Interactive Toys and Children's Education.

Strategies for Educators and Parents

Psychologists have stressed the importance of toys and play in childhood development (Erikson, 1977; Rogers & Sawyer, 1988). Toys are "learning instruments" (Mann, 1996)--objects that stimulate children's imaginations and help them develop socially and intellectually. Therefore, it is not surprising that many new children's toys are cause for concern among those who care for children. Interactive toys equipped with microchips have the capability to respond to input from each other, from the environment, and from children themselves, transforming these toys from passive items into entities that can engage in forms of conversation and play with children.

Many aspects of these interactive toys are problematic; for example, children may become confused as to whether the toys are indeed "alive" and really their "friends," triggering important concerns involving socialization. This article outlines some of the issues surrounding interactive toys and presents an analysis of the toys' features. It also describes specific strategies that educators and parents can use to mitigate the toys' deficiencies and help children interact with them in ways that stimulate their imaginations and foster development. Children can gain some useful insights from these toys if the toys are carefully selected for children's developmental levels, and if children receive specific guidance from teachers and parents.

Considering the great importance of play in children's lives, it can be risky to give them recently developed interactive toys if their potential effects have not been researched. Educators and parents often face conflicting responsibilities. Many feel obligated to prepare children for a world in which computer skills are increasingly important. At the same time, they are also responsible for ensuring that the toys they give children are best-suited for their developmental stages. Thus, interactive toys can present adults with formidable challenges.

Consider "Amazing Ally" by Playmates Toys. Ally is a "computer chip, animatronic `best friend' doll that can order a pizza on her cell phone, knows when her hair is being brushed and what kind of outfit she's wearing, and can remember details about her owner"; she "sings songs and tells jokes," as well (Ebenkamp & Stanley, 1999). Children do not need to use their imaginations to create stories about Ally; rather, the doll speaks for itself and involves children in daily routines pre-established by its designers.

Regardless of whether teachers and parents want children to be exposed to such electronic "friends," children will see the toys in advertisements, in classroom "show-and-tell" and at their playmates' houses. Therefore, it is a good idea to provide adult guidance concerning how best to interact with such toys.

Some Drawbacks of Interactive Toys

When considering interactive toys, it is important to consider what value the toys can offer to children. While playing with such toys, children may learn specific values about friendship and conversational etiquette. They are also learning, however, that it is appropriate to invest significant time and effort into building a relationship with a machine, which is troublesome. Educators and parents should explore the values that these toys reflect and make their toy purchases with these values in mind; they also should discuss the values with children. Interactive toys have many aspects that can confuse, frustrate, or mislead children if the toys are not appropriate for the child's developmental level. Some of these aspects include:

Poor quality of feedback to children: Although a number of interactive toys have the capability to engage children in forms of conversation, they do not provide meaningful assistance if the child does not provide the "correct" response. My Best Friend Doll (Play-By-Play Corporation) asks children a question, then simply repeats the question if they do not produce the expected answer (Grumet, 1999). A child who provides an inappropriate response is thus left without any recourse. While older children will likely understand that the toy does not have the full capabilities of a well-designed educational software package, younger children may require the direct intervention of an adult or older sibling.

Negative effects upon children's imagination: In the course of operating an interactive toy, children acquire expectations about what the toy can accomplish in response to their input, and at least some of their play centers on exploring these expectations. With more free-form toys (such as blocks), however, children have larger roles in constructing their own imaginative narratives concerning how to play, which is especially important for children in their early developmental stages (Bretherton, 1984). Children can engage their imaginations more completely with non-interactive toys; the scenarios and rules that children design for playing with non-interactive toys are often fluid and generally less dependent on the toy's design. Sardar (1998) declares that many interactive toys leave less room for creation and experimentation in children's play than do their non-interactive counterparts. Saffo and Simon (1998) state that "preschoolers now take it for granted that they can have non-biological buddies that a power button brings to life, no imagination required" (p. 69).

Problems in children's socialization: The role of these toys in socialization presents some disturbing prospects. For example, children's notions of "friendship" can be distorted by playing with an interactive toy that claims to be the child's "friend." Unlike toys, real-life friends have needs and often do not respond immediately when they are asked questions. Furthermore, younger children may model some of the negative behaviors of the toys (such as the way the toys are often programmed to demand attention) if they do not obtain guidance from adults.

In order to mitigate some of these negative influences, teachers and parents can encourage children to tell stories about their interactive toys that help them explore their various social functions. In these narratives, children can contrast what is acceptable behavior for a toy with what is acceptable for children. They also can compare and contrast the toys with other entities that play a role in their lives (such as their real-life friends and pets). When children share these narratives with other children and with adults, they can obtain perspectives on how others are interacting with the toys and on how others think and feel about them.

