This article makes an argument for connectionism and its potential use in the classroom. Bereiter contrasts the classical belief of a rule based cognitive structure with the connectionist cognitive structure. Rule based structures use rules to explain outputs. These rules can be modified to obtain higher levels of thinking and eliciting of responses; however, the systems are based solely on input, rule interpretation, and output. There is a rationality in this way of thinking: however, it misses several important aspects of cognition. Bereiter presetns three ways in which rule based structures are inadequate.

1. Tasks that are easiest for humans to do--pattern recognition and associative memory retrieval cannot be explained by a rule based system.
2. Rule based cognition is too conveniently organized to be representative of nature where you have system upon system acting upon elements.
3. Rule based systems are "top-down" in the sense that people impose order on their observations, but the complex information from the environment is not well-accomodated.

Bereiter cites various research findings suggesting that the mind is not as neat and orderly as cognitive scientists once thought.

To better convey how connectionist models work, Bereiter uses a frisbee analogy. Imagine frisbees organized in sets of four and are connected to elastic bands and suspended within a room. By adjusting one elastic band the entire pattern of frisbees changes. After several trials the frisbees learn to adjust the bands to spell out the letter of the alphabet by reacting to the different tightenings and loosenings of the elastic bands. He does this to show how a connectionist network is able to learn something new without learning any rules--and then to be able to demonstrate this ability. Under a connectionionist system, you can learn a complex set of patterns within your mind. Humans have the ability to make connections about things using only partial pieces of information, not a full set of rules.

Bereiter's connecion model holds powerful implications for education. By fully developing his model he is able to show how emotions and creativity also are embedded among these connections. He does not ask that education not teach rules and rule systems in order to convey information. Instead he admits that these rule systems need to be in place in order to communicate about certain ideas. His argument is that the rules are not necessarily what need to be learned but the information/content itself in the personal connected cognitive structure of the individual learner. This piece has great validity in terms of its heuristic value. His collections of thought could definitely lead to other thoughts and effective programs that would be valuable for all learners.