I also want to respond to this particular quote in the final paragraph:

I wondered about these different domains of cognitive, motivational, emotional, and social development that they were observing regarding playing video games. It seemed like some variable that could lead in gains in one domain could lead to a deficit in another domain. In regards to where the ideas of entity vs. incremental theories of intelligence or cognitive development were presented, it seemed like they could actually work against a child’s emotional development in the sense that the mindset of constant incremental gains could keep a child always exerting effort to prove themselves. That feeling in and of itself could be emotionally exhaustive. I don’t know much about the growth mindset, so I may have misinterpreted it here.

Excerpt from Granic:

Children who are praised for their traits rather than their efforts (e.g., “Wow, you’re such a smart boy”) develop an entity theory of intelligence, which maintains that intelligence is an innate trait, something that is fixed and cannot be im- proved. In contrast, children who are praised for their effort (e.g., “You worked so hard on that puzzle!”) develop an incremental theory of intelligence; they believe intelligence is malleable, something that can be cultivated through effort and time. We propose that video games are an ideal training ground for acquiring an incremental theory of intelligence because they provide players concrete, immediate feedback regarding specific efforts players have made.

Further, research has shown that the extent to which individuals endorse an incremental versus entity theory of intelligence reliably predicts whether individuals in challenging circumstances will persist or give up, respectively (Dweck & Molden, 2005). Thus, these implicit theories of intelligence have implications for how failure is processed and dealt with. If one believes that intelligence or ability is fixed, failure induces feelings of worthlessness. But if intelligence or ability is presumed to be a mark of effortful engagement, failure signals the need to remain engaged and bolster one’s efforts. In turn, this positive attitude toward failure predicts better academic performance (e.g., Black- well, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007).

I chose to redesign My Password Journal by Mattel. This product offers a small note pad encased within a pink and purple plastic electronic case that locks upon closure. It’s aimed at girls ages 6-12. It can only be opened by the owner’s voice and chosen password. The journal will record the voice of anyone who tries to break in, or “intrude,” upon your journal, at which point a loud alarm sounds. There are 25 thought provoking prompts for writing that come pre-programed into the diary, such as, “write about something silly” or “write about a dream!” with an option to create up to ten more prompts of your own. The final twist is a black light and invisible ink pen to write secret notes on the journal inside, as well as a secret stash compartment behind the journal.

After reviewing the Wartella and Jennings New Media Content Criteria prompt sheet, I would say this product has low marks overall for new media. The diversity is low, as all marketing I’ve found directs this product towards girls of a particular age (6-12) and cultural group. It only exists in English, and the adult woman who speaks appears to have a slight British accent which could alienate some learners who aren’t attuned to that accent. There are no alternative language models available. The pink and purple flowered design makes it difficult for boys or children who don’t identify with stereotypical representations of femininity to adopt the toy. The one redeeming quality in regards to diversity is that it essentially advocates girls’ rights to privacy and property. There is an empowering message at play there.

In terms of accessibility, I would say this toy is also low. The hand tools, notebook, and buttons are small. The voice control asks you state your password in the same tone as when it was set, which could be hard for some kids to do. There are lots of small snags in this toy that could easily prevent a child with certain sensory, motor, or learning disabilities to engage or enjoy the toy.

The interactivity of this toy is average. From the Amazon reviews (see below), it appears that children love playing with this toy, and siblings live to torture each other with it. With a bigger notebook and some pages that were unlined, there is wide potential for far more interaction with the toy in terms of its pretend purpose of writing. While it does not engage a community of young people or give them access to information, ideas, or people, it might allow children greater access to their own thoughts and ideas. The secrecy and protection of the journal gives the children theirown opportunity to create and control something, which is great. With an increased focus on writing, I believe children could gather together and engage over writing inspired by the toy.

In terms of education, this toy again clocks in at a low rating. In the free writing and reflection sense, it enables kids to think and get some thoughts to paper. The prompts are unthoughtful and could engage kids with more meaningful content.

The value of this toy is average. It’s clearly fun, but the journal is too small. The artistry is low and the design quality is poor, however, there are design elements that support the play value (like the invisible ink and secret stash compartment). Finally, in terms of safety, there is no violent or sexual content referenced in the small bit of content in this toy.

In the Hirsh and Pasek (et al.) four pillars and app pedigree table, we can look to see if it is active, engaging, meaningful, and social. I would it accomplishes all of those pillars except social. It could equate with deeper learning if it was brought into the school environment and engaged with using learning content. Students studying a new language could use the journal to keep track of new words and phrases in a surreptitious way that protects their self-esteem while being fun. Likewise, it could just be a great way for kids to feel more safe in the school setting through offering thema space that only they have access to. If a student had a writing disability, or issue with comprehension of text, this toy could also be helpful if it offered voice recording techniques to help students generate writing ideas or collect scattered thoughts. If the journals could speak to each other, elements of interactive storytelling could come into play between peers, siblings, or parent and child that could be very rich and fun for developing writers of any age.

Lisa Simpson seems particularly poignant as a character that informed my identity in my early life. Like the Simpsons, my family had three children, an older brother, middle child named Lisa, and a younger baby sister. I related to Lisa because we had the same names and were both full of anxiety directed towards our family culture and achievement. Different from Lisa, my older brother was naturally much smarter than me, and this became a paradigm of early childhood. We still enacted the Bart and Lisa roles from time to time, and he would also sing the “Lisa, it’s Your Birthday Song” to me on my birthday.

Runner Ups: The women of Friends, Bell from Beauty and the Beast, Ariel from the Little Mermaid, cast of Saved by the Bell.

There is one excerpt that I want to speak to in particular by Alper:

Such assumptions ignore three core problems: (1) the participation gap, defined as ‘the unequal access to the opportunities, experiences, skills and knowledge that will prepare youth for full participation in the world of tomorrow’…

…another hurdle might be a scaffolding gap, whereby young children from low-income backgrounds receive little direction or support from caregivers in their early literacy experiences, potentially widening the participation gap, even between children with equal access.

I feel like I’ve been trained to be highly suspicious of the words “culture” and “[insert anything] gap,” be it language, achievement, participation, or scaffolding gaps.  I’m wondering if it is possible to discuss any “gap” without addressing essential contradictions in American values which seem to be a silently waged war every day in every level of decision-making in schools (do we make moves to benefit the top cut and increase our own institutional standing or do we empower the whole crop equally). It seems that implicit in the idea of the gap, we’ve already clearly named what side we are in favor of. In reference to these excerpts, who says there is a participation gap? Who defines what is a scaffolding gap? Who is setting the bar of proficient or advanced achievement in new media literacy, and why do we compulsively keep ranking everybody?