1.  The current organisation of schools was developed for a pedagogy devised for Behaviourist Learning.


“IN ANCIENT times, teaching and learning were accomplished through apprenticeship: we taught our children how to speak, grow crops, craft cabinets, or tailor clothes by showing them how and by helping them do it. Apprenticeship was the vehicle for transmitting the knowledge required for expert practice in fields from painting and sculpting to medicine and law. It was the natural way to learn.” So begins the 1991 article by Collins, Brown and Holum in the winter edition of American Educator “ Cognitive Apprenticeship:  Making Thinking Visible”.


Formal schools are little more than 200 years old and were not designed to follow that “natural way to learn”.  Secondary schools in particular were designed to respond to a behaviorist concept of human learning. Schools were designed for direct instruction.  Much of the school curriculum was divorced from what most students and adults did in their lives and in the classroom little attention was paid to the solving of complex and real-life tasks. Too often the problem to be solved was a textbook example and used a narrow subset of skills.  Little attention was paid to the reasoning and strategies employed in order to acquire knowledge, the processes were often invisible to student and teacher alike. The goal and purpose of the learning was hidden. Behaviourism has been the intellectual basis for much that has happened in formal education and its influence can still be found.


Modern societies have seen it as advantageous to treat learning as something disconnected from the open experimental environment of the community.  Learning was a simple cause and effect proposition and external motivation was its driver.  Well-defined inputs through good instruction by professionals, in the isolated confines of the classroom, led to well-defined outputs. Achievement was easily defined and measured. It was all very straightforward.  Basic skills were mastered, largely in solitary study in generally uninterrupted work. Students concentrated on a single subject at a time. There was a lot of written work and a strongly analytical ability was the desired aim. This behaviourist model gave overwhelming primacy to controlling the learning environment, the dominance of the teacher, the school as the pre-eminent place of learning and the curriculum as the definition of the dominant set of values held by society.


So learning has come to be seen as something that is done to you by school and over which you have little or no control or influence.  Yet we know that humans are born to learn and do so naturally all the time and much of that learning is not confined to school days and classrooms. Indeed few turn their brains on when they enter the classroom and switch them off as they leave. It may well be the other way round. A behaviourist approach does not build upon the young person’s natural inclinations, their predispositions, their interests and curiosity. It does not go with the grain of the brain. Learning is an immensely complex business which stretches from the earliest time, throughout life and educationalists seek to simplify and codify it as a school activity at society’s peril. Many years ago Aldous Huxley warned of the “over-taught child”. John Abbott speaks of young people being “Over-schooled but under-educated”.


2.  Learning by asking questions. Long ago and in early childhood,


Before children set foot in school, we marvel at the amount of learning that has allowed them to understand their expanding environment. They have acquired the basis of language, physical dexterity, social understanding and emotional development that they will use all through their lives. They have taught themselves by gathering information and experience from the world around them.  They have learned by observing others and by asking questions. The curiosity of the young child is prodigious, if sometimes exhausting,


The Kellogg research project in Michigan found that the most significant predictor of success at 18 was the quantity and quality of dialogue in a child’s home before the age of 5 and the Salk Institute in San Diego writes “As we build networks and patterns of synaptic connections when we are very young, so we build the framework which will shape how we learn as we get older.” Both remind us that a child will see parents as role models and will want to learn to be like the adults around him or her. Humans have been learning and teaching each other for far more than 1,500 generations.  Learning is intricately connected to living.


Children gained their knowledge, skills and understanding by “being shown how”, by asking those questions and by taking on the tasks themselves in what we sometimes call “discovery learning”. Craftsmen taught as they worked. Apprentices watched and listened, practiced and learned as they worked alongside their parents or their master. Learning was practical, relevant and useful, a natural process which did go with the grain of the brain.


