects by hand for the simple personal pleasure of figuring out how things work" (p. 4). Many recognized making as one of the main components of learning in addition to designing and playing (Bevan, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref16">5</reflink>]). The interest-driven nature of making makes it profoundly accessible because students are able to develop and pursue their own pathways to constructing their ideas (Bevan, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref17">5</reflink>]). Making is also learner-centered and creates opportunities for students to take control of their learning and actively engage in creative exploration (Nadelson, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref18">20</reflink>]; Papavlasopoulou et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref19">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>At the heart of the Maker Movement is a persistent interest and drive towards play (Martin, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref20">16</reflink>]). Many scholars have considered play to be a fundamental developmental activity for children and adolescents (Martin, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref21">16</reflink>]; Pellegrini, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref22">23</reflink>]; Vygotsky, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref23">32</reflink>]). Wohlwend and Peppler ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref24">34</reflink>]) found that children persisted longer in making activities than they did with other activities due to the properties of play inherent in making. Vossoughi and Bevan ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref25">31</reflink>]) noted that the playful and aesthetic nature of making activities piques interest and invites learners to pick up tools and materials to play and explore, regardless of age and experience levels.</p> <p>Making can be grouped into three categories: making as entrepreneurship and/or community creativity, making as STEM pipeline and workforce development, and making as inquiry-based educative practice (Vossoughi & Bevan, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref26">31</reflink>]). For the purpose of this study, the focus was on the third category—making as an inquiry-based educational activity. The goals were to inspire student interest, foster engagement, develop an understanding of the processes, and support students as thinkers, writers, and producers of knowledge (Vossoughi & Bevan, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref27">31</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187189991-4">Making in Writing</hd> <p>For many scholars and educators, the interest in making is focused on educational settings centered around STEM concepts and primarily associated with STEM-related and technology-based activities such as computer programming, robotics, and 3D printing (Bevan, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref28">5</reflink>]; Fleming, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref29">10</reflink>]; Johnston et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref30">14</reflink>]; Papavlasopoulou et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref31">21</reflink>]). Scholars have argued that making activities can be a gateway to K-12 engineering, and they have demonstrated that making contributes to students' knowledge of STEM concepts (e.g., computational thinking, design thinking, spatial reasoning), particularly when they combine digital and physical tools (Berland, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref32">4</reflink>]; Johnston et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref33">14</reflink>]; Martin & Dixon, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref34">17</reflink>]; McDougal et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref35">19</reflink>]). It is no surprise that writing is now being added to the list of educational skills influenced by making. Resnick and Rosenbaum ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref36">27</reflink>]) described how making, writing, and coding are all fundamentally about "the idea that people create meaning through the things they create" (p. 231). Cantrill and Oh ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref37">8</reflink>]) further suggested that writing can be considered a form of making and that the composition process is associated with multiliteracies-making. The National Writing Project (NWP) has also acknowledged the potential connection between making and writing. Since 2014, NWP has worked with YOUmedia Learning Labs Network to establish interest-driven labs that involve young people in making and doing (YOUmedia, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref38">37</reflink>]), with a focus on writing within the maker community.</p> <hd id="AN0187189991-5">LEGO Blocks and Their Role in Making</hd> <p>LEGO blocks are commonly seen materials in maker spaces, especially in school settings. They have been played with by generations of children worldwide since the 1950s and have been widely used as toys. Many scholars and educators see the potential of LEGOs to promote student learning and use them across curricula, as they are extremely motivating and engaging, which makes learning more exciting (Brownell, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref39">6</reflink>]; Buckley, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref40">7</reflink>]). Buckley ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref41">7</reflink>]) pointed out that LEGO activities are personal and engaging in nature. When students construct meaning through the use of LEGOs, the inherent playfulness of learning is emphasized (Buckley, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref42">7</reflink>]). In recent years, LEGO blocks have been explored as a tool for enhancing writing activities. For example, Wright and Kitson ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref43">36</reflink>]) highlighted how LEGOs can transform secondary English and Humanities lessons into makerspaces, providing students with opportunities to create and develop literary texts. Bell et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref44">3</reflink>]) further found that playing with LEGOs can be an effective means of text planning, providing seventh-grade students with special needs a structured framework for organizing and developing their writing.