Relationship between the Simplicity and theReaction in Children
Katsuji Miyazawa, University of Tsukuba
Yamanaka Toshimasa, University of Tsukuba

Keywords: children, toy, and form
Abstract
This research started with simple question. What characteristics of simplicity affect the reactionof child? Also, we tried to understand the children’s reaction categorized by various elements ofprofile, through their way of play.[1],[2],[3]Firstly, we designed unusual building blocks. One system consists with just a series ofquadrangle and triangle with three differences in thickness. The other system mainly consists withround shape like large cookie with small dimple in their center. Former system have limited abilityof represent the shape, later one have unstable because of its limited and rounded form to build up.
We studied with those sets and typical building blocks popular in Japan.
As a result, we found there is no relations between simplicity and children’ interests. That meanscomplexity is not the characteristics to attract children. Also we found a relationship between thesocial attitude of children, age and the difficulty of use.[4]1.Preface
By the time children grow up to be a 6 years old, they will spend about 15000 hours on playing.
If it will be averaged on a day, it will become in no less than about 7 - 9 hours.

Through playing,

they grow up physically and mentally.
When their play is observed, there is surely a toy in play. They are various things or material, or
their own body, or other children, and adult. Although we do not think that a toy is necessary to play,
the rate of a toy occupied to the act of playing increase in every year.
Playing is process that a child meets a lot of thing, which was not known until now, andexperiences from a spontaneous interest or curiosity. A common world with others is produced fromplay. Diversity and complexity of human society, peculiarity, similarity, and a means ofcommunication with the others are also grown up through play.
There are various toys as a thing, which supporting these plays and it is thought that qualitativeand quantitative diversity of play varies with toys, used for play. What feature of toy affects on playof children and reactions of them?
In this research, we observed how child who are 2 or 3 or 4 years old would develop play using
three kind blocks, and considered from following viewpoints. First, it is development of imaginal
play. Second, words which children said in play.

2.Process of Experiment s
Research consists with two steps. At first, we designed
unique building blocks. One system consists with just a
series of quadrangle and triangle with three differences inthickness (Figure 1, Figure 3). Another system mainly
consists with round shape like large cookies with small
dimple in their center (Figure 2, Figure 4). Former system(Figure1)

have limited ability of represent the shape, later one have
unstable because of its limited and rounded form to buildup.
In the second step, We made children play those building
blocks sets and standard building blocks popular in Japan(Figure 5) to observed and considered relationship between
the simplicity and the reaction. Then we made transcription
from VTR, and adjusted these data.

(Figure 2)

(Figure 3

(Figure 4)(Figure 5)

3.Experiment
3.1 Condition
Cases were divided into nine groups by the experimental design with three major factors (Table1). Firstly, age is important factor. As combination of testee, we divided into three kinds, child alone,
child with mother, and child with friends. As a third factor, the variation of the building block wasadded. All the figures that a child plays were recorded on videotape. Although an observer responds
to appeals of child at worst, they did not respond positively.
Testee: 20 kindergartner who live in Tsukuba city in Japan.
Table1: arrangement
case

Age

combination

form of blocks

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H

2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4

IndividualGroup*
Child & MotherIndividualGroup
Child & MotherIndividual
Group

Standard
Round
Angle
Round
Angle
Standard
Angle
Standard

I

4Child & Mother

Round*The number of the group is five people.

3.2 Equipment
Sample building blocks: Standard building blocks (4-sets). Round style building blocks (7-sets),
Angle style building blocks (10-sets).
Recorder: Digital still camera (Sony DSC-F505V), Digital video camera (Sony DCR-PC5)

3.3 Result
3.3.1. Development of imaginal playing
The way of play and remarks by children were taken out from videotape. Then, we considered how
much imaginal play would be performed by the kind of building blocks and age. Imaginal playing
can be defined as following condition can be confirmed in a series of play. [7].[8]1) A series of acts show one episode.
2) The language expresses specific conditions and scene.
3) A child acts as the part.

