Smart Toy Based Learning

56
Kursat Cagiltay, Nuri Kara, and Cansu Cigdem Aydin

Abstract
This chapter examines the general characteristics of and related recent research on smart
toys. Smart toys can be defined as new forms of toys featuring both tangible objects and
electronic components that facilitate two-way child–smart toy interactions to carry out pur-
poseful tasks. In this chapter, smart toy based learning projects are discussed and the char-
acteristics of smart toys as cognitive tools to facilitate learning are analyzed. This chapter
also covers the relationship between smart toys and children’s developmental stages—with
a particular focus on motivation—in order to understand smart toys’ potential effects on
children.

Keywords
Toy • Smart toy • Cognitive tool

play supports learning and development (Butterworth &

Introduction Harris, 1994). In this context, children’s toy preferences are
of great importance in terms of not only fun but also with
Play holds an important role in children’s cognitive, social, respect to developmental and cognitive stages.
and behavioral development. According to Boucher and Technology-based toys are among children’s most pre-
Amery (2009), play helps children to learn, develop, gain ferred options in today’s world. With rapid growths in technol-
confidence, and manage experiences through exploration, ogy, related toys have become widespread in the market.
creativity, entertainment, and socialization. Similarly, Levin World toy sales grew by nearly 5 % in 2010 to 83.3 billion US
and Rosenquest (2001) argue that play helps children learn dollars (The NPD Group Inc, 2011). According to the Toy
to control their actions, interact with people, and explore the Industry Association, Inc. (2007), electronic toys were the
world. Children’s play is often mediated by toys. Toys are largest growth category in the industry, with a 17 % increase.
objects that encourage children’s expression, fantasy, inter- The same report indicated that electronic toys with educational
est, exploration, construction, education, cognitive develop- purposes consisted of 60 % of total purchased electronic toys.
ment, and sex-role learning (Axline, 1974; Peretti & Sydney, A popular type of technology-based toy is the smart toy.
1984). Playing with toys is crucial to a child’s life and this Smart toys include tangible objects alongside electronic
components that facilitate two-way child–smart toy interac-
tion to carry out a purposeful task. In this chapter, purposeful
K. Cagiltay (*) • N. Kara tasks refer to behavioral and cognitive tasks that children
Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, conduct as they play with smart toys. Smart toys promise to
Middle East Technical University, Ankara 06800, Turkey
provide an interactive environment in which children develop
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
cognitive, social, and behavioral abilities by means of the
C.C. Aydin
toys’ dynamic structure.
Management Department, Atilim University,
ncek-Ankara 06836, Turkey Although several smart toy projects appear in the litera-
e-mail: [email protected] ture, a limited number study these toys from educational

J.M. Spector et al. (eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 703
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_56, © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
704 K. Cagiltay et al.