</p> <hd id="AN0187189991-6">Methods</hd> <p>This qualitative study explored how playing and building with LEGO blocks can influence elementary-aged students' writing. By integrating LEGO blocks into writing instruction, the study aimed to understand how hands-on, creative activities could enhance the writing skills of young children, particularly those demonstrating unfocused or distracted writing styles. The primary research question guiding this study was: How does interaction with LEGO blocks impact students' writing?</p> <hd id="AN0187189991-7">Participants</hd> <p>The study included five participants (3 female, 2 male) from a third-grade classroom in a public elementary school in the southeastern United States. Third grade was chosen because it is a critical period in children's writing development. At this stage, many children are transitioning from invented to conventional spelling and learning to express their ideas in more complex and coherent ways (Madsen, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref45">15</reflink>]). The participants were identified as struggling writers by their classroom teacher due to challenges in maintaining focused and undistracted writing. Parental consent forms were distributed and collected by the teacher, ensuring ethical consideration were addressed. Pseudonyms (Eve, Emily, Kerri, Lee, and Connor) were assigned to ensure anonymity.</p> <hd id="AN0187189991-8">Procedure and Data Collection</hd> <p>Communication with students and their teacher began in the fall semester to introduce the project. During this initial meeting, researchers confirmed that all students had access to LEGO blocks and were familiar with using them, whether at home or school. The students expressed enthusiasm for LEGOs, with many stating they enjoyed using them to spark their imagination. Over eight weeks in the spring semester, the five participants were scheduled for weekly 30-min small group sessions with researchers, as arranged by the teacher. During these sessions, participants engaged in various LEGO-related activities followed by writing tasks related to their LEGO creations (e.g., "write instructions to explain how to build your creation"). After each writing activity, participants received feedback from both their peers and the researchers. Writing samples were collected after each writing exercise, and field notes and reflections were maintained by the third author during and after each session.</p> <hd id="AN0187189991-9">Week 1 (Pre-intervention)</hd> <p>Participants started the first session with a writing prompt: "The best trip I've taken." For this prompt, they could write about somewhere they would like to go if they couldn't think of any place they had visited. This writing activity served as the pre-intervention writing sample, allowing researchers to collect baseline writing samples. After writing, participants engaged in free play with LEGOs, setting the stage for future LEGO activities.</p> <hd id="AN0187189991-10">Week 2</hd> <p>Each participant received a bag of 30 LEGO pieces of different sizes, shapes, and colors. They were encouraged to construct anything they desired, and they could trade/share with permission from the other participants. This activity assessed students' comfort levels with LEGOs and observed participant interactions. After building with LEGOs for about 15 min, participants were asked to take a break from building and use the next 15 min to write about why they liked working with LEGOs (both in general and in this particular instance). This activity served as a second baseline for students' writing abilities, and it demonstrated students' focus level while engaged in writing.</p> <hd id="AN0187189991-11">Week 3</hd> <p>Each participant received a bag of 10 LEGO pieces and were tasked with building something and writing instructions on how to build their structure. The activity was prefaced by the question of what they knew about following directions when building with LEGOs. Participants had the option to write as they built or build and then write. Upon finishing, they were asked to switch papers and try to build each other's structures. Participants did not know beforehand that they would be replicating each other's structures. Photos of participants' creations were taken at the end of the session.</p> <hd id="AN0187189991-12">Week 4</hd> <p>Participants received the instructions they wrote during the previous session and were told to try to recreate the structures they built, and then they compared their new structures with the pictures of the original structures. After they finished, a mini lesson was taught on how to make writing more detailed and focused by discussing how tiny details (e.g., how to position the first piece on the table) matter in the broader context. Researchers went over keywords and concepts that would be helpful in this scenario, such as <emph>vertical</emph> and <emph>horizontal</emph> orientations and what it means for a LEGO block to be <emph>next to/above/below</emph> another. To practice these concepts, participants focused on writing about Lego placement with only two pieces and explored how they could be positioned relative to each other.