Refutes Seymour Papert's premises because they: (1) maintain that computer criticism goes through developmental stages; (2) overlook the fact that the computer's newness in education affects the way people speak of computers; and (3) deny the necessity that teaching LOGO, like other pedagogies, should be accountable to experimental research. (PS)

Agrees with Seymour Papert that conventional experimentation has shortcomings when used to study effects of educational programs. Cites three research methods that, in combination, can compensate for the shortcomings of both conventional research and the computer criticism suggested by Papert. (PS)