and developmental perspectives. Additionally, the common

characteristics of these toys and their foci on the develop-
mental stages and motivation of children have not been cov-
ered adequately. Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to
provide general characteristics of smart toys by referring to
specific examples while presenting the dynamics of smart
toy based learning in accordance with children’s develop-
mental needs and inner motivation conditions. This chapter
also discusses smart toy based learning in the light of learn-
ing through interaction and analyzes smart toys as cognitive
tools. In all, this chapter presents six topics: (1) Key charac-
teristics of smart toys; (2) Smart toy projects; (3) The rela-
tionship between smart toys and developmental periods of
children; (4) Smart toys from the perspective of intrinsic
Fig. 56.1 A child playing with Rosebud (Glos & Cassell, 1997)
motivation; (5) Smart toys as cognitive tools; and (6) Future
implications.
puter that identifies each animal’s internal transmitter and
presents a dialogue box for the child to create a story (see
Key Characteristics of Smart Toys Fig. 56.1).
Similarly, with StoryTech (Kara, Aydin, & Cagiltay,
Smart toys exist today in a variety of forms based on the 2012a), when a child puts a plush toy or background card on
ways in which children interact with them and the sorts of a receiver panel, the related character or picture appears in a
purposeful tasks they initiate. Purposeful tasks are the main Flash animation on the screen. The aim of this smart toy is
function that distinguishes smart toys from their counter- for children to create their own imaginative stories (see
parts. For instance, a toy mobile phone simply plays tones Fig. 56.2).
when buttons are pushed, but no further action is demanded In contrast, self-contained smart toys can be considered as
of the child. While such classic electronic or digital toys use a unique device with integrated digital features. These self-
technological features only to increase attraction to the toy, contained smart toys include play sets, play spaces, or envi-
smart toys allow for mutual interaction and encourage pur- ronments with interactive objects and characters or may
poseful tasks. These smart toys can be categorized based on include digitally combined objects or characters within their
the kinds of tasks initiated, namely, behavioral tasks or cog- structure rather than requiring an external computer. For
nitive tasks. Smart toys featuring behavioral tasks aim to instance, Sifteo, aka Siftables (Merrill, Kalanithi, & Maes,
enhance behavioral skills of children. For instance, with one 2007), features physical blocks with integrated electronic
smart toy, the Furby, children can hone behavioral skills by chips. Children produce different word and image combina-
caring for and treating the toy like a real, live creature. tions using Sifteo (see Fig. 56.3).
Similarly, with Fisher Price’s Learning Kitchen, children can Two-way child–toy interactions are another significant
develop simple behaviors, such as opening and closing the characteristic of smart toys. According to Price and Rogers
refrigerator. On the other hand, smart toys prompting cogni- (2004), interacting in digitally enhanced physical spaces has
tive tasks mainly emphasize on children’s cognitive skills. two key components: (1) raising the awareness of children
For instance, children can practice storytelling and reflection about their activities, and (2) providing children with richer
while playing with a smart toy such as StoryMat (Ryokai & experiences by combining physical and virtual realities. In
Cassell, 1999). Similarly, Fisher Price’s Learning Lantern is smart toy play, child–toy interaction is also important in
intended to teach numbers, counting, opposites, animals, and terms of technological components and instructional activi-
greetings by providing lively sing alongs, musical tones, and ties. StoryTech (Kara et al., 2012a) is another example of this
interactive dancing lights. In addition, the LeapFrog Fridge kind of interaction.
Phonics Magnetic Letter Set smart toy is designed to teach In most smart toys interaction is facilitated with electronic
letter names and phonics by talking and singing a song about sensors in the toys so children can build richer interactions,
the selected letter. either directly or mediated by computers (Luckin, Connolly,
The other categorizations of smart toys are based on inter- Plowman, & Airey, 2003). Resnick (1998) pointed out that
actions, namely, smart toys that interact with computers or orchestration and coordination of interactions among play-
smart toys that are self-contained. An example of a smart toy things is also a large part of children’s play and learning.
that interacts with computers is Rosebud (Glos & Cassell, According to Roussou (2004), many educational technolo-
1997), which includes stuffed animals integrated with a com- gists support the idea that interactivity is a necessity in
56 Smart Toy Based Learning 705

Fig. 56.2 Children playing with StoryTech (Kara et al., 2012a)

Smart Toy Projects

Several smart toy projects appear in the literature. This sec-

tion introduces those projects by providing details about
specific characteristics, working mechanisms, and related
research.
Glos and Cassell’s (1997) Rosebud was designed to help
children write stories about stuffed animals integrated with a
computer. Based on the above categorization of smart toys,
Rosebud interacts with an external computer and initiates a
cognitive task, specifically storytelling. The stuffed animal
has an infrared transmitter that sends a unique signal to the
computer, which recognizes the stuffed animal by this signal.
Fig. 56.3 An example of application with Sifteo (Hunter, Kalanithi & MIT Media Laboratory researchers tested Rosebud with six
Merrill, 2010)
children ranging from 7 to 12. The children produced 11 sto-
ries, and the authors concluded that the mixed media inter-
learning, and the author emphasized further that meaningful face provided richer and dynamic interaction.
tasks lead children to take learning more seriously. McVee, Ryokai and Cassell’s (1999) StoryMat provides a play
Dunsmore, and Gavelek (2005) stated that interaction space in which children could record and replay their own
between material and activity has deep implications for stories. StoryMat is a self-contained smart toy that does not
learning and cognition. The authors also pointed out that require interaction with an external computer. It initiates a
interaction with materials or tools helps learners build knowl- cognitive task, specifically storytelling. StoryMat has a soft
edge relationships. In smart toy play, learning through inter- surface featuring several applied figures on which the child
action can be defined as learning several concepts or skills moves a small stuffed animal with an ultrasonic transmitter,
combined with purposeful tasks that are accomplished by while the child’s narration and the stuffed animal movements
interacting with fun technological and instructional compo- are recorded. When the stuffed animal returns to the same
nents. For instance, with StoryTech (Kara et al., 2012a, place on the surface, narrations are replayed. In a study by
2012b), children can improve creativity and imagination Cassell and Ryokai (2001), the members of the Gesture and
through storytelling by interacting with plush toys and mul- Narrative Language Group in the MIT Media Lab described
timedia features of the computer environment. With curlybot their user study with 36 children between the ages of 5 and 8.
(Frei, Su, Mikhak, & Ishii, 2000), children practice compu- Children were randomly assigned to either the StoryMat
tational and mathematical thinking through free play with a group or the control group. The authors concluded that the
two-wheeled vehicle smart toy that measures, records, and children using StoryMat produced more imaginative stories
reports its movements. than peers playing with a passive toy. They also pointed out
706 K. Cagiltay et al.