</p> <hd id="AN0187189991-13">Week 5</hd> <p>Like the routine in Week 3 of making with LEGOs and writing instructions, participants received a bag of four LEGO pieces in Week 5 and were asked to build a structure and write instructions for recreating that structure. Each bag had at least two pieces that were different sizes but the same color so that participants would have to describe the difference. After they finished building and writing, participants exchanged instructions to recreate each other's structures. The session ended with a group reflection where participants came back together and reflected on their experience, discussing the importance of using details and how details could be applied to their lives in different ways beyond LEGOs.</p> <hd id="AN0187189991-14">Week 6</hd> <p>Following the routine in Week 5, each participant received a bag of four LEGO blocks to use for building and writing. As participants were writing, researchers walked around and worked with them one-on-one to clarify any confusion they experienced and talked about how they could make their instructions more detailed and clear so that their peers could follow them correctly.</p> <hd id="AN0187189991-15">Week 7</hd> <p>This session focused on extending what students had learned about the purpose of using and writing instructions from LEGO play in previous lessons. It began with a discussion about details, descriptions, and various uses of instructions. Following this, participants were asked individually to give steps for making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. To further extend the use of instructions in daily life, participants were prompted to write directions from the front office to their classroom. Before they began the task, they went on a "field trip" to the front office to walk through the steps they would be writing about. After they finished writing, participants had the opportunity to review each other's instructions and give feedback.</p> <hd id="AN0187189991-16">Week 8</hd> <p>Researchers brought three sets of scenes that were made ahead of time using LEGOs (see Fig. 1) and asked participants to create a story based on the scenes. Prior to writing, researchers discussed the key elements of storytelling: a beginning, a middle, and an end. Participants were given opportunities to ask clarifying questions and were encouraged to incorporate details into their stories. After completing their stories, participants read them to their peers and reflected on the experience together. To conclude the session, participants had some free time to construct their own LEGO scenes and share the stories behind their creations verbally with their peers.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Three sets of LEGO scenes for participants to write about</p> <hd id="AN0187189991-17">Post-Intervention</hd> <p>Participants revisited the initial writing prompt "The best trip I've taken." that they received during the first session. Again, they could write about somewhere they would like to go if they couldn't think of a place they had been to, and they did not have to write about the same trip they described in Week 1, but they could if they desired.</p> <hd id="AN0187189991-18">Role of Researchers</hd> <p>The third author directly interacted with the participants during the intervention, facilitating the LEGO activities and writing tasks. This active involvement may introduce potential bias, as the researcher's presence could have influenced participants' behaviors, engagement, and feedback. To mitigate bias, the research team made efforts through collaborative data analysis and repeated discussions to ensure a thorough and balanced interpretation of the data.</p> <hd id="AN0187189991-19">Data Analysis</hd> <p>Data analysis of field notes and reflections employed a thematic analysis approach with an emergent coding scheme (Saldaña, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref46">30</reflink>]). Researchers engaged in the process of reading and re-reading the data, identifying phrases and sentences relevant to the research question. The research team first reviewed the data independently and then came together to share their findings, discuss discrepancies, and reach a consensus. Following this initial review, patterns in the information emerged, and similar codes were grouped together to form overarching themes. Concurrently, analysis of writing samples focused on assessing the quality of content, in particular the use of appropriate and varied details. Each sample was independently reviewed by at least two researchers, who then met to compare their assessments and resolve any discrepancies.</p> <hd id="AN0187189991-20">Findings</hd> <p>All participants exhibited enthusiasm for their involvement in the LEGO project. During the initial meeting, participants eagerly shared their love for LEGOs and previous experiences they had building with them. Their familiarity with LEGOs was evident, as none of them needed any help while building with LEGOs throughout the project. The main reason they loved LEGOs so much was that they could be creative. Lee stated, "I like LEGOs because you can use your imagination and you can make real-life things." Similarly, Emily responded, "I like to play with LEGOs because they are really fun to play with and you can build everything with them like the playground, police cars, and airport. You can build other stuff too and you can do stuff too". Kerri also provided specific examples for what she enjoyed about LEGOs, "I love playing with LEGOs. I can have a mustache and a vacuum. I can have a car, a police car, and a helicopter". From the data, the following themes emerged: improvement in expository writing, enhanced concentration and focus during writing, and transition from spelling to content.