I would agree with Andy about "byproduct". For me, it brings up the old saying "shit happens". (I would put in the stars, but my daughter keeps reminding me how stupid it is to beep the letters when every one knows what the word is).
I also think the term brings out various assumptions about "formal / informal" learning environments. I think one of the most important is non-formal learning environments just happen.
It is actually reproducing a lot of Piagetian reasoning about the physical environment in that it is somehow seperate from the physical environment.
I would also argue "byproduct" is what researchers or academics tend to see going into a physical intensive learning environment. An environment that negates years - often a careers worth - of teacher's and others labor. CHAT research at its best, at least for me, makes the physical envoronment socially explicit.
While it may be true that children are not "naturally" good at computers, I think its not such a bad way to learn them. Integrating them in a way that they become a "natural" extension of the practice they are in. So, I think both are true, they do and they don't learn computers naturally.
On a related point I was recently watching an interesting show on IQ. One that followed people across time (decades) and age groups plus several other factors. What was interesting was the spatial category, while consistant for decades, has made a big jump in the last two. This was mainly attributed to video games and computers. So, in a round about way one could say it is part of ones nature :)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 01 2003 - 01:00:11 PST