It is inquisitiveness that best defines what we humans are about. Curiosity drives brain growth and from childhood we embark upon a lifetime’s search to make sense of ourselves and the world around us. We learn best when we have an opportunity to work things out for ourselves, as Einstein understood when he expressed the fear that modern methods of instruction might “strangle the holy curiosity of enquiry, for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mainly in need of freedom.”  Through asking questions we construct knowledge.


3. An introduction to Constructivism and a Cognitive Apprenticeship Model that “goes with the grain of the brain”.


The most natural way to learn is by the progressive construction of knowledge and understanding and deepening of meaning.  Constructivism is a broad approach based on observation and scientific study about how humans learn, about what is going on in the brain.  Through experience and reflection on those experiences, humans actively construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world into a unique pattern. Each new fact, experience or understanding is built upon prior learning and is connected in a subjective way, a personal interpretation continually open to modification, as we make individual choices about what new ideas to accept and what to reject. We fit the selected ideas into our established view of the world.   Thus we are active creators of our own knowledge by asking questions, exploring and assessing what we know.


Recent findings emerging from research in neuroscience, cognitive science, biology and evolutionary studies have strengthened this view of learning. Rather than thinking of the brain as a computer, it is now seen as a flexible, self-adjusting, ever-changing organism that grows and reshapes itself to challenge and withers with lack of use. Constructivist learning is a dynamic interaction between the environment and the individual brain.


Students “learn by doing” in an active process. Essential to that process is context: the social, cultural, historical and political environment. Learning is a social activity and by its very nature it has to be open and continuous. A crucial element is dialogue in shared experiences, just as in apprenticeship. By drawing upon our past experiences to understand and evaluate new ideas we are able to shape future actions and formulate new concepts.


It was in the 1980s that the work of John Dewey and Lev Vigotsky were blended with Piaget’s work in developmental psychology into the theory of Constructivism, but the ideas expand on old beliefs. It was more than 2000 years ago a Chinese philosopher wrote  “Tell me and I forget, Show me and I remember, Let me do and I understand.”


Discovery learning does not mean that students can be left to discover for themselves nor that all learning must be acquired by “doing”, with no formal instruction. Both approaches are needed. Knowledge without reference to the student’s prior experiences may have little meaning and be soon forgotten but without appropriate information and skills, understanding cannot go far. It is in cognitive apprenticeship, a model of instruction that is accessible within the framework of the classroom, that the gap between the two approaches is bridged, the most effective way to deliver constructivist ideals.


It takes the traditional apprenticeship model in which the expert shows the apprentice how to do a task. First modeling, sharing his thinking with his apprentices. He then provides scaffolding, support and encouragement as the apprentices practice portions of the task for themselves. Then, as more and more responsibility is turned  over to the student, the expert fades in a gradual and sensitive removal of the support until the learner is proficient enough to accomplish the task independently.  All the time the master coaches.  He selects appropriate tasks to be tried, gives hints, guards against failure, evaluates and encourages the apprentices to evaluate for themselves, challenges, encourages dialogue, gives feedback, works on weaknesses and structures new tasks.


The whole task and the process of achieving it are visible from the beginning. The goal is known. Learners have access to expertise in use. They can sometimes watch several masters and appreciate that there is not only one way. They watch each other, understand the incremental stages and have real benchmarks against which to measure their progress.


Learning that leads to understanding and ultimately expertise in a field has traditionally been associated, not with the setting of the classroom, but with the integrated process of learning in apprenticeship. Today when learning for everyone matters, it is not surprising that since the 1980s cognitive scientists have studied apprenticeship extensively in looking to establish the brain’s natural learning strategies. A Cognitive Apprenticeship style of learning utilizes children’s natural learning predispositions.


The 21st Century Learning Initiative proposes such a constructivist, apprentice – based approach to learning which takes full account of recent research and understanding of expert practice. Skills and knowledge are integrated and the resulting cognitive strategies transferred to real-world problems in all their complexity. This is apprenticeship adapted for the classroom and schools. It is not the only way to learn but to achieve expert practice it is the method of choice. By critical observation of their teachers in such a model, students learn on their own most effectively. It is no longer enough for them to report what has been taught. A student has to demonstrate conceptual understanding to be successful.


