Conference poster

April 9, 2010

The types of play model didn’t quite make the cut in the paper I’m submitting. This poster, however, is essentially Table 1 of that paper and an outline of the structure of it.I’m uploading it here— “submitted for your approval” as Rod Serling would say.


2010 PSHA poster & Bowker (manuscript in preparation)

(Edited 11 April: converted to 150dpi PNG, now less than 8MB file size!)

References coming soon.


Types of Play

March 24, 2010

Lazzaro’s 4 Types of Fun corresponds well to the constructivists’ theories of development (Piaget; Bruner) as well as the literature on play development (Singer & Singer; Garvey; Fein). The Y-axis here owes a lot to cognitive psychologist Robbie Case.

Model for the types of play based on two factors: symbolism and goals

My former coworker just posted a great quote that her daughter said:

“Shark boy and Lava girl are incompatible.”

Clearly, she was referring to this

“Incompatible” is a pretty big word for a five year old. She has access to this sort of language so she can try it out. I wonder how much of her saying this was testing the word to explore what it means. (It’s in her Zone of Proximal Development)*

Compare this sentence to the average utterance in an AAC system. When was the last time you programmed something this interesting and complex into an AAC system? (I know I never have.)
The point of all of this is that kids won’t learn this sort of language unless they have access to it. Don’t wait until they are “ready” and then give it to them. Throw the kids into the deep end of the linguistic pool and let them construct their way out.

*(This little girl’s mother is a behavior analyst and probably doesn’t hold to the theory of ZPD or language construction, but that’s beside the point).

…according to researchers from University of Washington, Seattle Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and Boston Children’s Hospital in August issue of Pediatrics.

No f!*#ing kidding. Really? </sarcasm>


Gizmodo says it better.

Please don't buy this crap.

Please don't buy this crap.

Remember the thing about the baby carriages? I know that a some point, carriage makers will use that to guilt parents into buying their product.

So much of marketing of baby products is about generating and assuaging guilt. I’ll address this again in the future when I’m feeling less annoyed (the whole Kindle thing has me all poised for ranting).

More on buggies

March 2, 2009

Not the kind that require whips this time; baby buggies in this case.

New York Times brought to my attention the work of psychologist M. Suzanne Zeedyk of the University of Dundee, Scotland. Her recent study looked at two different types of baby stroller, those that face backwards toward the mother and those that face forward toward the environment:

Older "pram" style

Older "pram" style

A more typical modern style

A more typical modern style

What difference does it make, right?

Read the rest of this entry »