</p> <hd id="AN0187189991-21">Improvement in Expository Writing</hd> <p>Through participation in LEGO-making activities, participants demonstrated improved abilities in providing detailed instructions and heightened attention to detail in their writing. When participants were first told that to write instructions for how to build their structures, Lee immediately responded, "so I should do it piece by piece." However, upon examining their initial writings, there was little to no detail. Their initial attempts at reconstructing each other's structures did not go as they anticipated. They expressed frustration over the difficulty, and all were surprised at how different theirs looked compared to what the structure was supposed to look like. The discrepancies led participants to recognize the lack of clarity in their instructions. Connor highlighted the importance of describing steps and listing the pieces used, while Kerri suggested incorporating more detailed explanations and drawing pictures to help.</p> <p>Figure 2 shows an example of Connor's writing progression. Through experimenting with constructing each other's structures, he grasped the importance of detail in instruction-giving, leading to enhanced clarity and comprehensibility of his writing. He learned to organize instructions in sequential order, employing strategies such as numbering steps and using ordinal adverbs. Furthermore, participants expanded their understanding of expository writing beyond LEGO building, recognizing its practical applications in everyday contexts. For instance, they reflected on the meticulous planning required by architects when designing structures such as bridges, acknowledging that overlooking details could have potential hazards, such as cars falling into the water or the bridge collapsing. Additionally, Eve made connections to details in books, mentioning that she liked reading books with good details because rich descriptions made it easier for her to imagine the story in her head.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Conner's writing samples from february 24th, march 10th, and march 17th</p> <p>Upon introduction to the story writing task in Week 8, participants immediately demonstrated an inclination towards using details in their narrative. They carefully observed the LEGO scenes and asked clarifying questions to enrich their writing (e.g., giving names to the two characters in the scenes, describing possible actions the characters may take, adding thoughts to the characters). Participants were able to organize their story logically and depict what might happen in the scenes. Figure 3 presents examples of their stories.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Writing samples for LEGO scenes</p> <hd id="AN0187189991-22">Enhanced Concentration and Focus During Writing</hd> <p>At the beginning of the project, most participants struggled with maintaining focus during writing sessions. Eve was the only student who got to work right away with writing and stayed on task for most of the lesson. The other participants frequently became distracted. Some kept rebuilding and delaying writing. When it was time to write, "It took a lot of prodding to get Emily to focus and start" (field notes, January 20th); "Kerri almost immediately asked to borrow a block from someone and continued to ask for various pieces because she needed a different color" (field notes, January 27th); "Connor took a long time to get started and seemed to have trouble paying attention (field notes, January 27th)"; "Lee also got distracted easily during writing time, and he liked to talk about what he did at home with his parents instead of writing (field notes, January 27th)".</p> <p>As the project progressed, participants became more and more focused during writing time. Field notes documented this change, noting instances of increased engagement and reduced distraction. For example, "Lee wrote almost the whole time..." (field notes, February 17th). By March 10th, all participants promptly engaged in building and writing tasks without causing distractions. Connor, in particular, demonstrated a remarkable improvement in his focus on writing. As noted in the field notes, "They all worked pretty diligently...I could tell they were really focusing. Connor surprised me the most. He is usually very easily distracted, but he seemed to be very intent on using precisely the right words to make his instructions the best they could be" (field notes, March 17th). Similarly, Emily and Eve also showcased consistent and uninterrupted writing, demonstrating a heightened level of attentiveness and precision in their writing (field notes, March 31st).</p> <hd id="AN0187189991-23">Transitioning from Spelling to Content</hd> <p>A notable shift emerged among participants, transitioning from focusing on spelling to emphasis on content, particularly content clarity. Initially, there was a lot of hesitation to write due to concerns about spelling accuracy. Participants frequently sought assistance with spelling, either from the researchers or their peers, during writing tasks. However, as the project progressed, there was a gradual decline in spelling-related communication. By the end of the project, participants demonstrated significantly reduced reliance on spelling assistance. Instead, they placed greater emphasis on ensuring the clarity of their content rather than fixating on mechanical aspects such as spelling accuracy. Figure 4 is an example of Kerri's pre- and post-intervention writing samples. Participants engaged in peer feedback, offering ideas to one another to enhance the readability and coherence of each other's writing. Additionally, participants actively acknowledged and complimented each other's writing achievements.