This approach gives support to the youngest learners and to the adults who help them, so that as the child grows older it can take more control of its own learning. Such a model matches exactly the neuro-biological progression of the brain of the young child as it transforms itself into the adolescent brain. Adolescents, it seems, have evolved to be apprentice-like learners not pupils sitting at desks awaiting instruction.  More than delegation, this is a relationship of trust not control. We need to define a similar evolving relationship between teachers and maturing youngsters.


Humans have always leant through constantly facing challenges somewhat beyond what they think is within their reach.  This gap between what can be achieved alone and the full  potential for development is the real challenge for education and was identified by Vigotsky as the  “Zone of Proximal Development”. Cross it and understanding and motivation soars. Schools so easily “un-situate” learning, removing concepts from their natural contexts and applications. The way cognitive apprenticeship works reflects that it is most effective to learn collaboratively, on-the-job, working towards the solution of real problems.


4. A School organisation to make it work.


What does this mean for the organisation of schools? It means a culture that permits peers to learn through their interactions, to build stories about their shared experiences as they construct their knowledge. It builds functional skills through experimentation, explanation and story construction.  Collaborative discussion activates prior knowledge and facilitates the processing of new information. By observation and guided practice, students acquire meta-cognitive knowledge and self-regulate their learning. Students need to know how to learn and how to reconsider and think out their ideas, how to decide which ideas to believe and which to discard. These are the necessary techniques to become independent thinkers and true life-long learners, real preparation for life.


It means that in the earliest years at school when information is soaked up and basic skills are developed readily there needs to be close guidance and such ample teacher support that as children grow older they actually need less direct, formal instruction. These basic skills will inform all their future learning and in adolescence they will become independent of their teachers. Adolescence will be an opportunity rather than the problem to be solved. The motivation for life-long learning results from early educational experiences that help children develop their innate abilities to understand their own learning processes and subsequently use their skills to take responsibility for their own learning.


The last 20 years has seen a plethora of studies on the brain and how we learn and from the 21st Century Initiative’s synthesis of all this research emerge two key concepts. First, we have a natural talent for learning from direct experiences and secondly, the adolescent is a critical evolutionary adaptation, the brain passing through a period of structural reorganization that is every bit as critical as are the first few months of life.  Adolescence makes it essential for the young to push against the boundaries, to be independent, to seek challenge. It is this energy which drives human development and forces individuals in every generation to think beyond their own self-imposed limitations and to become more than clones of their parents.


John Abbott describes the current system of schooling as “Upside down and Inside Out”.  We increase expenditure on education year by year as the child becomes older and since the largest amount of expenditure is on teachers, classes tend to get progressively smaller with sixth form study in the smallest classes of all. So just when the drive towards independence is at its strongest in adolescence, schools go into control mode and create a damaging clash with the critical evolutionary adaptation of young people.  In a Cognitive Apprenticeship Model resources would be evenly distributed throughout the school years. Small classes and teacher support would be emphasised in the early years and as pupils need less formal instruction, resources would be focussed upon extensive, rich and stimulating learning environments. We have come to see learning and school as synonymous when reflection upon our own experiences would show us that that is not so.  The proposed model recognises the importance of community mentors and significant real-time commitment to projects outside school to extend natural learning capacities beyond what comes naturally, to bridge the “Zone of Proximal Development” which Vigotsky identified.


A cognitive apprenticeship model and the framework developed above gives teachers and students a questioning and thinking community. It helps point the way toward the redesign of schooling, so that students may learn more effectively and better acquire true expertise and robust problem-solving skills, as well as an improved ability to learn throughout life.