that the ability to produce imaginative objects in a real wireless transmitter that advances play. For instance, StoryToy
environment is an important indicator of cognitive proposes three modes—free play, reactive play, and story
development. play—based on the location of the duck character. All sensor
Frei et al.’s (2000) Curlybot is a two-wheeled vehicle that events are uploaded to the computer via receiver and trans-
measures, records, and plays back its exact movement on any lated into audio responses by Java. These responses are then
flat surface. Within the categorization of smart toys, Curlybot sent through a wireless speaker. The researchers from the
is a self-contained smart toy requiring no external comput- Philips Research Company and Eindhoven University of
ers. In addition, Curlybot initiates cognitive tasks, specifically Technology conducted their study with children between 2
those that are mathematical and computational. Curlybot’s and 6. The researchers concluded that older children (4–6)
two wheels, which are controlled by a microprocessor, not considered more complex dialogues enjoyable, but it was hard
only move forward and backward but also rotate freely. For to follow dialogues of younger children (2–3).
recording movements, the smart toy includes a memory chip. Lampe and Hinske’s (2007) Augmented Knight’s Castle
The child records the movements of curlybot by pressing a is a smart toy playset enriching the pretend play of children
button that lights up a red or green indicator. Researchers by providing sound effects and verbal reactions from toys.
from the Tangible Media group in the MIT Media Laboratory The Augmented Knight’s Castle is a self-contained smart toy
conducted an informal user study with 81 children. The study that initiates cognitive tasks through fantasy play and imagi-
showed that children ages four and above playing with nation. RFID technology detects the position of objects in
Curlybot engaged in computational and mathematical con- the playset. Since the Augmented Knight’s Castle smart toy
cepts in a more creative way. is set in the Middle Ages, the objects provide relevant sound
Piper and Ishii’s (2002) Pegblocks is an educational toy effects, background music, and verbal commentary in accor-
showing basic physics principles to elementary school stu- dance with the information sensed by the RFID hardware.
dents. Children manipulate wooden toys connected to each Hinske, Lampe, Yuill, Price, and Langheinrich (2010)
other via electrical cables to observe kinetic energy changes. conducted a user study of the smart toy with 103 children
Based on the smart toy categorization, Pegblocks is a self- ranging from 6 to 10. The authors also conducted interviews
contained smart toy that initiates cognitive tasks such as with seven teachers to explore their opinions about the smart
observing and understanding kinetic energy changes. toy. The findings revealed that it provided significant learn-
Pegblocks is a set of five wooden blocks. Each block consists ing opportunities about Middle Ages, such as clothing, festi-
of nine pegs combined with electric motors, converting the val, music, and literature for children and increased retention
kinetic energy of the child’s hand into electrical energy. of what they learned after short play sessions.
Researchers from the Tangible Media Group in the MIT Merrill et al.’s (2007) Sifteo allows children to interact
Media Laboratory informally observed children playing with with electronic blocks to produce different knowledge com-
Pegblocks and concluded that they allowed children to see binations. Children select electronic blocks in accordance
and understand the relationship between electrical and kinetic with their desires and create their own patterns. Sifteo is a
energy. self-contained smart toy. As explained above, it initiates cog-
Vaucelle and Jehan’s (2002) Dolltalk is a computational nitive tasks through thinking, imagination, and knowledge
toy that records children’s gestures and speech and plays creation. Sifteo has mainly five components, namely, color
back their voices. Dolltalk is a self-contained smart toy that LCD screen, accelerometer, infrared transceivers, recharge-
initiates cognitive tasks, specifically, linguistic expressions able battery, and RF radio. A user’s physical manipulations
and storytelling. Dolltalk includes a platform with tag sen- are sensed and considered as input to the system. Visual
sors, two speakers, one microphone, and two stuffed animals feedback is displayed on the LCD screen.
with sensors. When the child removes the two stuffed ani- Kara et al.’s (2012a) StoryTech allows children to create
mals from the platform, recording begins. When the two their own stories in a mixed reality environment by placing
stuffed animals are placed on the platform again, playback of plush toys and background cards on a receiver panel con-
the narration begins. Researchers from the MIT Media nected to a computer. Based on the categorization, StoryTech
Laboratory conducted a user study with 12 children at an is a smart toy that requires external computer interaction. In
elementary school and concluded that children generally addition, it initiates the cognitive task of storytelling.
enjoyed their interaction with Dolltalk by frequently repeat- StoryTech includes three components, namely, story objects
ing the playback. (stuffed animals and background cards), the computer, and
Fontijn and Mendels’ (2005) StoryToy is an environment the receiver panel. RFID tags give unique codes to each story
featuring stuffed farm animals that tell stories and react to objects. When the child puts the object on the receiver panel,
each other. Within the above categorization, StoryToy is a self- these codes are transmitted to the computer, and the virtual
contained smart toy. It initiates the cognitive task of storytelling. representation of the story object appears on the computer
Each plush character has a motion sensor connected to a screen. StoryTech incorporates two phases of play: scaffolding
56 Smart Toy Based Learning 707

