The way Margolis et al. uses fixed mindset on teachers in the above quote is both provocative and challenging. The focus on professional development and common sense measures, like moving from AP CS to a scaffolded curriculum, is a really powerful way of shifting the conversation away from descriptions of student failure toward improving the learning environment. This article struck me as quite radical for that framing, and I hope we get a chance to discuss it in class.

Some might argue that the aesthetic component of the design is less important during the research process, but I very much disagree. For example, Zimmerman cites the study of Tan et al, who sought “to encourage peers to communicate and to develop artifacts to support learning.” It seems that the Tan experiment yielded significant results, but how might that experience—and ultimately, the data—have changed if the user interface looked less dated? Or if  instead of just including video and photo capabilities, Tan et al had designed the platform to leverage a tool with which peers are already communicating by mimicking the features of Snapchat?

At some point, I’d love to have a discussion about biases that come up in the context of academic writing and/or experiment construction. The sentence above is is a deprivation stand model of thinking: the socio-economically disadvantaged youth are broken and need to advance, but they’re only interested in leisure activities. Intervention is needed, and quickly. How do we avoid that kind of language and framing? Are there resources for researchers before they get to the peer-review processes?

Description: Stardoll functions like an online version of paper dolls, where users can customize outfits, go shopping, and make friends within the message board community.

URL: http://www.stardoll.com/

Objective: It seems as if Stardoll’s sole objective is to entice users to buy its virtual clothing, hair products, accessories, etc.

Target age: 7+

Evaluation:

Diversity

Diversity is a big challenge of Star Dolls, and its flaws are consistent with the findings of Black et al in Barbie Girls. It begins with the default avatar, who is thin and white with long, ombré hair, and dramatic makeup. She’s wearing a colorful, flowy strapless dress, and strappy high-heeled sandals. The “identity kit” is part of the beauty parlor menu, and it opens to a menu of different hairstyles; the menu options are then makeup, jewelry, hands, feet, and finally, face & body. Under face and body, there are icons denoting face shape, eyes, lips, eyebrows, nose, and then the silhouette of a body. It’s under the body silhouette that the user can add weight and change the skin color from very pale to very dark.

Describing the mechanics of the avatar design process is important because it illustrates how many steps the user has to go through in order to make edits to the default avatar, and how certain choices are deprioritized. It is much more straightforward to change hairstyle than skin color. Within each of the design options, there is very little variability of form—or away from stereotype. For example, the default avatar is set to the thinnest body shape. The user can go up to two sizes bigger, but the added weight is in the chest and hips, rendering the avatar more voluptuous, but still thin. Regardless of individual design choices, the resulting avatar is able-bodied, tall and lean, and glamorous. Makeup can be removed, but it’s not easy or intuitive to do.

Accessibility

This technology is accessible to users who can use a mouse or trackpad. There is no typing required, nor are there any wireless capabilities that require movement. Though Stardolls may function differently on an iPad, the computer application is fairly straightforward.

Interactivity & Safety

A unique feature of Stardoll is its community. There are thousands of message boards with hundreds of thousands of users on a wide variety of topics—most of which have nothing to do with Stardoll, like favorite celebrities. There are limitless opportunities for users to share looks with each other, or even set up contests to vote between to designs.

Though these communication platforms within Stardoll seem to facilitate connection between its users, there isn’t much new or challenging content. Featured message boards are about celebrities, animals, and hot-or-not.

In the Stardoll message boards, it is “strictly forbidden to”:

– Use bad words, sexually graphic terms or to make racist remarks.

– Bully other stardolls or in other ways make them feel uncomfortable.

– Share or ask for personal information such as password, phone number, email, Skype, Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Polyvore, ask.fm, Instagram or similar.

– Post external links or usernames.

Though there are potentially problematic ways in which the users are using these message boards outside of the constraints above, these seem like appropriately rigorous rules, particularly because they ban sharing of any kind of personal information that could lead to contact outside of Stardoll. There doesn’t seem to be a moderator that approves each comment so, theoretically, a user could violate the rules and reveal their identity. Though they’d be kicked out of the community, it wouldn’t prevent the user from making themselves able to be reached.

Education

Save for the addition and subtraction it takes to keep track of coins and buy different fashion and accessory items, there isn’t much to speak to in way of education in this program. The design processes in Stardoll allow for choices—will that shirt be red, and if so, what shade?—but no creation. Users are not inventing outfits or identities as much as they are curating a small range of looks, which entirely undercuts the educational value of the creative process.

