Playing to learn, playing for fun, and embodied cognition

A quick recap of three interesting NYT articles this week about the body, play, and learning:

In “Abstract Thoughts? The Body Takes Them Literally,” Natalie Angier explains some of the more interesting findings from the emerging field of embodied cognition. In one study out of Yale, researchers discovered that individuals who were handling a cup of hot coffee “before evaluating the personality of a person based on a packet of information were far likelier to judge the fictitious character as warm and friendly than were those who had held iced coffee.”

The body embodies abstractions the best way it knows how: physically. What is moral turpitude, an ethical lapse, but a soiling of one’s character? One study showed that participants who were asked to dwell on a personal moral transgression like adultery or cheating on a test were more likely to request an antiseptic cloth afterward than were those who had been instructed to recall a good deed they had done.

What are the pitfalls of designing for kids (i.e. toys, play environments)?

Nothing is harder than to design environments for other people to design in. And the reason for this is that bells and whistles, ease of use, or age appropriate-ness alone won’t make for meaningful interactions. In order to grab a child’s attention and sustain her interest, a toy needs to have “holding power”, a term introduced by Papert to describe its ability to grow with the child (I grow with my toys and my toys grow with me). Favorite playthings – or playground – can be many things. Yet to hold active engagement, they should be: open enough to let you in; intriguing enough to capture your imagination; safe enough to let you enact otherwise risky ideas; and generous enough to always give you a second chance. While guidelines such as these are useful, they offer no warranty for success:  the children may still ignore a toy especially designed for them—and what’s a hit for one kid may leave another cold.