Week 4 – EDUC 342: Child Development & New Technologies

Week 4 Response (late!)

heylisa — Mon, 01 Feb 2016 21:23:13 +0000

With the excitement of the review and redesign project, I forgot to post about my impressions of the readings.

One thing that really stuck out to me about the Rebecca Black research was her use of data to support her thesis. While I commend her for the thorough analysis on Mattel’s Barbie Girls and Xtractaurs online sites, I was a little confused by what data she used to support her idea. She lost me when I saw her present the misspelled words table:

To me, this data does not necessarily support her notion that the designers of boys-oriented virtual network were intentionally emphasizing certain gender roles and life opportunities. Rather, it simply highlights that there are good and bad designers out there. And unfortunately, Barbie Girls had a worse team working on the project. I’m aware this oversimplifies and may provoke some people, but I do think this article raised for me the question of how researchers present and use data in their research.

Stardoll Technology Review and Redesign

ccolgan — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:52:06 +0000

Stardoll.com (http://www.stardoll.com/en/) is a platform for children and teens to build fashion dolls and play games within an online community.

Colgan_Assignment 1

I explored Stardoll in our first day of class, but I was left with so many questions that I just had to go a bit deeper into this fascinating product. I’m not alone. According to the site’s homepage, 399,363,255 users make up “the largest online community for girls who love fashion.” Stardoll started in Sweden in 2002 as “Paperdoll Heaven” and is still based in Stockholm. Today, Stardoll is a global juggernaut, with gameplay available in 28 languages.

The first prompt on the website is to build your own Stardoll. Unfortunately, the issues start early. The start page shows dolls with a variety of different ethnic looks, giving a semblance of diversity. All of the doll options are thin and beautiful, with default “Barbie feet” ready for high heels. The doll is highly customizable, so it is possible to adjust the doll’s shape and weight, skin color, and gender, but these options are not made clear on the homepage.

Each Stardoll also comes with a room, a personal page, and “a welcome gift of 500 Starcoins.” Stardoll started as a virtual paper doll, so fashion is a major component of the game. Today, real world fashion brands like DKNY and Nelly.com feature their clothing on the site, available for virtual purchase using Starcoins.

Those Starcoins can be earned through gameplay, but they can also be purchased with actual money and then used in Starplaza, the in-game mall. The issue of using real money should be of interest to parents. Children need their parents’ credit card in order to buy individual items or a membership in this world. The account is free and it is possible to use the platform without spending money, but memberships—which turn the user into a “Superstar”—will cost an automatically reoccurring $6.95 a month.

Another area of parental concern is the “Chat and Friends” category which allows users the opportunity to chat with other Stardoll users and join clubs ranging from “ZacEfron” to “StopSealKilling”. As with all online games, users agree that they are at least 13 years of age or older to access the site. Of course, it’s very likely that there are users younger than 13 on the site.

Seemingly created for young children on the platform, a “KidSafe membership” allows access to all doll related activities and games, but blocks the message center, Guest Book, and other forums. It’s likely that this feature was developed based on parental feedback and issues related to cyberbullying. According to the website’s FAQ section, “We are always working hard to improve the safety and security at Stardoll.com. We continuously moderate the site and have several filters in place to avoid name-calling and bad language.” A violation of the code of behavior called the One Stop Rules will result in account termination.

Applying the “Criteria to Consider When Creating New Media Content for Children” to Stardoll is a difficult task. At almost every point, this tool reveals deeper issues within the game. The chat categories offer a community aspect to the game, where users can share the hard work they’ve done to create their dolls but can also speak more generally. Support might be found in clubs like “FamilyProblems,” but these open forums can be potentially dangerous places for unwanted sexual content or users pretending to be someone they’re not. Stardoll says it moderates these groups but with many millions of users, it seems very possible that troubling situations may slip through the cracks.

Unfortunately, I believe Stardoll helps children (though the site’s language frames the audience as girls) develop issues around body image and gender stereotypes that can cause difficulty throughout their lives. Rather than focusing on strong female characters, impossible beauty standards, makeup, and fashion are presented as the tools of the game.

Stardoll is a very fun and engaging site but in terms of value, it’s a capitalistic game. Stardoll is a money-making platform and its unlikely that the company is going to abandon its lucrative partnerships with real clothing brands. However there are possibilities for improvement.

In terms of artistry, Stardoll is actually an extremely well designed platform with beautiful graphics. The final dolls can be works of art and are exhibited as such in the Spotlight tab. As a former Barbie Fashion Design maven, I think fashion games can help children develop creative design skills. As it is now, the design category is limited to hair, fashion, interior and jewelry. This would be a great place for expanding the game.

The interior design interface offers a fairly robust option to design patterns, a process with mathematical applications. The design category could be much improved by including the option to create and build furniture. This could use 3D modeling to teach users geometry and spatial reasoning skills. Allowing users to move beyond fashion could open up additional graphic design, behavior design and engineering games within the platform.

In an ideal world, Stardoll would sever ties with fashion brands, build stronger characters for the much more diverse set of dolls, and explore the rich potential of arts-based learning games. While the new and improved educational Stardoll seems very unlikely, small changes could build on the existing artistic tools of the game to improve its learning potential. Stardoll has recently released its own line of mobile games. These games may offer more possibilities for creating more educational material that will depart from the issues of the main site. Stardoll isn’t going anywhere soon, so hopefully she can diversify her portfolio beyond fashion and makeup.

Assignment 1: Polly Pocket Review/Redesign

apoduval — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:42:31 +0000

Name:Polly Pocket Wall Party Treehouse

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.