The sequence of learning is critical, when to move on, when to start again and when to adapt.  Only by understanding the whole task is that possible and then sub-tasks can get steadily more difficult and more diverse. This is education for the whole child and not the fragmented model of today.  We have fragmented learning into tightly defined curriculum areas. We have fragmented the learning process in a “one to fit all model”. Classes are organized by age groups, achievement is measured against stages and young people transfer from stage to stage, and school to school when they reach the predetermined age. Much interest is focused upon ”personalized learning” but if the full significance of such an aim is uncovered and we really wish to address the issue, we need to sweep away our preconceptions for school organization. A system turned upside down and inside out requires creativity and thinking outside the box in which education has been trapped for 200 years. It means a pedagogic revolution with students understanding their own thinking – thinking made visible.


5. A Pedagogic Revolution


What basic skills do our children need?

Children need the basic academic skills of literacy and numeracy. No one should minimise the importance of all children being able to read, write and do mathematics – they are the foundations upon which other learning is built and the corner stones of elementary education. To them today we need to add an understanding and facility with modern technology which opens up new horizons for pupils as they grow older and take increasing responsibility for their own learning. But the complex social, economic and philosophical needs of the dynamic modern world and of the challenge of the future require more than that.


To be a productive citizen and worker in the 21st century requires more than excelling in academic tests. The learning of skills, attitudes and values such as the ability to work with others, to be able to deal with constant distraction, to work at different levels across different disciplines and to be able to solve problems and make decisions, cannot simply be left to chance.


Children need to become progressively more able to answer the question “Who am I?” and to understand their own potential and role in society. They need to be creative and to develop as responsible, critical independent thinkers.  They need to understand the process and the goal of their learning. It was easy for the traditional apprentice to see the process and the goal. Apprenticeship tasks come from the real world and the reasons for practicing and honing skills and gaining expertise are obvious in the workshop.  In the classroom it is teachers who have to make the process clear, first to themselves and then to their students. That involves meta-cognition, understanding how learning works, making thinking visible and placing tasks in authentic contexts, making their relevance clear.


And finally young people need to be able to transfer these basic skills from task to task. In a workshop most skills are inherent to the task.  In the classroom they are more complex and multi variant.  So, teachers have to vary the context in which the skill or knowledge is presented and used, so that students apply their learning in novel situations.


What does this mean for the curriculum?

To put faith in a highly directive, prescriptive curriculum is so to go against “the grain of the brain” that it inhibits many of these basic skills – creativity, enterprise and curiosity, an understanding of who we are and an ability to see across boundaries – the very skills needed in the complex, diverse society that we need to prepare our children for.


Despite the light which has been cast upon the curriculum since Callaghan invited parents into the “secret garden of the curriculum” in 1976, numerous enquiries, a National Curriculum and subsequent attempts to make it less prescriptive, we still try to teach too much. As we have created space by limiting the traditional academic content of the curriculum so we have pushed in new demands. Creativity and communication skills are not subjects which need to appear on the timetable. They are skills to be developed across the curriculum. Recent attempts to slim down the school curriculum, (July 2007), are steps in the right direction but are still small steps. The Chief Executive of the QCA announced on July 13th this year, “The development of a customized or child-centred approach to teaching and learning is not some new-age obsession with making students feel good or a drift from a discipline-based curriculum. It is the internationally proven research-based strategy for improving learning and raising attainment at individual, school and national level”. In her reply the deputy general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers realized that the full significance of what such proposals really means is not yet understood by government. “The principles behind the revised curriculum are about much more than “catch up and stretch””, she said. A science teacher’s response was “we are going to be trying to manoeuvre lots of things into a smaller space and it can’t be done”.


That same teacher remembered the often-quoted comment “Primary schools teach children, secondary schools teach subjects”. “This focus on subjects isn’t helpful at all”.  Subject boxes, both those which have dominated education for 200 years and the proliferation of new subjects added in the last quarter century, fragment knowledge and have bred more and more narrow specialists unconcerned about where their specialism fits into the bigger synthesis. For those specialists to become experts who link things together, see round corners and are truly creative, the full range of skills discussed above need to be developed.  Experts continually reformulate problems at ever-higher levels as they uncover more of the nature of the issue. Our complex and troubled world needs experts and a curriculum to produce them will have to be less fragmented, more open and less interrupted by assessments of a narrow range of academic skills.


