Such differing purposes therefore explain their very different viewpoints on learning mechanisms.

Piaget saw cognitive restructuring as occurring between equals in peer interactions. Adult authority was seen to hinder this process. By contrast, Vygotsky argued that ideal partners in learning are not equal but that this inequality is of expertise and understanding more than power. Vygotsky theory saw instruction (both formal and informal0 not only as being central to learning, but as the main vehicle for the cultural transmission of knowledge. Where Piaget looked for confrontation in learning, Vygotsky looked for dialogue. Learners, he argued need to work with a more skill and knowledgeable partner in joint problem solving within a zone of proximal development (namely the gap between learners unaided achievement and their potential achievement with the help of a skilled partner). Learning then aoccurs as learners internalize shared cognitive process by socially constructing meaning. The process of learning and teaching from this perspective has been powerfully described by Bruner as a forum or dialogues , a contant meeting of mainds whereby teacher and learner engage in the negotiation of shared meaning. The language of education he argued, if it is to be an invitation to reflection and culture creating, cannot be the so-called uncontaminated language of fact and objectivity. It must express a stance and counter -stance and in the process must leave a place for reflection.