Like many other young parents, I watch children’s software with a sense of both opportunity and trepidation. Studies show that video games may benefit cognitive functions [1], but, at the same time, violence can be disconcerting. Moreover, since children are spending increasingly more time on digital media creation, communication, and even building identities, the discussion on children’s interaction with computers is expanding.

Ito, a cultural anthropologist, observes that such software already has a decades-long history. Putting on a historian’s hat, she shows how digital products that target children have evolved since the 1970s, how these products interact with existing institutions, and, intriguingly, how children themselves appropriate them, often in ways that stand in direct contrast to the expectations of grownups.

The evolution of children’s software genres makes clear that, despite the intentions of the pioneers, the path their software eventually took was heavily influenced by the institutional and corporate frameworks in which they were adopted and produced. Simply put, they did not change schooling, but rather adapted to it, and they did not change the software and media industries, but rather became an integral part of them.

In the book’s conclusion, Ito notes that, if she were to place bets on the genre that has the potential to transform childhood learning, it would be construction--a position that will be close to the hearts of many computer scientists. Rebecca Mead points out, in a recent article [2], that the design of children’s playgrounds follows two different tacks: on the one hand, we have playgrounds with the four “S’s”--the swing, the sandbox, the seesaw, and the slide--and on the other hand, we have playgrounds where children are provided with materials, such as wood and metal, and various tools, with which they can do whatever they want. Construction software may be the digital equivalent of such imagination play spaces.

The book could benefit from better editing--the prose gets heavy sometimes, although readers accustomed to social studies may find the style familiar (I wondered at the number of times “contestation” appeared). While there are adequate references, there are only two endnotes for the whole book, which raises the question: Why are they there in the first place? The anthropological research related in the book took place in the late 1990s, but it somehow does not seem out of date. The book deserves to be read by a wider audience than just anxious parents.