and storytelling. In scaffolding, children only place the rab-

bit or turtle characters on the receiver panel to continue the
story told by the narrator. The aim of this section is to pre-
pare children ready for storytelling. Next, children are
expected to produce their own stories by using the story
objects. Kara, Aydin, and Cagiltay (2012b) conducted a user
study with 90 children ranging in age from 4 to 6. For the
experimental study, the researchers created experimental
groups playing with StoryTech and control groups playing
with a passive toy. Based on the results, 5- and 6-year-old
children playing with StoryTech produced more complex
stories than the control group children. Additionally, the
6-year-old children were the most effective users of StoryTech
in collaborative play.
These smart toy projects have several common character-
istics. These studies mostly focused on the attitudes and
responses of the children rather than their learning outcomes.
The input of their teachers was not emphasized during design
and development or during the study. Further, these research Fig. 56.4 Learning music player (Fisher Price)
activities were primarily small-scale user studies.

light switch, and stirring soup with accompanying music,

Smart Toys and Developmental Stages sounds, and lights. Similarly, Furby allows children to con-
of Children trol a virtual character, practicing behavioral tasks by caring
for and treating it like a real creature. In addition, Fisher
The relationship between the characteristics of smart toys Price’s Learning Music Player is designed to enable children
and the developmental stages of children needs to be ana- to learn and develop basic actions such as skip, rewind, and
lyzed to develop effective smart toy learning environments. pause, as well as manipulating volume. A child can listen to
Determining the developmental periods of children is impor- songs and watch dancing characters on the screen by press-
tant because smart toys need to be developed in accordance ing buttons (see Fig. 56.4). Compared with traditional toys,
with relevant characteristics. A child at age 2 may play with these smart toys allow children to develop simple reflexes
a toy in a completely different manner than at age 5 or 6, if while also learning simple actions through purposeful tasks.
the child wants to play with the same toys at all after a certain
age (Kudrowitz & Wallace, 2009). Piaget (1964) separated
children’s intellectual development into four stages: (1) sensory- Preoperational Stage
motor or preverbal (first 18 months), (2) preoperational rep-
resentation (2–7), (3) concrete operations (7–11), and (4) According to Piaget (1962), symbolic functioning and lan-
formal or hypothetic-deductive operations (after 11). Smart guage acquisition are the main characteristics of the preop-
toys may have different characteristics for each stage. erational stage. In addition, he explains the significance of
language and symbolic functions:
It becomes possible to invoke objects which are not present per-
Sensory-Motor Stage ceptually, to reconstruct the past, or to make projects, plans for
the future, to think of objects not present but very distant in
According to Piaget (1962), simple reflexes, actions, and space (p. 38).
movements are the main activities of children in the sensory- Therefore, cognitive processes are mostly emphasized in
motor stage. Language is not present in this stage, and object this stage, though behavioral processes can also play an
permanence is not developed. At this stage, traditional toys important role at first. Hence, smart toys with both behav-
such as stuffed animals, dolls, and colorful objects are gener- ioral and cognitive purposes are highly suitable for children
ally used for developing simple reflexes. Children may also in this stage. For instance, Fisher Price’s Smart Fit Park is
use smart toys with behavioral purposes. For instance, Fisher designed to allow children to carry out behavioral tasks such
Price’s Learning Kitchen is intended to allow children to as walking, jumping, and running, and enable children to
learn through everyday experiences and develop simple gain cognitive skills with interactive learning activities such
reflexes such as opening and closing a refrigerator, flipping a as letter identification, counting, subtraction, and spelling.
708 K. Cagiltay et al.

operations stage. Smart toys with advanced cognitive pur-

poses may be best for these children. At this stage, children
begin to demonstrate a preference for computer-based appli-
cations rather than physical toys. Lego Mindstorms robotics
kits, developed at the MIT Media Lab, may be more suitable
for children at the formal operations stage: “Lego robotics is
comprised of building materials (regular blocks, gears, pul-
leys and axels) and programming software with an effective
graphical interface for developing robotic applications”
(Alimisis et al., 2007, p. 2). This toy may enhance creativity,
imagination, and problem solving capabilities in children
Fig. 56.5 Pegblocks (Piper & Ishii, 2002)
(Mauch, 2001).
As seen in this section, knowing children’s developmen-
Creativity and imagination should be emphasized for chil-
tal stages is important when selecting the appropriate smart
dren in the preoperational stage. StoryMat can enhance chil-
toy. These stages also have to be taken into consideration
dren’s creativity and imagination by providing a play space
during the design and development of such toys. The factors
where children tell stories using stuffed animals, then listen
that motivate children to play with these toys are also
to playback of their recorded stories. Similar storytelling
significant.
smart toys are generally suitable for children in this stage
because these children learn to think, reflect, and use their
imaginations to create stories (Ryokai & Cassell, 1999).
Curlybot is also suitable for young children to learn mathe-
Smart Toys from the Perspective of Intrinsic
matical and computational thinking (Frei et al., 2000).
Motivation

