Week 4 Response—Shelley

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.