Learning and Tensions around Toy Hacking
During class we were able to take apart electronic toys in a
toy hacking maker space. I began by
placing a screwdriver into the seam along the base of my toy car. It took quite a bit of muscle and other
wedging tools to pry the toy car apart.
Many other participants at my table experienced this difficulty and we
were surprised to find that the plastic toys are very well constructed. We figured this indestructible nature of toys
is for safety reasons so that kids can’t get inside the toys and accidently
swallow small parts. It is interesting
to think about how the fear of lawsuits might affect the construction of toys.
Once inside the toy, I found that what made it move was a
really simple mechanism that contained a crank and gear.
I learned a few new things.
First of all I am proud that I now know how to use a Dremel drill and
feel confident that I could use it again. I was struck by how stressed out it
made me to not have enough time. This is
a consideration for teachers and something that we have discussed in class.
With the frenzied pace of standardized curriculum restraints it is important
for teachers to remember that tinkering and design are not activities to be
rushed.
Rusk, Resnick, & Cooke
(2009) assert that at the core of the Clubhouse learning approach, young
people don’t simply interact with technologies, they design and create with
technologies. I felt that this toy hacking activity was a great example
of the Clubhouse learning approach and offered multiple entry points to design
and creativity.
This is not to say that there aren’t tensions around toy
hacking. I was struck with an comfortableness
while taking apart the toy. This may be
a common emotion when it comes to destroying a toy. If we consider the history of toys back
before the 20th century we know that children had few toys and that
they were considered precious.
Additionally, they didn’t have time to play, work dominated their day.
So, I think these ideas about toys being coveted and precious somehow stay
present in our culture, passing down from one generation to the next, making it
hard to dismember a toy. In movies like
Toy Story, Sid is demonized for hacking
toys. Our culture is full of
messages not to destroy or harm toys.
Toy hacking runs counter to the overall themes presented to children
about taking care of their things.
I also wonder about the feasibility of doing toy hacking in
schools? Schools are so institutionalized in their approach to materials. Teachers spend so much time teaching kids to
“use materials properly”. Additionally,
some children don’t have nice toys at home and therefore asking them to take
apart a toy may bring up difficult emotions. Papert (1980) suggests “many
children who grow up in our cities are surrounded by the artifacts of science
but have good reason to see them as belonging to “the others””. Similarly, when considering under-resourced
populations and schools-it seems unlikely that the opportunity to take apart
electronics and toys would be embraced in places that are concerned with
preserving their scant resources. Which in turn leaves the educator wondering
how to make toy hacking a possibility for
all children, not just those in elite schools or afterschool programs.



No comments:
Post a Comment