According to Ryokai and Cassell (1999), children begin The potential motivational power of toys may explain their
engaging in more social play by age 4. Thus, using smart importance in the process of cognitive development. In smart
toys for collaborative purposes should be implemented from toys specifically, technological components facilitate two-
this age forward. These researchers’ StoryMat toy, for exam- way child–toy interactions to carry out a purposeful task with
ple, can be used for collaborative storytelling, as children in a goal of learning. Petersson and Brooks (2006) emphasized
peer groups can tell stories by interpreting a playmate’s that play is closely related to intrinsic motivation. Malone
actions with the stuffed animals. and Lepper (1987) further stated that learning experiences
should be intrinsically motivated and define toys as objects
guided by internal goals. Thus, intrinsic motivation must be
Concrete Operations Stage defined, and its relationship with smart toy based activities
must be explored. Malone and Lepper (1987) categorized
According to Piaget (1962), the concrete operations develop- four intrinsic motivation components with regard to learning
mental stage involves children’s ability to engage in calcula- experiences: (a) challenge, (b) curiosity, (c) control, and (d)
tions, rational relations, and numerical activities. This is also fantasy.
the stage at which children become capable of classifying
objects according to similarities and differences and serializing
according to size and weight. Pegblocks, which allows children Challenge
to manipulate wooden toys connected via electrical cables to
learn basic physics principles, may be suitable for children at According to Malone and Lepper (1987), activities should
this developmental stage (Piper & Ishii, 2002) (see Fig. 56.5). challenge learners in order to motivate them intrinsically.
Similarly, Sifteo may be suitable for children at the con- Generally, toys enable children to gain skills by challenging
crete operations stage as it provides “sensing, graphical dis- them. Smart toys that provoke behavioral or cognitive tasks
play, and wireless communication, which can be manipulated may provide possibilities for challenging and motivating
as a group to interact with digital information and media” children. For instance, with Rosebud, children type stories
(Merrill et al., 2007, p. 75). about a selected stuffed animal (Glos & Cassell, 1997).
Thinking about the stuffed animal and creating a suitable
story can be considered challenging for children based on
Formal Operations Stage age. Some smart toys require more complex cognitive tasks
and present more advanced challenges. For instance, chil-
According to Piaget (1962), children can present reasoning dren may be given different Sifteo blocks and be expected to
skills based on hypotheses or propositions in the formal solve basic mathematical problems (Merrill et al., 2007).
56 Smart Toy Based Learning 709

