Colloquium: Electronic Toys: Why should we be Concerned? A Response to Levin and Rosenquest’, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 3(1

Rosenquest (2001) suggested that early years educators should be concerned about the increasing use of electronic toys because of their perceived limitations in terms of fostering children’s imaginative and creative play. In this response, I propose that such a stance reflects a generalised ‘moral panic ’ that is often adopted in relation to electronic innovations and suggest tat there is a need to develop further research which examines carefully the impact of such technology on the communicative practices that are currently taking place in contemporary childhoods. In their recent article in Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, Levin & Rosenquest (2001) argue that early years educators should be concerned about the harmful effects of electronic toys and suggest that we ‘need to begin to develop strategies for stemming the tide as these toys flood homes and classrooms ’ (Levin & Rosenquest, 2001, p. 245). They present a series of arguments to support their case, arguments which focus on the supposed potential of electronic toys to create children who will become used to playthings which have pre-programmed responses and limited options, luring them away from more open-ended, non-electronic (and thus, they argue, more creative) toys. In this response to their article, written in the hope that it may contribute to a constructive dialogue on the issue, I wish to address a number of the points raised by Levin & Rosenquest (2001) and suggest that the article reflects a generalised ‘moral panic ’ (Cohen, 1987) that exists in relation to the highly technologised world in which many contemporary youn