Children's concerns about whether the toys are "alive": The lifelike behavior of many interactive toys can be a drawback for children. Thanks to their interactive capabilities, toys can mimic living beings (such as pets and humans); indeed, toy advertisements often explicitly label the toys as being "alive." Many children (especially younger children) will need adult guidance to sort out their feelings, particularly when the toys cease functioning for some reason. Educators and parents can compare the toys with cars or clocks that no longer work, rather than with a pet or other living creature that has died.

These and other drawbacks have triggered concern about interactive toys among many educators and parents. Since interactive toys can serve as agents of socialization, the drawbacks can lead to special problems as children develop and seek information about how to behave in everyday situations. Tuchscherer (1988) considers the toys to be a "threat" to children, as they distort the quality of play life. In past decades, certain non-interactive toys have drawn their own criticism concerning their commercial linkages and their potential to stimulate violent behavior and promote stereotypical gender roles (Best, 1998; Cross, 1997; Seiter, 1993). Interactive toys present new and formidable hazards: Some not only symbolize violent activity and other behaviors, but also "act out" such activities with children (thus providing further reinforcement).

Because of the great value that society places on technology, many of these inherent problems may be overlooked in the effort to give children increased familiarity with technological advancements. In a fashion similar to "computer literacy," teachers, parents, and children all should acquire some level of "interactive toy literacy" in order to mitigate the toys' deficiencies, while still benefiting from their capabilities. To achieve this goal, we must understand how children interact with the toys and what values the toys impart.

Interactive Toy Capabilities: A Taxonomy With Learning Strategies

Interactive toys have long roots. For centuries, toys have had moving parts or sound capabilities that children could activate in some way. Some notable interactive toys emerged in the 1960s, when, for example, Mattel released Chatty Cathy, a doll that talked when children pulled a string. In the early 1990s, TV Teddy responded to broadcast television or video signals (Pereira, 1993). Gigapets (from Tiger Electronics) and other pendant-sized "virtual pets" became an obsession with many children, and adults, in 1997 and 1998 (Oravec, 1999; Sheremata, 1997).

Today, toys are gaining even more sophisticated interactive capabilities that give them larger vocabularies and more ways to respond to children. They are also acquiring new input devices. For example, Microsoft ActiMates' Barney has light-sensitive eyes; when a child covers them, it asks who turned out the lights or says "peek-a-boo." The stomachs of ActiMates' Teletubbies respond to touch, so that even very young children can interact with them. The infusion of microchips into toys is changing how they are being packaged and marketed, as well. For example, some dolls are being marketed as "doll systems," incorporating various elements that respond to their environments and interact with each other, as well as with children (Ebenkamp & Stanley, 1999). With more traditional toys, by contrast, children themselves can define many of the interactions among toys and related gear in their storytelling and play, giving them opportunities to engage their imaginations and share their ideas with others.

Interactive toys range from the soft-and-cuddly to the futuristic. The following is a taxonomy of the toys' interactive capabilities, along with strategies that teachers and parents can use to help ensure that these toys will aid, rather than hinder, children's development:

Interaction with other toys and with television shows: Interactive Pooh (from Mattel) reacts through radio-frequency technology when another interactive toy in the Pooh collection (which includes Tigger and Piglet) enters the room. Growing numbers of toys (such as those in the ActiMates series) are geared to television input; in other words, they can respond to certain actions or words spoken by characters in particular videos or television programs. A "TV Box" that can be purchased for many ActiMates toys allows them to respond to signals transmitted from certain TV shows. Some of the toys are programmed to be "co-watchers" of television with children; they make comments about what is on the screen, thus encouraging children's TV consumption. Furthermore, the toys shape children's perceptions about the shows and about television itself, a role that many educators and parents believe they should assume on children's behalf. Adults should place limits on children's television watching with the toys (especially for preschool children), and invite them to engage in more stimulating activities instead.

Recent versions of interactive toys are specially designed to interact with certain accessories. For example, Furby (from Tiger Electronics) has a "bed" that can stop its chatter by putting the critter to "sleep" (Snyder, 1999). Zowie Intertainment created a toy pirate ship that can be coupled with a PC:

When it's plugged into a computer, digital tags in the figurines and sensors on the ship translate what the child does into action on the computer screen. Kids play with the figurines and then see their characters move onscreen in video-game-like environments. (Winters, 1999, p. 4)

Adults can work with children to help them explore and understand the various ways that the toys can interact, mapping the relationships in words or pictures. Adults also can encourage children to extend their imaginations beyond the built-in relationships and interactions, giving children incentives to explore these objects in ways that foster their creativity.

