The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Schools for thought: a science of learning in the classroom
Abstract
Schools for Thought provides a straightforward, general introduction to cognitive research and illustrates its importance for educational change. If we want to improve educational opportunities and outcomes for all children, we must start applying what we know about mental functioning-how children think, learn, and remember in our schools. We must apply cognitive science in the classroom. Schools for Thought provides a straightforward, general introduction to cognitive research and illustrates its importance for educational change. Using classroom examples, Bruer shows how applying cognitive research can dramatically improve students' transitions from lower-level rote skills to advanced proficiency in reading, writing, mathematics, and science. Cognitive research, he points out, is also beginning to suggest how we might better motivate students, design more effective tools for assessing them, and improve the training of teachers. He concludes with a chapter on how effective school reform demands that we expand our understanding of teaching and learning and that we think about education in new ways. Debates and discussions about the reform of American education suffer from a lack of appreciation of the complexity of learning and from a lack of understanding about the knowledge base that is available for the improvement of educational practice. Politicians, business leaders, and even many school superintendents, principals, and teachers think that educational problems can be solved by changing school management structures or by creating a market in educational services. Bruer argues that improvement depends instead on changing student-teacher interactions. It is these changes, guided by cognitive research, that will create more effective classroom environments. A Bradford Book
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A pedagogy of Multiliteracies Designing Social Futures
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (1996) · doi:10.4324/9780203979402-6 · Cited by 3,313
Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning?
Mayer, R. E. (2004) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.59.1.14 · Cited by 2,527
(2005) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203979402 · Cited by 1,749
Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model
Kiili, K. (2005) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.12.001 · Cited by 1,457
Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning?
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0021017 · Cited by 1,338
“…to other forms of instruction, then it might serve educators and students alike to spend time learning the procedures of discovery (Ausubel, 1964; Bielaczyc, Pirolli, & Brown, 1995; Bruer, 1993; Dewey, 1910; Karpov & Haywood, 1998; King, 1991; Kozulin, 1995; Kuhn, Black, Keselman, & Kaplan, 2000).”
BackgroundInfluential
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 1993-11-01
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 03
- Pages
- 31-1642-31-1642
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W2094622158
- Cited by
- 457
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Schools for thought: a science of learning in the classroom. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.31-1642
- The paper
- Schools for thought: a science of learning in the classroom. (1993). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.31-1642
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.