What does it all mean for styles of instruction and the relationship between teacher and pupil??

How might a teacher apply the ideas of cognitive apprenticeship in his or her classroom?

Cognitive apprenticeship is not a model of teaching that gives teachers a packaged formula for implementing the activities of modelling, scaffolding and fading, and coaching. Ultimately, it is up to the teacher to identify ways in which cognitive apprenticeship can work in his or her own domain of teaching, for their curriculum, in their school and for each child. Nor is it a relevant model for all aspects of teaching. It does not make sense to use it to teach the rules of conjugation in French or to teach the elements of the periodic table. But it is the way we learn most naturally. It characterized learning before there were schools, from learning one’s language to learning how to run an empire. Today there are very successful models and examples of how apprenticeship methods, in all their dimensions, can be applied to teaching the school curriculum.


Cognitive apprenticeship does not require that the teacher permanently assume the role of the “expert” – in fact the opposite will often happen.  Such an approach encourages the student to become the expert.  Teachers encourage students to explore questions which teachers cannot answer, to challenge solutions the “experts” have found – in short, to allow the role of “expert” and “student” to be transformed.”  At the end of the term it is fully engaged students who are most in need of a break not the teacher!


How will that affect the classroom and school design?

The child-centred, constructivist classroom is characterized by mutual respect between teacher and student. Decision-making is a shared responsibility.  Personal views can be exchanged and tested against the ideas of others as understanding is built.  All this is dependent upon the sociology of the learning environment, the people, the place, the discussions and the informal chat. Discussing different ways of doing things and working together, sharing solutions, enhances personal motivation and goal setting.


In a school which accepts the role of cognitive apprenticeship-style learning, where teachers encourage a less controlled style of learning, the very arrangement and central importance of the classroom reflects the philosophy.  The arrangement of tables and chairs is flexible and conducive to shared discussion. A variety of spaces of different sizes for discussion and quiet study are available outside the classroom. The library or resource centre is the focus of student learning, attractive, easily accessible and open to all at all times.  Lessons do not always confine all the students to the classroom.  Indeed learning environments outside school are part of the normal experience for all students.


What does this mean for teachers?

Apprenticeship –style learning is focused upon modeling, (making the task visible and the goal clear to all), providing scaffolding to support the student and then fading as more and more responsibility is transferred and throughout, coaching (discussion, encouragement, setting goals, identifying sub-goals and ever revising the student’s skills).    Beyond that students need to articulate their knowledge and reasoning, playing the role of critic as well as mentor for each other. They need to reflect as comparisons are made and ideas shared within the group and with the expert. But it is in the exploration of the boundaries as the students pushes forward into their “zone of proximal development” to explore for themselves, that the most rapid development occurs.


To incorporate these ideas into their lessons teachers need confidence and an understanding of their own learning and that of their pupils. They need a risk taking environment in which they feel trusted and time to plan and think and work together to decide what the approach means for them, the curriculum, their pupils and members of the local community.


Students bring a rich array of different backgrounds and ways of thinking to the classroom and their lessons – family myths, taboos, ideas from their peers, values from their community – a broad cultural mix.  Teachers need to understand the views which the students hold deeply if those beliefs are to be challenged. In the new pedagogy such ideas are respected, independent thinking and higher level thinking is encouraged, students are involved in dialogues which reinforce or change their point of view, hypotheses are challenged and tested and information organized so that relationships are clear.