Direct responsiveness: Children can learn basic cause-and-effect relationships from playing with some interactive toys, even if they know little about what makes the toy function. For example, if an interactive doll (such as Amazing Ally) declares it is hungry and then receives the appropriate response from the child, it responds with sounds of satisfaction. Teachers and parents can engage even younger children in exercises that examine and test these relationships. For example, Bull Frogg (by Ohio Art) has sensor technology that can respond to a child's behavior with over 100 voice responses. If Bull Frogg is squeezed too hard, for example, it will complain. To stimulate children's development of cause-and-effect concepts, adults can involve children in playful questioning about these toys.

Evolution and variation: Some interactive toys evolve in their capabilities as children play with them (for example, Furbys have the capacity to learn hundreds of new words). Some kinds of Gigapets and other miniature "virtual pets" also take on new characteristics, depending on their longevity and the child's input over time. A number of interactive toys provide occasional random surprises and variations that make the experience of interacting with the toy seem more like playing with a real-life friend or pet. For example, Amazing Amy and Ally both produce random requests to which children can respond. These capacities for evolution and variation are designed to give children a sense that their toys are somehow "alive" and growing and that every toy is different in some way.

Teachers and parents can ask children to observe what is happening to their interactive toys over time and create narratives that capture these changes. Often, children interact with toys for limited periods, then move on to other activities; challenging children to understand the changes in a specific toy over time can stimulate their thinking about change and development in the things around them. For example, adults can question children periodically about variations in the toy's behavior. Children also can make a record of some of the new words that their Furbys have learned, or construct a journal of variations in the daily activities of their Amazing Ally doll.

Responsiveness to time: ActiMates' Arthur can play games involving time, because it has a working watch that coordinates its activities. Arthur "tells time" with speech-synthesized talk, and he can remember birth dates (Spiwak, 1999). The dolls Amazing Ally and Amazing Amy are controlled through programmable clocks that establish certain daily cycles of eating and sleeping. Since young children are themselves learning how to tell time and keep on schedule, these toys can provide some incentive to discover more about time. Teachers and parents can reinforce these lessons about time with appropriate questions and exercises.

Capacity to engage in conversation: Children learn from an early age how to talk to machines (such as answering machines), and how to use various forms of computer software that have sound capabilities. Interactive toys' simulated conversations are becoming increasingly sophisticated, however; some can be programmed to use the child's name in its messages. As their voice recognition and synthesis capabilities expand, the conversational abilities of toys expand. Furbys, for example, speak their own language, in addition to English. For very young children, My Talkin' Pals Mickey and Minnie (by Fisher Price) ask children to sing along with them or to turn them over. Various toys are even incorporating some of the nonverbal aspects of conversation, such as turning their heads toward the individual who is talking. Adults should watch children for signs of frustration if they do not seem to understand the toys' verbal responses or cannot interact with the toys. Adults can help children engage in conversations with these toys, while also helping them understand the toys' limitations. Children should learn from adults that real-life conversations involve respect toward their partners (something that cannot be conveyed from interactions with a toy).

Design opportunities: Children approximately 9 years and older can build their own interactive toys with some design kits, either by programming them with PCs or with specially designed microprocessor units. Lego's MindStorms enables children to build their own interactive robots that perform simple functions, such as searching for the brightest light in the room (Quan, 1999). Teachers and parents can encourage children to develop explanatory narratives about how their toys were put together and how they work.

Capacity to play games: Some of the toys incorporate game-playing routines that can be used in solitary play. With real-life friends, children often bend the rules of games in order to deal with everyday exigencies (Peters, 1994). However, current interactive toy technology cannot yet provide such flexibility. Hence, if children spend a large share of their playtime with the toys, they will miss chances to learn the game-playing skills that are involved in a great deal of human interaction. Adults can help children incorporate the games into group activities (even if only one toy is involved). For instance, children can take turns operating the toy (such as Amazing Ally and Interactive Pooh), while the others guess what the toy is about to do.

Teachers and parents should acquire as much information as possible about interactive toys' capabilities, in order to match them to children's developmental levels. They also should occasionally encourage children to disable or ignore the toys' interactive features and use the toys in more traditional ways. Through these means, teachers and parents can help children to be flexible in their uses of the toys, engaging with them both as computer-controlled devices and as objects upon which to project their imaginations. This can mitigate some of the drawbacks of the toys.