Curiosity where they can engage in purposeful events, such as behav-

ioral and cognitive tasks. In this environment, children carry
Malone and Lepper (1987) considered curiosity to be the out fantasy play as active players. For instance, children can
most effective component in motivating learners intrinsi- tell their own stories by using stuffed farm animals, and react-
cally. Several smart toys provide open-ended features that ing to each other as they play in the StoryToy (Fontijn &
allow children to explore new facets of play and may increase Mendels, 2005) fantasy environment. Based on the StoryTech
curiosity. Since smart toys with cognitive purposes lead user study with 90 children, the age 5 and 6 groups especially
children to construct knowledge patterns through stories, produced imaginative stories (Kara et al., 2012b).
combinations, and calculations based on children’s own
selections, open-ended characteristics can be easily linked to
their curiosity. For instance, Sifteo blocks enable children to Smart Toys as Cognitive Tools
reach different combinations each time, maintaining the
curiosity of children. Similarly, with Furby, children may Smart toy projects provide different sorts of scaffolds to
feed the toy, then wait for Furby’s audio response, letting the facilitate children’s knowledge construction. Hannafin,
child know whether to continue feeding it. The open-ended Land, and Oliver (1999) listed four main types of scaffolds:
features of several storytelling smart toys can also enhance (a) conceptual, (b) metacognitive, (c) procedural, and (d)
curiosity. With StoryTech (Kara et al., 2012a), for instance, strategic. According to the authors, “Conceptual scaffolding
children can create different stories based on each plush toy can be designed to help learners reason through complex or
or background card. As Petersson and Brooks (2006) empha- fuzzy problems, as well as for concepts where known mis-
size, open-ended features that include collaborative play conceptions are prevalent” (p. 132). For instance, with
increase children’s motivation to learn. With these features, StoryMat conceptual scaffolding is implemented through
children share their activity with other children, enhancing providing recorded narrations to children, aiding them in
each other’s learning experiences. telling their own stories (Ryokai & Cassell, 1999). Similarly,
in StoryTech narrations describing the environment and
objects based on the selected background card trigger chil-
Control dren to continue storytelling in accordance with their choices
(Kara et al., 2012a). Metacognitive scaffolding guides learn-
According to Malone and Lepper (1987), activities should ers to think about and reflect on their own learning (Hannafin
give a powerful sense of control to learners to provide a suc- et al., 1999). For instance, children can think about knowl-
cessful learning experience. With some smart toys, children edge representations that they produced with Sifteo blocks
take control of the toy itself to conduct purposeful tasks. For (Merrill et al., 2007) or think about kinetic energy changes
instance, Furby allows children to control a virtual character with Pegblocks (Piper & Ishii, 2002). According to Hannafin
while practicing behavioral tasks, caring for it like a real pet. et al. (1999), procedural scaffolding guides learners to use
Taking care of Furby is completely in the hands of children, existing resources and tools. Smart toys, in general, have
who keep Furby healthy and happy according to their deci- specific functions making the toy easy to use for play. These
sions. Similarly, with Curlybot (Frei et al., 2000), children functions can be considered procedural scaffolds. For
control an electronic vehicle and enhance mathematical instance, in StoryToy (Fontijn & Mendels, 2005), play modes
thinking by recording and playing back the coordinates of can be changed easily in accordance with the location of the
the vehicle’s movements. As another example, in StoryTech, duck character in the smart toy environment. Strategic scaf-
children control the virtual environment and characters that folding emphasizes reaching needed information and exist-
appear on the screen by selecting desired cards and toys to ing resources, and building relationships between current
produce their own stories (Kara et al., 2012a). knowledge and new knowledge and experiences (Hannafin
et al., 1999). For example, in StoryTech (Kara et al., 2012a),
before presenting storytelling, strategic scaffolding allows
Fantasy children to understand the system and be ready for storytell-
ing. As another example, the Augmented Knight’s Castle
Fantasy is also an important dimension in children’s play. In (Lampe & Hinske, 2007) provides alternative approaches to
fact, all toy activity is rooted in fantasy. Children create an enhance children’s knowledge about the Middle Ages, as the
imaginary world and act in this environment as if they were objects provide relevant sound effects, background music
in the real world. According to Cassell and Ryokai (2001), and verbal commentaries.
“Fantasy play allows children to explore different possibili- Cognitive tools are intelligent resources that help construct
ties in their life without the risk of failure and frustration from knowledge through interaction with learners (Jonassen, 1992;
unexpected events” (p. 172). Smart toys with multimedia Kim & Reeves, 2007). Based on this definition, cognitive tools
components attract the attention of children in an environment support learning experiences (Joolingen, 1999). Furthermore,
710 K. Cagiltay et al.

Liu and Bera (2005) emphasized that technologies can be con- (1987)’s classification of intrinsic motivation is still of great
sidered cognitive tools if they provide effective learning envi- importance for play, so smart toys need to be developed
ronments by supporting learning experiences. Based on this according to its components: challenge, curiosity, control,
perspective, smart toys can also be considered cognitive tools and fantasy. Smart toys can be used by children to gain both
since they help children construct their own learning. For behavioral and cognitive skills. In addition, these technolo-
instance, Piper and Ishii’s Pegblocks (2002) allows children to gies can be considered cognitive tools, assisting children
learn basic physics principles by providing an interactive envi- construct their own learning experiences.
ronment supported by technological features. Similarly, with a Many smart toy projects have been conducted by com-
storytelling smart toy, a child produces an original story with puter science researchers from the MIT Media Lab. Although
the help of virtual content and plush toys (Kara et al., 2012a). the smart toys were developed for pedagogical purposes,
Smart storytelling toys serve as cognitive tools because they early childhood scholars’ or teachers’ contributions have
teach storytelling to children in an interactive way. Children been limited. Most early childhood education curricula refer
must select the toys or background cards to tell their stories to information and communication technologies and pro-
using the accompanying Flash animation. grammable toys (Plowman & Stephen, 2003), but smart toy
Learner control is another important characteristic of cog- practices in the literature generally focus on specific pur-
nitive tools (Jonassen, 1992). Rather than teacher directed or poses, like storytelling or pretending. Existing smart toy
technology driven learning, smart toys provide an interactive projects have not offered applications for formal early educa-
environment for children to use technology to conduct cog- tional environments specifically aligned to curricula. Also,
nitive tasks. Further, Kim and Reeves (2007) mentioned the researchers developing new toy technologies for young chil-
importance of flexibility and open-ended characteristics of dren have thus far conducted mostly small-scale user studies.
cognitive tools. Sifteo prompts children to interact with elec- Although there are still questions in the literature about how
tronic blocks to produce different combinations (Merrill best to integrate new technologies in young children’s learn-
et al., 2007). As a cognitive tool, Sifteo provides different ing environments, the design and development phases of
learning experiences with each play. Cognitive tools are new smart toy technologies have not been emphasized
based on a constructivist paradigm where learners construct sufficiently. Thus, we believe that young children’s and
their own experiences by actively engaging with these tools teachers’ perceptions about the design and development pro-
(Jonassen, 1992; Kim & Reeves, 2007). cess should play a significant role in generating new princi-
ples and revealing participants’ preferences.
Although smart toys have several advantages due to their
Conclusions capabilities, these technologies also have their limitations. In
individual play, smart toys may decrease socialization, lead-
This chapter introduces the general characteristics of smart ing children to play with the toy more than each other.
toys by referring to specific examples in the literature and Additionally, these technologies may make children depen-
presented the dynamics of smart toy based learning in rela- dent on the constant, instant feedback and interactions in
tion to children’s developmental needs and motivation condi- smart toy play. To decrease potential risks, children should
tions. Smart toys are new forms of toys that incorporate be guided by parent or teachers in play.
tangible objects and electronic chips to provide two-way Although this chapter provides general characteristics of
interactions leading to purposeful tasks with behavioral or smart toys, the relationship of smart toys to children’s devel-
cognitive merit. In smart toy play, interaction is used for opmental stages and motivation, smart toy based learning in
instructional purposes within an authentic play environment light of learning through interaction, and smart toys as cogni-
rather than only for child attraction, so interaction assumes tive tools, several topics were not covered, such as design
the main role in learning. The consistency between the attri- and development issues in smart toy based learning environ-
butes of smart toys and the developmental characteristics of ments. Hence, this topic should be considered in future stud-
children needs to be analyzed in depth to assist in the effec- ies. Additionally, studies exploring the experiences of
tive development of smart toy based learning. Additionally, children when playing with smart toys and regarding the
smart toys should be analyzed from a developmental per- integration of technologies such as multitouch and tablet
spective to reflect suitable age-related options. As Piaget’s technology in smart toys should be conducted. New smart
developmental stages are mostly emphasized in the litera- toy studies should be carried out for children with disabili-
ture, the characteristics of smart toys should be appropriately ties, as well. With the advent of new technology, smart toy
associated with them: sensory-motor, preoperational, based applications will become widespread, and children
concrete operations, and formal operations. The relationship will have more opportunities to use these powerful toys
between motivation and play is also emphasized in the litera- effectively. This chapter aims to encourage more researchers,
ture. Smart toys’ characteristics should be analyzed to under- designers, developers, and instructional technologists to
stand children’s inner motivations. Malone and Lepper carry out smart toy based research activities.
56 Smart Toy Based Learning 711

