Monday, November 16, 2015

EdD 2nd Formative Submission - Preliminary Reading: fact/opinion/assertion/belief/claim/evidence

Levin & Rosenquest (2001) take the view that high tech toys are "flooding" toy shops, and that they are a very poor alternative to traditional toys. The paper is based on what Marsh is kind enough to call a "vignette" concerning a child indulging in creative play with his grandma involving a ball and basket. This is contrasted strongly with a dull experience with an electronic toy. There is nothing to suggest that this is observed qualitative data. From this the authors build to a polemic about the inadequacy and dangers of electronic toys. Assertions are made about how "classic" toys for sale have given way to electronic toys. No attempt is made to define terms, or to provide data (perhaps in the form of sales figures). The paper is packed with assertions and opinions with no basis in data. 

Marsh (2002) does not criticise these flaws directly, but instead reframes the argument by pointing to the fears about electronic toys as an example of "moral panic". And then goes on to examine ways in which these toys could be used creatively, the needs of a small child in an era when electronic equipment is ubiquitous, and drawing some attention to issues of possible socio economic inequality between researchers and many parents. 

An interesting exercise as I will have to read many "moral panic" papers on the CCSS. 


Levin, D.E. & Rosenquest, B. (2001) The Increasing Role of Electronic Toys in the Lives of Infants and Toddlers: should we be concerned? Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 2, pp. 242-247

Marsh, J. (2002). Electronic toys: Why should we be concerned? A response to Levin & Rosenquest (2001). Contemporary issues in early childhood3(1), 132-138.