Conclusions and Reflections

Children today encounter many new kinds of toys with interactive capabilities. Even children as young as 1 are being exposed to computer functions through their interactions with these toys. Whether or not schools will purchase interactive toys, children will encounter them and, therefore, will require adult guidance. Because interactive toys can be cuddly, cute, and playful, adults may not take them seriously as examples of computer software. The lessons these toys impart to children, however, can be as complex as any delivered from computer screens (Oravec, 1996). These interactive toys can serve as agents of socialization, teaching children about friendship, conversation, and game-playing.

Interactive toys also raise serious matters of equity. Just as many children are being shut out of early exposure to computing with PCs, a number of children will be disadvantaged in terms of access to interactive toys and devices. These children will be viewing television programs that call for the use of interactive toys that their families cannot afford to buy. Whether or not children indeed gain substantial benefit from interactive toys, the sense that they are being deprived of contact with a new form of computing may affect them (and their parents) negatively, given the considerable societal value placed on high-tech advances. Even though the toys are becoming less costly, many of them require the purchase of other toys, videos, and related equipment for their full operation. Some educators have proposed that the toys be introduced into everyday classroom activities (Stager, 1999) as a way of ensuring more equitable access.

Play is a critically important activity for children, especially very young children. Through play, children learn social roles and project their imaginations (Renzetti & Curran, 1992; Taylor, 1999). Not long ago, new categories of toys were slower to emerge, and adults likely had personal experience with comparable toys. Today, new kinds of interactive toys are regularly developed and released on the market, and their long-term effects on children cannot be determined for many years.

Since interactive toys are still in their very early stages of development, concerned adults can have a direct influence on the toy designers and manufacturers by purchasing these toys in a thoughtful manner, with recognition of children's developmental stages. They also should be diligent in monitoring how children use these toy's and in exploring the values they reflect. In many cases, adults should limit the amount of time children play with the toys, especially with toys that serve as "co-watchers" of television. Such toys should be only one part of children's play environments. Real-life friends are critically important. It is through contact with human beings that children acquire the most important developmental skills, and to displace such contact

with technological interaction can rob them of chances to develop to their full capacities.

References

Best, J. (1998). Too much fun: Toys as social problems and the interpretation of culture. Symbolic Interaction, 21(2), 197-213.

Bretherton, I. (1984). Symbolic play: The development of social understanding. New York: Academic Press.

Cross, G. (1997). Kids' stuff: Toys and the changing worlds of American childhood. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Ebenkamp, B., & Stanley, T. (1999). Warm, fuzzy & a heart of silicon: Toy biz abuzz with `interactive.' Brandweek, 40(7), 16-17.

Erikson, E. (1977). Toys and reasons: Stages in the ritualization of experience. New York: Norton.

Grumet, T. (1999). Playing high tech. Popular Mechanics, 176(5), 42.

Mann, D. (1996). Serious play. Teachers College Record, 97(3), 446-470.

Oravec, J. (1996). Virtual individuals, virtual groups. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Oravec, J. (1999). Working hard and playing hard. Journal of General Management, 24(3), 77-89.

Pereira, J. (1993, Nov. 11). Two hot toys for kids who love TV. Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), B1.

Peters, M. (1994). Boys whistle, girls sing: Schoolgrounds. Society & Culture, 17, 143-171.

Quan, M. (1999, May 31). Barney and friends teach interface design. Electronic Engineering Times, 1063, 59-61.

Renzetti, C., & Curran, D. (1992). Women, men & society. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Rogers, C., & Sawyer, J. (1988). Play in the lives of children. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Saffo, P., & Simon, C. (1998). Neo-toys. Civilization, 5(5), 68-69.

Sardar, Z. (1998). Unite against the tyranny of toys! New Statesman, 127(4416), 38-39.

Seiter, E. (1993). Sold separately: Parents and children in consumer culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Sheremata, D. (1997, September 22). Virtual parenthood, with a pause key. Alberta Report/Western Report, 24(41), 34.

Snyder, B. (1999). Rival toys talk back to Furby. Advertising Age, 70(7), 1.

Spiwak, M. (1999). Graphics and dolls, hardware and software. Popular Electronics, 16(2), 18-21.

Stager, G. (1999). Teaching with toys. Curriculum Administrator, 35(5), 35-38.

Taylor, M. (1999). Imaginary companions and the children who create them. New York: Oxford University Press.

Tuchscherer, P. (1988). TV interactive toys: The new high tech threat to children. Bend, OR: Pinnaroo Publishing.

Winters, R. (1999). Toy story. Time Canada, 153(15), DG18-DG21.

Jo Ann Oravec is Associate Professor, College of Business and Economics, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater.