Edward, Your mail said: <div style="margin-left: 40px;">> aspects of constructionist learning can be introduced early but for it to > flourish takes: > (a) time, quite a lot of (note alan's 3 year trial period) That is not the time required to introduce teachers to the concepts and basic methods. That is the time to design and refine new lesson plans, including field testing. > (b) expertise in software being used Much can be done with only moderate knowledge. Particularly if someone else programs the framework or the simulation needed. > (c) knowledge of taking classes through the stages mentioned above > (d) culture that accepts innovative approaches Field research contradicts these claims, showing rapid improvements in early weeks and months in the most conservative and hidebound education systems, as reported in Ethiopia. </div> I understood from this that you were saying Ethiopia showed rapid improvement in early weeks and months toward introducing constructionism.  If that is what readers understand from your mail, I don't believe that is accurate.  I also don't think it is productive to minimize the work and time needed to introduce these methods to cultures that have a radically different education system from ours.  Also, to the extent that you believe that western educational systems are welcoming to constructivist or constructionist approaches, that has not been my experience.  In my children's case we had to participate in founding a charter school to provide an environment where these ideas were welcome.  Right now "directed instruction" is highly touted in the U.S., especially in schools serving low income and at risk populations.  And there are a lot of peer reviewed academic studies backing up the use of this style, possibly because its outcomes are friendly to being measured by standardized tests with automated scoring, but also because some of what kids are in school to learn requires acquisition of a body of facts. Carol Lerche