concerned? Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 2(2),

References 242–247.
Liu, M., & Bera, S. (2005). An analysis of cognitive tool use patterns in
a hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology
Alimisis, D., Moro, M., Arlegui, J., Pina, A., Frangu, S., & Papanikolaou, Research and Development, 53(1), 5–21.
K. (2007). Robotics & constructivism in education: The TERECoP *Luckin, R., Connolly, D., Plowman, L., & Airey, S. (2003). Children’s
project. In I. Kalas (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th EuroLogo confer- interactions with interactive toy technology. Journal of Computer
ence (pp. 1–11). Assisted Learning, 19(2), 165–176.
Axline, V. M. (1974). Play therapy. New York, NY: Ballantine. *Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A tax-
Boucher, S., & Amery, J. (2009). Play and development. In A. Justin onomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R. E. Snow & M. J.
(Ed.), Children’s palliative care in Africa (pp. 37–77). Oxford: Farr (Eds.), Aptitude learning and instruction: Volume 3: Cognitive
Oxford University Press. and affective process analyses (pp. 223–253). Retrieved from http://
Butterworth, G., & Harris, M. (1994). Principles of developmental psy- ocw.metu.edu.tr/mod/resource/view.php?id=1311
chology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Mauch, E. (2001). Using technological innovation to improve the prob-
*Cassell, J., & Ryokai, K. (2001). Making space for voice: Technologies lem-solving skills of middle school students: Educators’ experi-
to support children’s fantasy and storytelling. Personal and ences with the LEGO Mindstorms robotic invention system. The
Ubiquitous Computing, 5(3), 169–190. Clearing House, 74(4), 211–213.
Fontijn, W., & Mendels, P. (2005, May 8–13). StoryToy: The interactive McVee, M. B., Dunsmore, K., & Gavelek, J. R. (2005). Schema theory
storytelling toy. In H. Gellersen, R. Want, & A. Schmidt (Eds.), Third revisited. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 531–566.
International Conference, PERVASIVE 2005. Munich, Germany. Merrill, D., Kalanithi, J., & Maes, P. (2007). Siftables: Towards sensor
Proceedings series: Lecture notes in computer science, 3468, 37–42. network user interfaces. In Proceedings of First International
Frei, P., Su, V., Mikhak, B., & Ishii, H. (2000). curlybot: Designing a Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (pp. 75–78).
new class of computational toys. Proceedings of the SIGCHI confer- Peretti, P. O., & Sydney, T. M. (1984). Parental toy choice stereotyping
ence on human factors in computing systems (pp. 129–136). New and its effects on child toy preference and sex-role typing. Social
York: ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/332040.332416. Behavior and Personality, 12(2), 213–216.
Glos, J., & Cassell, J. (1997). Rosebud: Technological toys for Petersson, E., & Brooks, A. (2006). Virtual and physical toys: Open-
storytelling. In S. Pemberton (Ed.), Proceedings of the conference ended features for non-formal learning. Cyberpsychology &
on human factors in computing systems (pp. 359–360). New York, Behavior, 9(2), 196–199.
NY: ACM Press. *Piaget, J. (1962). The stages of the intellectual development of the
Hannafin, M. J., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environ- child. In A. Slater & D. Muir (Eds.), The Blackwell reader in devel-
ments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), opmental psychology (pp. 35–42). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. In R. E. Ripple & V. N.
instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 115–140). London: Erlbaum. Rockcastle (Eds.), Piaget rediscovered: Report of the conference on
Hinske, S., Lampe, M., Yuill, N., Price, S., & Langheinrich, M. (2010). cognitive studies and curriculum development (pp. 7–20). Ithaca,
Let the play set come alive: Supporting playful learning through the NY: Cornell University Press.
digital augmentation of a traditional toy environment. Proceedings Piper, B., & Ishii, H. (2002). PegBlocks: A learning aid for the elemen-
of the 6th IEEE International Workshop on Pervasive Learning tary classroom. In L. Terveen & D. Wixon (Eds.), CHI ‘02 extended
(PerEL) at PerCom 2010 (pp. 280–285). Mannheim, Germany. abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 686–687).
Hunter, S., Kalanithi, J., & Merrill, D. (2010). Make a riddle and Minneapolis, MN: ACM Press.
telestory: Designing children’s applications for the Siftables plat- *Plowman, L., & Stephen, C. (2003). A ‘benign addition’? Research on
form. In Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Interaction ICT and pre-school children. Journal of Computer Assisted
Design and Children (pp. 206–209). New York, NY: ACM Press. Learning, 19, 149–164.
*Jonassen, D. H. (1992). What are cognitive tools? In P. D. Kommers, *Price, S., & Rogers, Y. (2004). Let‘s get physical: The learning benefits
D. H. Jonassen, & J. T. Mayes (Eds.), Cognitive tools for learning of interacting in digitally augmented physical spaces. Computers in
(pp. 1–6). New York: Springer Verlag. Education, 43(1–2), 137–151.
Joolingen, W. V. (1999). Cognitive tools for discovery learning. International *Resnick, M. (1998). Technologies for lifelong kindergarten.
Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10, 385–397. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(4), 43–55.
*Kara, N., Aydin, C. C., & Cagiltay, K. (2012a). Design and develop- *Roussou, M. (2004). Learning by doing and learning through play: An
ment of a smart storytelling toy. Interactive Learning Environments. exploration of inter-activity in virtual environments for children.
doi: 10.1080/10494820.2011.649767. ACM Journal on Computers in Entertainment, 2(1), 1–23.
*Kara, N., Aydin, C. C., & Cagiltay, K. (2012b). User study of a new Ryokai, K., & Cassell, J. (1999). Computer support for children’s col-
smart toy for children’s storytelling. Interactive Learning laborative fantasy play and storytelling. In Proceedings of the 1999
Environments. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2012.682587. conference on Computer support for collaborative learning (p. 63).
Kim, B., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Reframing research on learning with International Society of the Learning Sciences.
technology: In search of the meaning of cognitive tools. Instructional The NPD Group Inc. (2011). World toy sales in 2010 were $83.3 bil-
Science, 35, 207–256. lion, an increase of nearly 5 percent over 2009 [Press release].
Kudrowitz, B., & Wallace, D. (2009). The play pyramid: A play Retrieved from https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/
classification and ideation tool for toy design. Retrieved from http:// pressreleases/pr_110702
web.mit.edu/2.00b/www/2009/lecture2/PlayPyramid.pdf. Toy Industry Association, Inc. (2007). Consumer perceptions of
Lampe, M., & Hinske, S., (2007). Integrating interactive learning experi- electronic toys. New York, NY: Author.
ences into augmented toy environments. Proceedings of Pervasive Vaucelle, C., & Jehan, T. (2002). Dolltalk: a computational toy to
Learning Workshop at Pervasive 2007 (pp. 1–9). Toronto, Canada. enhance children’s creativity. In CHI ’02 Extended Abstracts on
Levin, D. E., & Rosenquest, B. (2001). The increasing role of Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 776–777). New York,
electronic toys in the lives of infants and toddlers: Should we be NY: ACM Press.