As a whole, 2 years-old children have hardly checked imaginal

8
7

playing, 3 years-old children have checked a lot of imaginal
playing, but 4 years old, imaginal playing has tended to reduce.
Tendency is remarkable even if it considered by building blocks,

6
5
4
3

because, they did not develop their language ability. Little ofimaginal playing in 2 years-old children can consider that they are
linguistically underdeveloped and un-progressing of imaginative

2
1
0
2

3

4

Age

power. Therefore, even if they saw an abstract form like blocks,
they could not make a concrete image, and could not play. They

Standard typeAngle type

Round type

becomes 3 years-old children, for growth of language ability andmind, they could make a lot of concrete images from an abstract(Figure 6)

form. According to the graph, 3 years old is the peak of imaginal playing, and they become 4 years
old, imaginal playing is decreasing. In this graph, it does not become clear whether 3 years old istime when play is the most prosperous or they becomes 4 years old, time to spend on one play will
become long yet.
Second, we directed our attention to their speech and words (Table 2).[9],[10]As for children' age, when an age is low, an utterance is a one word. Though there are manyutterance which expressed conditions like red and green in 2-yaers old, there are a lot of utterance
which expressed imaginary things 3-years old and 4-years old. Also, 3 years old made remarks mostabundantly.
As for the building block, there were many utterances about Standard type and Angle type. But,
there is development of Round type and Angle type in the idea more than Standard. For example,
though there are many utterances that relate to the shape in Standard type, there are many
expressions of the shape that doesn't look like a part in Round type and Angle type.

Table2: Words in imaginal playing
CaseStandard

Round

2 Red, Green

Round, Bang

Angle
Mountain, Seesaw

Age 3 House, Chair, Big air plane, Corridor, Round, Ant, Dumpling
Frying, Red, same thing, Roof
4 Domino, Red, Air plane
Dumpling, Bean-jam bun

Rain, Garden, Clothes-pin, Car,
Slide, Fanny shape
Scissors, Mountain, Air plane3.3.2. The analysis of covarianceFirst, the average of the playtime by child and all the playtime in every case were taken out fromthe vide tape (Table 3). The following standard was established as an index of playtime.
(1) Be a series of play.
(2) The concentration power is to last.
Table 3
Case Age Building blocks

testeeplaytime/5min. (sec.)

playtime AVE./times(sec.)

A

2

Standard

I*

153

21.8

B

2

Round

G**

160

20

C

2

Angle

P***

84

10.5

D

3

Round

I

127

24.3

E

3

Angle

G

157

15.8

F

3

Standard

P

195

26.1

G

4

Angle

I

182

45.5

H

4

Standard

G

230

57.5

I

4

Round

P

167

41.7

*I=Individual **G=Group ***C=Child with parent

Second, we use Analysis of variance to examine the relationship between the testee's attribute andthe difference in the characteristics of the building block. The average of the playtime and all theplaytime were used as a independence variable, and characteristics of the building blocks was used
as a subordinate variable in the analysis of variance. The characteristic of the building blocks was
divided into color, variation, form, stability, and size. The data seat used for the analysis isfollowing (Table 4).
Table 5-1, Table 5-2 show the result of the analysis of covariance. In this analysis, we adopted theplaying time for around five-minutes and the average of continuos time per times as an index of thechildren’ curiosity. [5],[6]Table 4
case

Age

type

testeeplaying
playing time
time/5min(sec AVE./times(s
)
ec)

sex

age

A

2

Standard

Individual

153

B

2

Round

Group

C

2

Angle

D

3

E

conditi color variati form stabilit size
on
on
y

21.8

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

2

160

20

2

1

3

1

1

2

3

3

with Parent

84

10.5

2

1

2

1

3

3

2

1

Round

Individual

127

24.3

1

2

1

1

1

2

3

3

3

Angle

Group

157

15.8

1

2

3

1

3

3

2

1

F

3

Standard

with Parent

195

26.1

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

2

G

4

Angle

Individual

182

45.5

1

3

1

1

3

3

2

1

H

4

Standard

Group

230

57.5

1

3

3

2

2

1

1

2

I

4

Round

with Parent

167

41.7

1

3

2

1

1

2

3

3

Table 5-1: Result of ANOVA for experiment
sex

age

condition

F value

P value

F value

P value

F value

P valueplaying time/5min(sec)

0.593

0.4666

4.809

0.644

0.682

0.002

playing time Ave./times(sec)

2.355

0.168719.873

0.003

0.002

0.9678

Table 5-2
variation

form

stability

size

color

F value P value F value P value F value P value F value P value F value P value
playing time/5min(sec)

0.084

0.781

0.758

0.413

1.632

0.242

0.84

0.781

3.279

0.113

playing time Ave./times(sec)

0.124

0.735

2.934

0.13

0.236

0.642

0.124

0.735

0.618

0.458

From this result, factor with difference were condition and color among playtime/5-min. Among
playtime Ave., factor with difference was age. When p-value is expanded in less than 0.2, color andcondition could be thought a difference as for playtime/5-min. As for playtime Ave., age and color
could be thought a difference. Based on this result, testee’s reaction was summarized in Tble6-1, 62, 6-3,6-4,6-5,6-6.
Table 6-1:

Table 6-2:
Sex
Male
Female34.3
18.8

Playing time Ave./time(sec.)
Table 6-3:

Form
Standard Round Angle
Playing time Ave./time(sec.)
35.1
33.9
23.9
Table 6-4:

Age
Playing time Ave./time(sec.)