Week 4: Black et al 2014 Response

apoduval — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 07:56:26 +0000

“The differences between these two text samples are striking, particularly in the indicators of lexical density, 5.7 words per sentence for Barbie Girls versus 14.61 for Xtractaurs, and grade level, 1.67 and 9.63, respectively.”

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!

Week 4 Response

myupa — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 07:54:42 +0000

I was uncomfortable with Pellegrini and Jones’ conclusion that “Children play longer and in more complex ways when they interact in same-gender groups and with gender-preferred toys,” because when I think of gender-preferred toys I think of games like Barbie Girls. This causes me to wonder – what is the deciding factor for a toy’s gender appeal? If all the avatars in Barbie Girls had occupations outside of the service industry, but the avatars remained female, would young girls still see the game as targeted towards girls? In other words, are the games themselves dictating gender roles, or are the societal norms that the girls enter with overriding everything else? If games could be shaped to appeal to a specific gender, while disregarding societal norms (e.g. women in subservient roles) then games could be used as a very empowering tool.

Finally, I was intrigued by the fact that girls used less fantastical language when they were playing in mixed-gender groups and with toys perceived to be for males or gender-neutral. This reminds me of stereotype threat, where despite equal levels of intelligence/talent, someone belonging to a certain group with a perceived stereotype may perform worse because they are scared of confirming that stereotype. It was interesting to see how early on in child development this appeared.

Week 4 Discussion – Juan G

juang7 — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 07:52:57 +0000

Is there any research on the language development of an only child vs a child with multiple siblings?

As I am reading about how children demonstrate cooperation, not aggression, with children with whom they meet repeatedly, I wonder if it is the same case for siblings. I remember fighting with my siblings all the time even when I knew we would play again; I observe similar behavior with my nephews when they play with their siblings compared to when they play with friends. I wonder if this has to do with the age difference.

Week 4 Response—Shelley

mwill5 — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 06:54:54 +0000

I was drawn to the article by Kafai et al. because I remember, quite clearly, my love of Barbie Fashion Designer when it came out in 1996. I was struck by the line, “Seemingly against conventional wisdom, it demonstrated that girls could be interested in using computers.” (2) This observation speaks to the depth to the stereotype of girls and technology, as the medium itself is hardly subversive—my sister and I spent countless hours picking patterns, colors, and templates of skirts and dresses for our avatar’s “dream date.” The program requires very little technical knowledge beyond the ability to click on different outfits or color swatches.

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.

Critical Media Literacy

marcc — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 05:52:27 +0000

The Black et al reading is the second reading in this class (after Alper, week 2) to emphasize the need for children to develop “critical media literacy.” Both papers recommend that children gain some critical faculties for analyzing the cultural messages and assumptions that they receive from media. I think this is desirable, but I wonder how feasible it is to ask young children to think critically about the media that are simultaneously shaping their capacity to think and ways of thinking. Critique requires a knowledge base and set of values to critique with, and the media that young children encounter are constantly shaping their knowledge and values. I am not sure it makes sense to ask children with such plastic minds to have established powers of deep critique at this age. Cultural critique is hard enough for adults. Would it make more sense to encourage less critical, but more blunt, methods of resisting certain cultural influences (similar to the “Just say no” attitude toward drugs and strangers)? Are children capable of reasoning about the values of the very media that shape their values?

Goochee Week 4 Discussion Post

lgoochee — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 04:11:33 +0000

Wowzers, week four’s readings have been the creepiest so far, by far. I am responding to the child near-future-robot scenario article.

I found the postulation that children will form moral and social relationships with their toys to be completely ridiculous, until they invoked the first example of the Tamagotchi, which I did love and interact with in a social and moral capacity! Scary.

I think the scariest part of the article was when they spoke of socializing the kids with AIBO and a real dog at the same time, and then asked the children questions about the qualities of each. The fact that over 60% of the children cited that “AIBO had mental states and sociality” is pretty terrifying.

The exploration of Robovie wasn’t as shocking to me because I imagine parents and society will step in before robots becomes enslaved to the child. In the words of the authors, the concept that the child “never needs to accommodate to the social interests and needs of the robot” seems like a really extravagant and expensive humanoid playmate that a child will never have. I see robot pets as a greater threat than humanoid robots because they simply seem more likely. I think society will be more careful in the dissemination and engagement with those humanoid robots, but who knows! It makes sense that Kurzweil is referenced in this piece.

DQC Week 4 – Robots in our future?

thuygon — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 21:11:12 +0000

Kahn et al.’s argument that robots will be the future of our society and be detrimental to childhood development was not very compelling to me. Though I agree that technological advancement has accelerated in recent years and we have become increasingly urban towards a “technological nature”, I do not agree that robots will have the capacity to replace “real life” animals and people in our everyday social lives. I am not convinced of Kahn’s hypothesis that children growing up will categorize social robots as a unified entity instead of a combinatorial set of its constituent properties. This ignores the impact of the child’s social environment, which includes a framework for what is human and what is not. Kahn used the color orange as an example of a new ontological category- that children see it as its own entity and not a combination of yellow and red. This is true only to an extent, because children do eventually learn this fact. I think the same holds for the social robot; even if they do see it as its own entity, they will eventually learn that it is a machine with “human” features engineered by humans.

Additionally, no matter how advanced these robots are, they are only able to engage and respond to children to a limited extent. The human brain is incredibly complex, and if we have not yet understood completely how it works, how are we able to create artificial intelligence that can emulate and replace living creatures?