One major challenge my team faced was that these students don’t  follow the “do it yourself” or “do it with others” mindset. Is it possible to inspire this mindset? To what extent?

“This chameleonesque adaptivity [of machines], which is embedded in technology, permits the acknowledgement and embracing of different learning styles and epistemologies, engendering aconvivial environment in which students can concretize their ideas and projects with intense personal engagement.”

The idea of constructivist learning– one in which students take ownership of their own projects and learning tracts– has always fascinated me. On one hand, the idea of empowering students to be “makers” and “follow their passions” from a young age has tremendous potential. However, I do believe that a common core is crucial today.

My question this week surrounds the discussion on constructivist learning. Is it possible to provide students with a practical foundation of knowledge by still implementing project based innovative strategies (including digital fabrication)?

What are other limitations of constructivism?

I found Devlin’s video-game representation of math extremely interesting from an accessibility perspective. Previously, I never considered the problem of accessibility from an interest perspective. Could this same model make other subjects (STEM or even reading) more accessible to populations who are not largely represented?

While fan fiction provides readers across the spectrum to engage with their interest, I wonder if actual writing skills improve. Furthermore, in my own friends, I noticed that the obsession with contributing was short-lived. To what extent does engaging in such affinity spaces contribute to long-term writing? Does practicing writing informally truly align with national academic standards?

My main questions relates to the benefits of the virtual worlds created by games. To what extent might the adoption of pseudo-anonymous characters influence a child’s learning experience? While Squire argues that gaming is a source of education– improving literacy, increasing leadership opportunities, etc– is the validity of these experiences discredited by “game world” simulation?

Check it out: http://time.com/4197499/barbies-new-body-photos-of-curvy-tall-and-petite/?xid=time_socialflow_facebook

Intended audience: ages 4-10

Primary purpose: Play! Adventure with Polly and friends (no educational agenda)

Link: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Polly-Pocket-Wall-Party-Treehouse/dp/B0094FZO4E/ref=sr_1_1?s=kids&ie=UTF8&qid=1453977146&sr=1-1&keywords=polly+pocket

When I was six year old, one of my most cherished possessions was my Polly Pocket doll. A small, petite, blond plastic toy, Polly evoked my creativity as I conjured up imaginary worlds and adventures. The subject of our play, however, was limited in scope to all things deemed stereotypically “girly.”

Inspired by my past parasocial relationship with Polly and its implicit influence on my own development, I have chosen to evaluate a new Polly Pocket set available on Amazon (Polly Pocket Wall Party Treehouse). My evaluation is guided by Wartella’s framework for creating new media. Specifically, I have honed in on diversity and value for my redesign.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The Polly Pocket Wall Party Treehouse is a multiple level play set for the iconic Polly Pocket doll. It includes removable pieces so children can customize their Polly Pocket adventure— interacting with a slide, zip line, basket, Polly doll, and her pet, kitty.

DIVERSITY

Review:

At first glance, this gendered product portrays limited diversity. Polly, herself, is a blond, thin, attractive female. While the toy does not “exploit” stereotypes, it does not provide a variety of diverse dolls to interact with the play set. There is no option to choose a different format of the doll. Attempts at diversity are limited to including graphic representation of Polly’s friends on the cover of the box. However, such inclusions of clearly fake, diverse, friends are juxtaposed by the image of the included blond Polly doll. This Polly doll is not a graphic drawing, but rather, a real component. I believe that the clear distinction is an interesting design choice!

Redesign:

Polly Pocket has a large gap to fill in terms of creating an appealing product for children from a variety of racial backgrounds. I believe that one approach to sparking more meaningful para-social relationships for a larger audience is to create dolls that resemble different races. If affordability is a problem for some families, Polly Pocket might also redesign the product to include a base model and various ‘add-on’ features for those who can afford it. This way, socioeconomic status will not be a large deterrent for children to play with the toy.

INTERACTIVITY/ EDUCATION

Review:

This Polly Pocket set has received glowing reviews on Amazon. The toy is not meant to be educational, but rather for play. I believe that its format succeeds in achieving this goal— children are able to safely play and modify the set. As many other doll toys, Polly Pocket does not offer many simulations for “real life choices” or a large exposure to new and interesting ideas. It does, however, foster a sense of community by providing children the opportunity to join a social network connecting Polly Pocket doll users.

VALUE

Review:

Clearly, this toy is very fun for children of the appropriate age and gender demographic. The content and format of the toy is valuable as it promotes play and creativity. Furthermore, it promotes gender diversity by creating a product in which girls are not limited to explore topics with clearly feminine stereotypes, such as the fashion set I grew up with. Rather, it portrays Polly as an adventurous “maker.” She has the capabilities of thriving in the outdoors, and building her own fun moments.

Redesign:

I think the message of subtle female empowerment in this toy can be strengthened. Because the hands-on features resemble engineering toys for boys, I believe it could be an incredible stepping stone to increase female exposure to STEM at a young age. To incorporate this new vision, inspirational quotes and messages regarding the power of females would be added to the box. For example, phrases such as “Build the future with me” or “I can do anything” or “Learn how engineering is awesome” might spark a sense of self-confidence in girls.

ARTISTRY

Review:

The general aesthetic of the toy is very appealing. With bright colors, removable pieces, and wall-mounted features, Polly Pocket supports its play value. The various pieces are engaging. However, it is difficult to confirm this remotely through the internet.

SAFETY

Review:

On Amazon, there were no negative reviews re: safety. Explicit instructions for safely engaging with the toy were provided in multiple locations on the product description.

After reading this quote, I could feel frustration bubbling through my body. Why is it that today, in a world through which women should be perceived equal, female children are still socialized to hold themselves to lower academic expectations?

I passionately hope that large companies such as Mattel, Fischer Price, etc. begin to rethink the manner in which they market their products, especially with regard to gender. While products such as the Barbie Girls site promotes creativity, they also limit the scope of subjects accessible to girls.

One question I have: what would a Barbie with more substantial learning goals look like? Would it be well received by girls?

I look forward to the day in which gender is not a limiting factor for female development!

This sparked a few questions. What about eBooks/ tech interface cause students with lower reading levels to be less successful using them? How does this relate to the “technology gap” as access to technology is similar in both low-income groups studied?