2
17.4

3
20.06

4
48.2

Table 6-5:

Table6-6:
Hard

Playing time/5min.(sec.)

Playing time/5min.(sec.)

Condition
Individual parent
Group
462
446
547

Stability
Normal Easy
294
423
578

Playing time/5min.(sec.)

Color
Many
Brown Beige
578
454
423

4 Discussion
4.1 Relationship between the child’s play and the building blocks
In this experiment, there were significant relation between the condition and the playing
time/5-minutes and between the age and the playing time average/times. Also, there weresignificant relation between the color and the playing time/5-minutes and between the sex and theplaying time average/times.
As for the condition, the various ways of playing were seen with many people. Therefore, if thenumber of child increases, playing time become longer, too.
As for the stability, the easiness of piling influences playing time. It considered that easy pilingbuilding blocks was never got them tired. The average of playing time and all the playtime wereused as a independent variable, and characteristics of the building blocks was used as a subordinate
variable in the analysis of variance.
As for the sex, boy played more than girl did. There were more opportunities to play with thebuilding block than girls, and boys were used to playing in home. Therefore, the playtime per once
becomes longer, too.
As for the shape, while there was popularity in the building block of the universal shape, interest
was shown in the building block of the special shape as well. It suggests that though it haverelationship between the curiosity and the shape, as well as the simplicity of shape.
As for the age, much time is being spent on one play as much as an age rises. It suggested thatplay depend on the mental development
Though imaginal playing and composition playing could be observed with any building blocks,
the unique play style was not found by building blocks. For example, it can think that the longer
play in 3-years children, compare with 2-years children, is a reflection of their mental development(=the sociality). In other words, playing manner differs by the children's age, environment andconditions. This can be understood from the analytical result by the analysis of covariance.

4.2 Child’s Kansei
It is difficult to know the sign of Kansei in children. A child doesn't express emotions only withwords. Emotions are expressed by gestures rather than words. It is added that child's mental andphysical development varies by each child. Therefore, it is difficult to understand children’ Kansei.

5 Conclusion
Result of experiment with three different building blocks proved that shape was not theconclusive factor. However the difference in shape and combination are effective in stirring up thechild’s interest. It was obvious that an external environment element such as condition and age
influences child's interest rather than shape. Therefore, it was understood newly that stability andcolor have relation with children’ interest.
It should be the next theme what kind of internal factors enrich child's play more. It found that wemust try approach from the sensitivitylike side-Kansei-, in meaning to say so, too.

Acknowledgement
This research began from the discussion on children’ reaction with Mr. Toshimasa Yamanaka. I
appreciate him, and Kamigoh kindergarten that support this research.
I appreciate Mr. Shin Haganuma, Mr.Haruo Kino, Mr. Fumihiko Koyama, they helped to makeand design Round type building blocks and Angle type building blocks.
I appreciate Mr. Yasushi Harada, Mr. Kai Ishii, Mr. Shigeyuki Sakai; they worked as staff andsupported this study.

References
1.

Jean PIAGET; La formation du symbole chez l'enfant; Sohmei-Shoboh; 1982

2.

Seijun TAKANO, Tamotsu FUJINAGA, et al.; Development of Sociality; doho-sya
lishing, 1975

3.

Kenzo HAYASHI, Molding education argument; Kenkin-sya,1987

4.

Motonaga SHIMIZU, Children and molding, Hakubigakugei-sya,1970

5.

Kenji ABE, http://faculty.web.waseda.ac.jp/abek/document/anova.html, 1997

6.

Kihachi, http://www.geocities.co.jp/WallStreet/7166/index.html, 2001

7.

Brittain, W, LAMBERT, Creativity, art, and the young children, 1983

8.

Hiroshi WATABE, Initiation of multivariate analysis, Fukumura-publishing, 1998

9.

Education of art lab., Building blocks and toy for children, Reimei-syobo, 1966

10. Akira HIGASHIYAMA, Education of molding, Doho-sya publishing, 1988

pub