Confirmation-bias happens to even the best, plus, during most of her career, the term confirmation-bias hadn’t even been coined. We can recall that even scientists, researchers and whomever with awareness of C-B who do their best to prevent it, their research results are still affected by it. 

Now, if Margaret had been ‘had’ on a physical level, I totally understand. Good for her.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_biashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Mead

Prof. Mead may have been tricked by the natives she studied. This might be embarrassing to her, but it shouldn’t be. What subsequent academics learned as a result of discovering the trickery was, I reckon, much more valuable and useful than her original research. 

Margaret Mead took the initial plunge and we need to respect her for this, instead of nit-picking how she got stuff wrong. The same goes for Sigmund Freud. 

(timquinn – I started rambling and in the process I forgot why I was responding to your comment, which I liked.)

the point is not research into human learning but to see if giving the uneducated computers helps them to become literate and productive peoples or if giving them computers is a waste of time and money.

from the preliminary results listed it seems that they are indeed becoming literate and learning process skills.

Retepslluerb, I think that, by even James Kilpatrick’s method of reckoning (I miss his grammar column sooo much), I think we need to accept, that, even if we don’t like it, the meaning of this word has changed. We still don’t have to like it though, but it’s a useful term for when we don’t need to be too precise.

I would use my grandmother’s cohort’s word to describe their learning method, but in this context it would be non-PC and wilfully obnoxious and provocative for me to use it. 

So, can we agree that they learned how to use the thing by Fuking-Around with it?  

Peppler’s argument was that the type of narrow “get them math and reading, then we’ll talk about arts or computer classes” instrumentalist thinking about education operates under a false assumption that traditional literacies are more fundamental or primary than other literacies (visual, digital, etc.), when that isn’t necessarily the case.

Then they upvoted the suggestion on StackOverflow about what to do with the laptops and fell over themselves laughing when Negroponte’s people were amazed.

I don’t want to belittle the kids’ work – deciphering such a machine and its logic is quite a task. But as long as they stay within the bounds of the interface, it’s not hacking. 

What blew me away when it happened was that before joining them he turned to me and asked rather excitedly, “Friends? Are these my friends?” 

Aside from relatives, he’d previously hadn’t had much contact with other kids, and certainly none his age and general height.

All the warm fuzzies were quickly washed away when some of the kids recognized he was an interloper and gave him the stink eye or shoved him out of the group. 

Kids are amazing, but they’re also asshats. 

Could someone define “hacking” in the context they’re using it?

Found the ‘settings’ tab.

“He said he would give us the “strange machines” if we assured him that we had never taught our children anything at all. Who is to say what kind of teachers we are?”

The Fourth R (1959) by George O. Smith
http://www.digilibraries.com/ebook/118993/The_Fourth_R/

Kids are smart

I remember taking my son to a museum when he was about 18 months old, and before he had started to going to child care. A school group with young children was going through at the same time. My son seemed to recognise the classic configuration: children sitting on the floor in a circle listening to a teacher. He ran over and made a place between two kids and joined in. This makes me wonder if group learning behaviour like that is instinctive behaviour in humans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmR3wIBJZbk

Oh right, there aren’t any poor people in the U.S., just lazy moochers who won’t take responsibility for their lives. My mistake.