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 4 Kerri's pre- and post-intervention writing samples</p> <hd id="AN0187189991-24">Discussion</hd> <p>Making provides great opportunities for the design of learning environments that bridge the gap between formal education and out-of-school experiences (Peppler & Bender, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref47">24</reflink>]; Peppler et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref48">25</reflink>]). Its emphasis on interest-driven and student-centered learning fosters the development of expertise by encouraging frequent interactions within a community of practice and valuing the iterative process of creation over final performance (Bevan, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref49">5</reflink>]). This approach allows students to have substantial say in what and how they make, which promotes a learning environment that supports student autonomy and control over their endeavors (Martin, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref50">16</reflink>]). Research has shown that such a learning environment is motivating and supports engagement, persistence, identity development, and the growth of resourcefulness (Azevedo, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref51">1</reflink>]; Barron, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref52">2</reflink>]; Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref53">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the current study, participants, initially identified as struggling writers, exhibited improved concentration and focus during writing tasks, driven by the intrinsic interest and relevance of the LEGO structure making and writing activities. This finding aligns with previous research indicating that hands-on, creative activities can enhance student engagement and learning outcomes (Papert & Harel, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref54">22</reflink>]; Resnick & Silverman, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref55">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>During this project, researchers played the role of facilitators who guided rather than led the activities, underscoring the importance of student agency and collaborative learning. By encouraging participants to exchange and refine their instructions and structures with peers, an environment was created where students could explore and develop their ideas with peer support. This is in line with DiGiacomo and Gutierrez's ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref56">9</reflink>]) notion of partnership in making activities, where collaborative dynamics are fostered over traditional hierarchal structures or mentorship commonly observed in educational settings.</p> <p>Central to the study was the ongoing evaluation and adaptation of tasks to meet participants' evolving needs. Recognizing the importance of scaffolding learning within students' zones of proximal development, we modified tasks based on participant performance and feedback (Vygotsky, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref57">32</reflink>]). For example, the number of LEGO blocks was reduced to ensure they were challenging yet manageable for participants. After the first session, it became evident that writing instructions for building with 10 blocks was too overwhelming, so we ended up providing four blocks for each participant.</p> <p>Integrating writing tasks with LEGO-building activities prompted participants to describe details and express their ideas with precision. The integration not only enhanced participants' expository writing skills but also fostered a deeper connection between their thoughts and actions. Through collaborative endeavors such as constructing each other's structures and receiving peer feedback, participants engaged in meaningful dialogue with their peers. Such collaborative learning environments have been shown to enhance academic motivation, as well as verbal, cognitive, and social skills (Gomez et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref58">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Findings from the current study support the notion that making, as an inquiry-based approach, can inspire student interest, foster engagement, and deepen the understanding of the writing and making processes (Vossoughi & Bevan, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref59">31</reflink>]). By exploring the connection between LEGO making and writing, this study supports the potential of making activities to extend beyond STEM disciplines and into literacy education (Wargo & Alvarado, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref60">33</reflink>]; Woodard, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref61">35</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187189991-25">Limitations and Future Research</hd> <p>This study showed promising results for LEGO building as an effective tool for enhancing young children's writing. However, several limitations should be acknowledged. The small sample size and single-site nature of the study may limit the generalizability of our findings. Additionally, the use of repeated writing tasks may have influenced participants' skill levels. Future studies could adopt a quantitative approach with a larger and more diverse sample to determine the effectiveness of the LEGO intervention. Longitudinal studies could also be conducted to examine the long-term effects of the LEGO activities on students' writing development. Furthermore, including a comparison group where students engage in similar writing tasks without the LEGO intervention could help isolate the specific impact of LEGO activities on writing skills. This would provide a more comprehensive understanding of how engaging with LEGO making activities contributes to writing improvement.</p> <hd id="AN0187189991-26">Conclusion</hd> <p>The current study offers valuable insights into the integration of making activities, particularly using LEGO blocks, with writing instruction. Through a collaborative and student-centered approach, participants demonstrated noticeable improvements, including (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref62">1</reflink>) enhanced expository writing skills, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref63">2</reflink>) increased concentration and focus during writing tasks, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref64">3</reflink>) a shift in focus from spelling to the content of their writing over the eight-week period. The utilization of accessible materials and the facilitation of peer interactions fostered an environment conducive to creativity, autonomy, and learning.