There are a number of different ways that students learn in schools all over the country. Depending on the school one might visit, one could observe, widely, different kinds of learning taking place. What beliefs are driving student outcomes in schools? What learning theories reflect the kind of outcomes educators want from students? In this post, let’s examine learning in school as it relates to what K-12 professionals claim we want from our learners. 

In order to analyze student learning, let’s first examine common goals for students. Author Ron Ritchhart sought to synthesize ideas about learning on a global scale by interviewing stakeholders of education to understand why students are educated. The results of Ritchhart’s (2015) interviews focused on a series of attributes that stakeholders wanted students to embody upon completion of their education: 

…what emerges is a rich portrait of the student as an engaged and active thinker able to communicate, innovate, collaborate, and problem-solve. What we see as most important to develop is not a discrete collection of knowledge but rather a set of broad characteristics that motivate learning and lead to the generation of usable knowledge (p. 19).

Traverse City Area Public Schools (TCAPS) has created a portrait to describe what attributes their students should possess upon graduation. Their mission statement expresses their commitment to, “preparing every student with the knowledge and strategies needed for a lifetime of successful learning and responsible global citizenship through its rigorous and relevant K-12 curriculum” (Traverse City Area Public Schools, 2024). To support this mission, TCAPS highlights 9 attributes: problem solving, strong character, resilient, collaborator, critical and creative thinker, continuous learner, ethical global citizen, effective communicator, and adaptable. 

In order to elicit these qualities from our students, I argue that we leverage Sociocultural Theory (ST) and Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) in our learning opportunities. ST was coined by Lev Vygotsky and laid the foundations for the later emergence of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP). Vygotsky believed that learning was inherently social and that learning could be impacted by the learners’ surroundings and other people (Cherry, 2024). This recognition of the learner as an important part of their own social context supports building attributes such as collaboration, problem-solving, and effective communication between learners.

CRP was coined by Dr. Gloria Landson-Billings. She outlined three critical elements to a successful teacher for students facing adversity: academic achievement, cultural competence, and critical consciousness (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Where ST provided a foundation for scholars on the idea of the learner’s context, CRP provides deeper analysis of the learner’s cultural identity and their role(s) within systems of power. Just as Vygotsky valued the community of the learner, Ladson-Billings shows strength from educators who are expanding cultural competence. Through the exploration of the cultural background of learners and those around them, learners are given opportunities to think critically and creatively and allow them to take on the role of a global citizen.

Both theorists share the commonality of valuing context, but also the ability to leverage a more knowledgeable other who can guide learning. Vygotsky posited that learning occurred in the zone of proximal development, an “area” in which a learner can complete tasks with the assistance of another (Cherry, 2024). In CRP, there is an emphasis on a facilitator, a specific type of more knowledgeable other (MKO). This person may be highly trained in specific areas, but the learner and facilitator are each valued equally.

Using these beliefs about learning and aligned pedagogical and curricular choices, students become active learners. The emphasis on interaction and social and cultural context in the theories of ST and CRP allow educators to look beyond rote objectives and develop the attributes research suggests we value as the product of education, such as those from the TCAPS learner profile. 

References:
Cherry, K. (2024, July 12). What is sociocultural theory? Verywell Mind.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy(this link opens in a new window/tab). Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 159-165.
Ritchhart, R. (2015). Creating cultures of thinking : The 8 forces we must master to truly transform our schools. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Traverse City Area Public Schools. (2024). Mission statement. https://www.tcaps.net/programs/curriculum/

Traverse City Area Public Schools (TCAPS). (2024). Portrait of a graduate [Image]. TCAPS Compass. https://www.tcaps.net/programs/curriculum/