Despite this disparity, I think I still gained a lot of value out of having a technology-minded parent because I was able to observe and model his behaviors towards technology. When I did express initiated interest in engineering and computer science later, his role shifted to that of a resource provider (driving) and encouragement to continue pursuing my interest. The study did leave me wondering how much sooner I could have pursued computer science and what societal factors lead parents to be more inclined to introduce boys to technology.

The article Digital Fabrication and ‘Making’ in Education: The Democratization of Invention also made me curious to know more about how people develop “maker” identities, and how strongly this impacts first-time users of a makerspace.

The lack of encouragement and development girls receive around STEM at a young age is incredibly disheartening. I think we are moving towards attempting to create tools to give girls access to STEM. Tools like GoldieBlox are incredibly exciting. However, I believe the true problem is cultural and subconscious. How do we change the ways parents approach girls and science? I think everyone wants their children to succeed but I do think that there are perceptions around how to raise girls that need to change. I wonder how we can make that change possible. I wonder if it must be through awareness and assuring that parents take a very active approach in assuring that they are motivating a girl to pursue STEM as much as they would a boy.

While video games were considered “torpid” by researchers of the past, Steinkuehler and Duncan find that WoW can actually be a place of learning, specifically in informal science literacy. By giving these players a platform for collective knowledge gathering, they learn from each other about how to play the game. The knowledge does not come from above, but can be the result of one player’s shared experience which is then debated and built upon by other players. This kind of community collaboration could definitely be used for “bridging third places” — Steinkuehler’s name for the space between school and home that allows for student learning.

Zimmerman and Land discuss the design guidelines that can be used in these “third places,” specifically in place-based learning at the Arboretum. These researchers find some really compelling applications of place-based informal learning. However, I still struggle with this approach: how much is the app a distraction from the nature at hand? Is it important that the kids learn outside? In different life stages, would they learn as much in an informal discussion with mom and dad or as a player in a video game with an active scientifically minded-community?

I can see why the place-based framework works. I think that tapping on individuals’ previous knowledge gives them confidence to continue to expand their knowledge in that particular area.

In homes and schools, how do we breakdown this gender gap once and for all? For my female classmates in STEM fields, do you remember what sparked your interest in STEM? Did parents or teachers speak to you in a particular way? How can we support the movement to open STEM fields up to more women? Does anyone think that a great deal has changed since the study was published in 2001?

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.

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.

It was disheartening to read the Black et al paper and seeing that even though politically and theoretically we have achieved gender equality to a certain extent, true equality is still a long way to go. It is surprising how the developers of these games (probably a lot of them male) make assumptions about each gender and proceed to make theses games which leads to a vicious cycle. These games in turn probably influence children which leads them to behave a certain way and develop certain interests. These influences then just propagate stereotypes and seem to legitimize these assumptions.

As the paper showed the websites aimed for boys not only had higher language complexity but also less frivolous content. The names of the newspapers alone (Buzz and Goss for girls and Community News and Updates for boys) demonstrate the rooted gender stereotypes in the minds of these developers which unfortunately go on to influence an entire generation of children.

I looked up to see why the Barbie girls website was taken down. I was hoping that it was because of awareness regarding the content of the website and the gendered stereotypes it promoted but that wasn’t the case. It was taken down because the ‘chatroom’ was becoming dangerous as a haven for pedophiles.

I went on the barbie website after that to see if the website had similar content and was happy to see that the home page had images of barbie dressed in different professional clothing telling girls that if they wanted they could be astronauts, doctors, engineer or ‘anything they wanted to be’. However, the categories for the games were ‘Fashion, Sports, Pets, Fairytales’. (I wonder why certain ideas such as girls like fashion and girls like pink exist. None of the girls I know have pink as their favorite color or are into fashion.)

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.

Website: ladypopular.com

Focus: Virtual world

Age: Teens

Description: Browser-based fashion game set in a virtual fashion world. As a user, you set up a personalized avatar and explore the fashion career path through various quests.

Megan Faulk – Assignment 1