A lot of problems here.  (1) &quot;This study shows that all kids can learn math when taught effectively&quot;.  Well, as the definition of &quot;teaching effectively&quot; is that students learn from it, this observation really isn&#x27;t all that startling.  We could do a similar study to prove that all children arrive at school when driven there. What would be startling would be if the same technique worked equally well with all students (and this one won&#x27;t). (2) Ah, it wouldn&#x27;t be a paper about educational techniquese without some Gladwelling (which I define as using a vastly over-simplified and facile interpretation of scientific findings in order to advance a puerile generalization).  Yes, research shows that connections in the brain are modified when learning.  It would be shocking if learning didn&#x27;t have an effect on the brain.  By FMRIs and other imaging is far,far too blunt to detail what is happening in any useful detail.  Taking a scientific finding that &quot;people seem to use these particular areas of the brain when learning&quot; as justification for an entire philosophy of pedagogy is absurd. And, for the umpteenth time --- multiplying two numbers is no more &quot;Mathematics&quot; than learning how to drive a screw is &quot;Mechanical Engineering&quot;.  And encouraging children to explore driving a screw with a hammer, a pair of pliers, their teeth, a teammate and then having them do a class presentation on their findings does not help them in their later careers as mechanics.  Far better to show them the most effective technique, let them practice it, and move on.  &quot;Exploration&quot; learning is only effective when applied to skills that already have mental infrastructure provided by evolution.  You learn your first language by exploration.  You learn to walk by exploration.  Riding bikes and mathematics were never evolutionarily selected for, so we have to learn them by, well, learning them.