</p> <hd id="AN0187189991-27">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187189991-28">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors have no conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0187189991-29">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0187189991-30"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref51" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Azevedo FS. Lines of practice: a practice-centered theory of interest relationships. Cognition and Instruction. 2011; 29; 2: 147-184</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref52" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Barron B. Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: a learning ecology perspective. Human Development. 2006; 49; 4: 193-224</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref44" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bell L, Connelly V, Grünke M, Schulden M. The effects of a LEGO® intervention on the writing performance of seventh graders with special needs. Insights into Learning Disabilities. 2023; 20; 1: 27-36</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref32" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Berland M. Making, tinkering, and computational literacy. Makeology: Makers as Learners. 2016; 2: 196-205</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref14" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bevan B. The promise and the promises of Making in science education. Studies in Science Education. 2017; 53; 1: 75-103</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Brownell CJ. Constructing (ad) ventures in collaborative composing: Examining a case of (un) sanctioned play in the elementary literacies classroom. The Reading Teacher. 2023; 76; 5: 631-639</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref40" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Buckley C. Conceptualizing plagiarism: Using Lego to construct students' understanding of authorship and citation. Teaching in Higher Education. 2015; 20; 3: 352-358</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref37" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cantrill C, Oh PPeppler K, Halverson E, Kafai Y. The composition of making. Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments. 2016; Routledge: 107-120</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref56" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> DiGiacomo DK, Gutiérrez KD. Relational equity as a design tool within making and tinkering activities. Mind, Culture, and Activity. 2016; 23; 2: 141-153</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fleming L. Literacy in the making: Showing how the "maker movement" has a place in all disciplines. Reading Today. 2014; 32; 2: 28-29</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gomez F, Nussbaum M, Weitz JF, Lopez X, Mena J, Torres A. Co-located single display collaborative learning for early childhood education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 2013; 8: 225-244</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halverson ER, Sheridan K. The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review. 2014; 84; 4: 495-504</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Honey M, Kanter DE. Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators. 2013; Routledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnston K, Kervin L, Wyeth P. STEM, STEAM and makerspaces in early childhood: A scoping review. Sustainability. 2022; 14; 20: 13533</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madsen, J. (2019). Stages of writing development. WriteReader. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.writereader.com/blog/stages-of-writing-development/">www.writereader.com/blog/stages-of-writing-development/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin L. The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research. 2015; 5; 1: 4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin L, Dixon CPeppler K, Halverson E, Kafai Y. Making as a pathway to engineering and design. Makeology: Makers as learners. 2016; Routledge: 183-195</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martinez SL, Stager G. Invent to learn. Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. 2013; Constructing Modern Knowledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDougal E, Silverstein P, Treleaven O, Jerrom L, Gilligan-Lee K, Gilmore C, Farran EK. Assessing the impact of LEGO® construction training on spatial and mathematical skills. Developmental Science. 2024; 27; 2e13432</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nadelson LS. Makerspaces for rethinking teaching and learning in K–12 education: Introduction to research on makerspaces in K–12 education special issue. The Journal of Educational Research. 2021; 114; 2: 105-107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papavlasopoulou S, Giannakos MN, Jaccheri L. Empirical studies on the Maker Movement, a promising approach to learning: A literature review. Entertainment Computing. 2017; 18: 57-78</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papert S, Harel I. Situating constructionism. Constructionism. 1991; 36; 2: 1-11</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pellegrini AD. Research and policy on children's play. Child Development Perspectives. 2009; 3; 2: 131-136</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peppler K, Bender S. Spreading innovation: Leveraging lessons from the maker movement. Phi Delta Kappan. 2013; 95; 3: 22-27</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peppler K, Halverson E, Kafai Y. Makeology (Vols. 1 & 2). 2016; Routledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piaget J. The psychology of intelligence. 2003; Routledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Resnick M, Rosenbaum EHoney M, Kanter DE. Designing for tinkerability. Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators. Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators. 2013; Routledge: 163-181</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Resnick, M, & Silverman, B. (2005). Some reflections on designing construction kits for kids. In Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Interaction design and children (pp. 117–122).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist. 2000; 55; 1: 68</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldana JM. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 20153; SAGE Publications</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vossoughi S, Bevan B. Making and tinkering: A review of the literature. National Research Council Committee on out of School Time STEM. 2014; 67: 1-55</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky LS. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. 1978; Harvard University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wargo JM, Alvarado J. Making as worlding: Young children composing change through speculative design. Literacy. 2020; 54; 2: 13-21</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wohlwend K, Peppler K. All rigor and no play is no way to improve learning. Phi Delta Kappan. 2015; 96; 8: 22-26</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodard R. Teacher–writer–crafter–maker: An exploration of how making mattered for one writing teacher. Literacy. 2019; 53; 4: 236-244</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wright N, Kitson L. A way into writing: Using LEGO as a stimulus. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years. 2020; 28; 2: i-viii</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> YOUmedia. (2015). Supporting organizations. YOUmedia Learning Labs Network. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://community.youmedia.org/about-the-cop/supportingorgs">http://community.youmedia.org/about-the-cop/supportingorgs</ulink></bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Qianyi Gao; Anna Hall and Virginia Theriault</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref58"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1479539
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Making with LEGOs to Improve the Writing of Young Children
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Qianyi+Gao%22">Qianyi Gao</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3161-8909">0000-0002-3161-8909</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Anna+Hall%22">Anna Hall</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Virginia+Theriault%22">Virginia Theriault</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education+Journal%22"><i>Early Childhood Education Journal</i></searchLink>. 2025 53(6):2053-2062.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+3%22">Grade 3</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Shared+Resources+and+Services%22">Shared Resources and Services</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Toys%22">Toys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+3%22">Grade 3</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Children%22">Young Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literacy+Education%22">Literacy Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Small+Group+Instruction%22">Small Group Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Expository+Writing%22">Expository Writing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attention%22">Attention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Accuracy%22">Accuracy</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10643-025-01869-z
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1082-3301<br />1573-1707
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The Maker Movement has gained popularity in educational settings due to its emphasis on hands-on creation and fostering creative expression. While making is often associated with STEM disciplines, literacy educators are increasingly interested in exploring the intersection between making and writing. This qualitative study examines the impact of LEGO building on young children's writing. Over the course of eight weeks, five participants from a third-grade classroom engaged in small group sessions that integrated LEGO building with writing tasks. Participants demonstrated enhanced expository writing skills, increased concentration and focus during writing tasks, and a shift in emphasis from spelling accuracy to content clarity. The findings underscore the potential of LEGO building as a valuable tool for improving the writing of young children and highlight the promise of integrating making activities to writing instruction.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1479539
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1479539
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10643-025-01869-z
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 2053
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Shared Resources and Services
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Toys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 3
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Literacy Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Small Group Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Expository Writing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Accuracy
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Making with LEGOs to Improve the Writing of Young Children
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Qianyi Gao
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Anna Hall
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Virginia Theriault
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1082-3301
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1707
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 53
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Early Childhood Education Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1