mattel – EDUC 342: Child Development & New Technologies https://ed342.gse.stanford.edu Fri, 29 Jan 2016 19:48:53 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.6.1 Misc. Barbie: Redesigned Article https://ed342.gse.stanford.edu/misc-barbie-redesigned-article/ https://ed342.gse.stanford.edu/misc-barbie-redesigned-article/#respond Fri, 29 Jan 2016 19:48:53 +0000 http://ed342.gse.stanford.edu/?p=1328 I saw this article and found it to be very relevant to our class discussions re: diversity!

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

]]>
https://ed342.gse.stanford.edu/misc-barbie-redesigned-article/feed/ 0
Week 4: Fröbel’s Forgotten Gift https://ed342.gse.stanford.edu/week-4-frobels-forgotten-gift/ https://ed342.gse.stanford.edu/week-4-frobels-forgotten-gift/#respond Mon, 25 Jan 2016 08:00:19 +0000 http://ed342.gse.stanford.edu/?p=1187 In reading “Fröbel’s Forgotten Gift…,” I couldn’t help but remember Barbie Fashion Designer from my own childhood. I didn’t own the game, but I begged my friend Victoria to play whenever I was at her house. As I recall, it was a fairly open-ended design project, though firmly within the Barbie world of “Dream Date” and “Party Surprise.” We would spend many hours debating our choices, but limited by the technology of the time, there was no way to share out with a larger community. Unfortunately, as mentioned in the article, the starter kit came with only eight sheets of the special paper needed to print out the clothes and as a result, we printed an actual outfit exactly one time. The material was far too precious to use up on an inferior costume. Usually we only played on the digital interface, losing the important step of creating a tangible finished product, something that separated the game from other platforms like Barbie Girls, the focus of the Rebecca W. Black article.

Since crafts in general and fashion specifically are so deeply tied to the female realm, I started wondering about ways that textile construction could move into a less gendered space. A tool like the LilyPad Arduino seemed like a promising way to make “soft wear” more universal, but a quick Google search revealed that the “LilyPond” website is no longer active and there seems to be little news from the formal community. Considering the long history of embroidery and sewing long before Fröbel, it seems unlikely that it will disappear in the future, but a great game, platform, and most importantly, an active community, could go a very long way in supporting more widespread adoption.

]]>
https://ed342.gse.stanford.edu/week-4-frobels-forgotten-gift/feed/ 0
Lisa Goochee Redesign Assignment 1: My Password Journal https://ed342.gse.stanford.edu/lisa-goochee-product-review/ https://ed342.gse.stanford.edu/lisa-goochee-product-review/#respond Mon, 25 Jan 2016 05:40:51 +0000 http://ed342.gse.stanford.edu/?p=1171 My Password Journal Link

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 password journal picchosen 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.Screen Shot 2016-01-24 at 9.34.21 PM

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.

Screen Shot 2016-01-24 at 9.36.39 PMScreen Shot 2016-01-24 at 9.37.11 PM

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.

Screen Shot 2016-01-24 at 9.33.47 PM

]]>
https://ed342.gse.stanford.edu/lisa-goochee-product-review/feed/ 0