In the last post, I made reference to the concept of “culture of learning,” in my discussion of the drop-out problem in America’s high schools. (note: America is not the only nation that has a poor track record of graduating students from secondary schools—its exists in many parts of the world.) Culture of learning has to do with the way and degree that teachers and students interact (or not interact) in a learning environment (in a classroom, a field trip to a rock outcrop, a visit to a science museum).

In many schools, the culture of learning that exists does not promote learning among a very large portion of the U.S. secondary school population. More than a third of students drop out. There are many reasons for this, and I do not want to support the idea that the only reason is the culture of school—students come to school with different family experiences, and attitudes toward learning, and these can impact anything that the school might do to mitigate against these students experiences. However….

It’s the however, that I want to write about here.

Schools can influence the kind of school that students enter in a variety of ways. One way is by changing the culture of learning that students will experience when they pass through the metal detectors. Once in the school, schools officials can influence the way students think about learning, themselves and their peers.

How can this be done? One way is size. Small is better in learning situations. We’ve known this for a long time. Students do better in smaller schools. More students can be leaders in small schools; students have a greater chance of knowing each other, and the faculty. They can become more involved in the content of their courses, because teachers can implement methods that favor inquiry, small group learning, and research. Graduation rates are higher in these kinds of situations.

Not all schools can become suddenly small. However, schools can create smaller communities of learning within larger schools. Schools can be divided up into smaller “units.” Classrooms can implement cooperative group learning, thereby influencing the landscape of learning. In either of these cases, we need to look to the influence of a Russian psychologist.

In my book, The Art of Teaching Science there is a discussion of the influence of the Russian psychologist, Lev Vygotsky on the culture of learning, in particular his impact on the use of language in learning. According to Vygotsky, all higher level learning took place on the “social plane.” For students to learn science in this way, teachers need to provide ample opportunities for students to talk science, read science, and write science.

Students who are in school cultures that emphasize “talking, reading and writing science” have a greater chance of changing many of their pre-conceived ideas about science, and developing science concepts than in schools that emphasize rote learning (lecture, note taking, and test taking—the common terrain of science classrooms).

One of the biggest problems encountered in trying to develop classroom practice that articulates talking, reading and writing, is the education of science teachers. It’s simply not enought to know science content. Teachers need to be experts of pedagogical content knowledge.

Changing the culture of learning in high schools can lead to more successful students (and teachers), and increase the graduation rate. Can it really be done? Are there any really good examples?