The Backstory on Barbie the Robotics Engineer: What might that change?
September 24, 2018 at 7:00 am 3 comments
Professor Casey Fiesler has a deep relationship with Barbie, that started with a feminist remix of a book. I blogged about the remix and Casey’s comments on Barbie the Game Designer in this post. Now, Casey has helped develop a new book “Code Camp with Barbie and Friends” and she wrote the introduction. She tells the backstory in this Medium blog post.
In her essay, Casey considers her relationship with Barbie growing up:
I’ve also thought a lot about my own journey through computing, and how I might have been influenced by greater representation of women in tech. I had a lot of Barbies when I was a kid. For me, dolls were a storytelling vehicle, and I constructed elaborate soap operas in which their roles changed constantly. Most of my Barbies dated MC Hammer because my best friend was a boy who wasn’t allowed to have “girl” dolls, and MC was way more interesting than Ken. I also wasn’t too concerned about what the box told me a Barbie was supposed to be; otherwise I’d have had to create stories about models and ballerinas and the occasional zookeeper or nurse. My creativity was never particularly constrained, but I can’t help but think that even just a nudge — a reminder that Barbie could be a computer programmer instead of a ballerina — would have influenced my own storytelling.
I’ve been thinking about how Barbie coding might influence girls’ future interest in Tech careers. I doubt that Barbie is a “role model” for many girls. Probably few girls want to grow up to be “like Barbie.” What a coding Barbie might do is to change the notion of “what’s acceptable” for girls.
In models of how students make choices in academia (e.g., Eccles’ expectancy-value theory) and how students get started in a field (e.g., Alexander’s Model of Domain Learning), the social context of the decision matters a lot. Students ask themselves “Do I want to do this activity and why?” and use social pressure and acceptance to decide what’s an appropriate class to take. If there are no visible girls coding, then there is no social pressure. There are no messages that programming is an acceptable behavior. A coding Barbie starts to change the answer to the question, “Can someone like me do this?”
Entry filed under: Uncategorized. Tags: BPC, NCWIT, women in computing.
1.
fmliang | September 27, 2018 at 1:03 am
Mark,
I have been a fan of your blog
I am wondering if you are ok with us posting this blog to our Facebook page https://business.facebook.com/createandlearnstem/?business_id=177754242946147. We will include full attribution, of course.
You can learn more about us at http://www.create-learn.us. We teach kids K-9 the latest technologies and develop essential skills like creativity and critical thinking. Girls in STEM is an issue we care deeply about.
Jessie
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 4:01 AM Computing Education Research Blog wrote:
> Mark Guzdial posted: “Professor Casey Fiesler has a deep relationship with > Barbie, that started with a feminist remix of a book. I blogged about the > remix and Casey’s comments on Barbie the Game Designer in this post. Now, > Casey has helped develop a new book “Code Camp with B” >
2.
Mark Guzdial | September 27, 2018 at 7:20 am
Sure, you can do that.
3.
How do teachers teach recursion with embodiment, and why won’t students trace their programs: ICLS 2020 Preview | Computing Education Research Blog | June 15, 2020 at 7:00 am
[…] She uses Eccle’s Expectancy Value Theory (which comes up pretty often in our thinking, see this blog post) to describe why the cost of tracing outweighs the utility for these students, which is defined in […]