Direct instruction is gradually giving way to a more cooperative approach, working towards a common goal. Teachers are “experts”, coaches and facilitators and sometimes get out of the way, letting students discover things for themselves. Though the teacher’s role changes it is no less important. They no longer try to pour knowledge into passive students like empty vessels waiting to be filled. Intellectual weaning needs courage and is risk taking but essential for human development. This is not about wresting power from the teacher, rather it is about shedding light on the learner as a powerful agent. Learning continues to require the support of the teacher who, with an understanding of the individual pupils level of cognitive development, can set the pace, revisit ideas, ensure that new information is associated with what the student already knows.  The motivation of the students is high if they have such freedom to think for themselves, responsibility for their own learning and want to solve the problems for themselves.

Today, required course content and externally applied assessment must be accommodated into lessons by the teacher and the inspired teacher does just that, using explorations, discussions, shared views, challenges, primary sources and raw data as the basis for inquiry. Teachers set up problems and monitor student exploration, guide inquiry and promote new patterns of thinking. They facilitate the constructivist cognitive apprenticeship process of learning, supporting and encouraging the students. We all want to feel that we are good enough, not always to be told what we are to do. Free-standing craftsmen have so much more dignity and sense of purpose than ever does a pupil always answerable to someone else.


Of course schools need to take students beyond apprenticeship-like learning to master skills which may seem boring or routine of little interest. Discovery learning alone is not enough. Such skills and knowledge may seem of little interest to the student if they do not understand that they are a means to an end. If the whole task is visible and understood, the goal known, the need to balance discovery and routine learning will be apparent and experience inside and outside school integrated.  “It is a bad teacher” said the German philosopher, Nietzsche, “whose pupils remain dependent upon him”. It was a poor apprentice who did not aim to be better than his master.


What about Staff Development?

A  new kind of pedagogy requires a new kind of professional development and teachers who do not expect to be told what to do. To suggest that teachers have to be instructed as to what to do at every twist and turn of the way is to deny them the opportunities of showing that they are thinking people, better able to work out what is in the best interest of an individual child than any book of agreed procedures or programmes of study could ever suggest. Teachers who learn from their peers, lead their peers and share their thoughts are most likely to encourage their students to do the same. Pupils and teachers are then both open to interactivity, collaboration, and creative opportunities.


To reach this stage teachers have to have time to think, independently and together, especially to think about the process of learning.  Only if their own thinking and learning is visible can they help their students to understand their learning. Reflective students come from classrooms and schools where teachers are reflective learners themselves.  All this means that the professional development of the teachers is crucial to the process. Planning-time together is a regular feature of many elementary school programmes of support for teachers. Such extensive collaborative planning is less common at the secondary level. Professional support does not just mean in-service discussions or lectures, or courses provided at great cost. The sharing of ideas can mean time spent in other schools, especially across the transitions, time spent out of school with practitioners of different kinds in the community, or with specialists and experts from different fields and professions.


What is the role for parents, family and Communities?

By continuing to emphasise the assumptions of the classical curriculum, and believe that education is pre-eminently an institutional activity, the process of schooling is exacerbating the difficulties which face young people and which contemporary societies experience with those young people. The human brain is driven to make sense of those things that matter to it by relating new ideas to old assumptions. So by its very nature constructing knowledge has to be open and continuous. Learning is not turned on and off.  It can happen anywhere and at any time. It is not confined to the classroom, indeed parents, family, communities and peers are at least as likely to give the stimulus for learning as are teachers – perhaps more so.


Have we squeezed out the opportunity for young people to learn from those around them as countless generations of our predecessors did most successfully?  Apprenticeship was community-based learning which integrated working and living. Adults inducted young people into taking ever more responsibility for their own activities. Learning works best in a real-world problem-solving context. Young people take new perspectives from all those around them which enables them to look at new problems from many different points of view.


“It takes a village to educate a child” – an African perspective.  Young people need a rich context, reflective of the real world, to allow the transfer of learning beyond the school. Students mirror the collaboration of real-world problem solving. They share a common language and experience with the community around them. As Tennyson said, each of us must admit “I am a part of all of whom I have met”. A classroom is not an isolated box. It is a part of a wider community which has cultural practices and social norms.


All that places some responsibility for the learning of young people fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the members of the community around them. Learning is too important to be left to schools. It includes real world knowledge and understanding seldom handled appropriately in the classroom. Instead of judging schools on a synoptic set of results to formal tests, “the public” might effectively examine the role they play in the upbringing and development of the child. Learning requires the involvement of the home, the school, and the whole community – all those outside school whose lives interact with each person. If we want a society of motivated life-long learners, we must find a better balance between the responsibilities of families, schools, and communities.  We are all role models. We all reveal our values and attitudes. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and complain and leave it to others to take the responsibility for the future citizens of our community.


6. Conclusions – lifelong learning


A model of learning and a new pedagogy such as that associated with the cognitive apprenticeship model is needed if we are to produce real life-long learners. With such a model as the organising principle of education the youngest children would receive an education that consistently seeks to give them progression of skills and attitudes which, as they grow older, would put them more in charge of their own learning and so return to them that deep seated urge to be really responsible for themselves.


Life-long learning is not an add-on. It can only develop if students understand how to learn, want to learn, are responsible for their own learning, working things out for themselves and learning collaboratively from all around them.  By 18 maybe a young person might need no more than 2 or 3 formal lessons a day with the rest of the time spent in intensive work directed by themselves. That would be real preparation for a lifetime of learning.


What we need is radical thinking to unify new findings about the nature of learning and evolutionary predispositions, in the early years and at adolescence, with experience and wisdom embodied in constructivism and cognitive apprenticeship. We have it within our power to construct models of learning which fit with the grain of the brain. We cannot ignore what is counter to our natural way of doing things. We owe it to the children to observe, listen, try out new things, hone our findings and open up collaborative dialogue across communities and schools to inform radical change as we rethink our education system and our pedagogy at a fundamental level. We need to move the agenda from schools and institutions to learners and learning.


John Abbott  – Adolescence – a Critical Evolutionary Adaptation –– Jan 2005


John Abbott –  Learning for the future, an address to Tameside –- Nov. 2005


Abbott and Ryan The Unfinished Revolution –– 2000


John Anderson – Cognitive Psychology and its Implications – 2000


J.L.Beneze – Constructivism – 2005 and Brain Based Learning– 2001


J and M. Brooks – A case for constructivist classrooms – 1995


John Seely Brown, Allan Collins and Ann Holum, 1991 for American Educator


Jerome Bruner – Acts of Meaning – HarvardUniversity Press 1990


From Classroom Compass – Constructing Knowledge in the Classroom 1994


Judith Conway –  Educational Technology’s effect on models of Instruction –– 1997.


John Dewey – How We think –1910 and  Democracy and Education – 1916


R.Shawn Edmundson – Dissertation – 2006


Maureen Epstein – Constructivism – a research paper – 2002


Fennimore and Tinzmann – What is a Thinking Curriculum? –1990


Jy Wana Daphne Lin Hsiao – Computer-Supported learning with links to Cognitive Apprenticeship and Metacognition – 2005


Barbara Jaworski–– Constructivism and Teaching: the Socio-cultural context – from University of Oxford Studies 1996


Michael J. Mahoney – What is Constructivism and Why is it growing? – Contemporary Psychology No. 49. 2004


Seymour Papert – Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas and his website..


David Perkins – What constructivism demands of the Learner – educational Technology No. 39


Jean Piaget – The Psychology of the Child –1972 and To Understand is to Invent – 1973


Scardamalia, Bereiter et Al – Interactive Learning Environments vol 2,


Dimitrios Thanasoulas – Constructivist Learning – (Greece) 2005


Lev Vygotsky – Mind in Society –1978 and The Vigotsky Reader – 1994


A web based workshop – Constructivism as a Paradigm for teaching and Learning – 2005


21st Century Web site – Google’s 4th most frequently used site on Cognitive Apprenticeship on.


Education Guardian, July 13th 2007