Value

The process of designing an avatar is fun, as is the process of playing dress-up with that avatar. Different characters can be created and dressed in an infinite number of combinations. Users can return to the content time and time again, but there doesn’t seem to be much in terms of further exploration—though there are many opportunities to buy more clothes, makeup, and jewelry.

Artistry

The Stardoll interface feels very out-of-date. The side menus are all in unattractive table forms. The pages are crowded and do not navigate intuitively. Even the pixel graphics seem dated.

Redesign:

My redesign would involve four major steps:

• I would design the site for the user to create his or her avatar when they first login, beginning with a wide variety of body shapes and skin tones. Stardoll could easily be a fantastic platform for reflecting diversity, and instead it reinforces the value of a very narrow identity type. It would be very simple to remove and reorder the elements of the avatar design process to be hugely inclusive.

• I would center the clothing design process on the sewing and crafting process, focusing on the applied math and science in the process of creating patterns. Users could walk away with both deeper understanding of the concepts as well as their application. Users would also reap the benefits of the creative process by creating the silhouettes and textiles of their own designs.

• I would facilitate and highlight conversations in the message board communities about crafting and design processes. Though I think it’s beneficial to have young users feel a sense of ownership about how they want to engage in the message board space (within reason), the site would be much stronger if it highlighted learning-centered conversations.

• I would update the interface to be more consistent with best practices in ux design.

Kafai et al. piqued my nostalgic interest, but the argument they pose in connecting textile construction kits like Barbie Fashion Designer to Fröbel’s gifts doesn’t seem entirely apt. Fröbel seems to suggest that the mechanics of crafting—sewing, blocks, clay—are tactile forms of play in which children can use creativity to learn. The inclusion of Frank Lloyd Wright and Lincoln Logs illustrates this concept; he was gaining an awareness of the applied math and physics of architecture while building log structures. The physical experience he had of stacking the logs onto each other, as well as the creative freedom to create whatever he wanted within the confines of physics, is a powerful medium for learning.

Though Barbie Fashion Designer can certainly be considered a context in which children can be creative to an extent, its users are given pre-programmed options and limited outcomes, and the physical experience that seems critical to Fröbel is dramatically reduced. (I remember printing out my designs very rarely; once I had completed the design, I no longer felt as compelled to engage with it. If I did print it, assembly was very simple.) Through my own experience with this tool, I think Kafai et al. drastically overestimate how much learning and actual textile construction happens as a result of using this software.

As a learning technology designer, these are both really compelling and challenging questions. Though the concept of tapping into personal experience and/or history to activate prior knowledge is a powerful one, designing scalable tools that capitalize on personal knowledge is difficult. How do we know what personal experiences learners have had? How do we create tools that can accommodate a wide variety of narratives? How do we design platforms that are nimble and structurally sound enough for users to personalize them for themselves?

For example: I have a 16 month old nephew who is learning to speak. Much to my chagrin, he says mama, dada, nana, and papa, but not aunta (his soon-to-be name for me). He’s learned to interact with the buttons on the iPhone quite well and gets quite a kick out of pausing and/or hanging up me via the big red button on FaceTime. Recently, I daydreamed of an app in which my sister could upload photos of the whole extended family, or any other person/place/thing, and then record herself saying the names/words that correspond with the photo. My nephew would then see a screen with that photo and hear an audio recording of my sister pronouncing the word. Immediately after, he’d be prompted to tap a red button and, with a Siri-like voice recognition function, repeat the word back. Ideally, if he said the word successfully, the photo would then turn into fireworks or make a celebratory noise as a reward.

This is an example of a tool that would take advantage of context—it’s entirely personalized and builds on prior knowledge. And yet, one can imagine great challenges in creating a vocal recognition platform that would match my sister’s voice and pronunciation to that of my nephew, and accommodate any number of other parents and their babies too. My example was of course a specific one, and there are tools that better fit this premise, but the point was to illustrate the challenge—once we introduce customizable elements, the technology itself becomes much more complicated. I think there is an incredible need for tools with this kind of adaptive ability, I would love to learn more about how to personalize these kinds of learning technologies for large, diverse audiences.

#earlychildhoodtoys