Teacher Learning in a Community of Practice: A Case Study of ...
Teacher Learning in a Community of Practice: A Case Study of ... Teacher Learning in a Community of Practice: A Case Study of ...
The focus ofthe theory is on the components that are necessary to make a community function in the work environment, especially in what they term "the knowledge economy" (Wenger et aI, 2002:6). They argue that communities ofpractice are an effective way ofmanaging knowledge and explain the importance and necessity ofthis management ofknowledge in the modern rapidly changing global economy. Knowledge management needs to become more systematic and deliberate. Knowledge has a collective nature and involves every person contributing a perspective to a problem. A community ofpractice allows for the connection ofisolated pockets ofexpertise across an organisation The concept of 'cultivating' communities ofpractice is used by referring to the analogy ofa plant that does its own growing irrespective ofhow its germination had occurred. Just as it is not possible to pull the components (stem and leaves) ofa plant to make it grow faster, it is also not possible to force a community ofpractice to grow. They note however, that much can be done to encourage the healthy growth ofa community of practice. While some communities ofpractice grow spontaneously, others require careful seeding. It is important to value the learning that takes place in communities ofpractice, by making time and resources available for their work, encouraging participation and removing barriers (Wenger et al 2002). What follows is a list of some ofthe benefits ofcommunities ofpractice to its members as suggested by Wenger et al (more or less verbatim)(Wenger et al 2002: 16). They: Help with challenges Provide a forum for expanding skills and access to expertise Develop abilities to contribute to a team and keeping abreast ofthe field Develop confidence in approach to problems Provide a sense ofbelonging and enhances professional reputations Allow for more meaningful participation Allow for increased marketability and employability Develop a strong sense ofprofessional identity 99
A structural model ofa community ofpractice is proposed. It suggests that a community ofpractice is a combination ofthree fundamental elements, namely, a domain, a community and practice (Wenger et al2002). 3.3.3.1 Domain The concept domain is an extension ofwhat Wenger previously referred to as 'joint enterprise' (Wenger 1998). Domain refers to the core business or set ofissues or common ground that creates the identity ofthe community ofpractice. It is what inspires members to participate and contribute to the community ofpractice by guiding their learning and giving meaning to their actions. Members decide what is worth sharing and which activities to pursue. They become accountable to a body ofknowledge and to the development ofa practice. Members decide what matters. The domain therefore guides the way they organize their knowledge. "What creates ... common ground, the domain of a community is its raison d'etre" (Wenger et al 2002:31). 3.3.3.2 Community Here, Wenger's concept of 'mutual engagement' (Wenger 1998) is presented as the concept 'community'. It is described as creating the 'social fabric oflearning' (Wenger et al2002:28) and refers to regular interactions and valuable relations that are based on mutual respect and trust. Learning is a matter ofbelonging. Communities ofpractice can take on various sizes, but requires a 'critical mass' ofpeople (ibid.). Participation is voluntary. The success of a community ofpractice depends on the energy that the community generates and distributed internal leadership. Recognized experts help legitimise the community's existence but may not necessarily be the one's who bring the community together. Every community develops a unique atmosphere that could either be intense, or laid back, formal or informal and either hierarchical or democratic. The focus however is on collective inquiry (Wenger et al2002). 100
- Page 63 and 64: persons and is not considered solel
- Page 65 and 66: and offers insights into how learni
- Page 67 and 68: America. Goodson (1992) and Calderh
- Page 69 and 70: learned meaning and value for them
- Page 71 and 72: 'accommodation' and intimates that
- Page 73 and 74: staffroom and a 'pragmatic' teacher
- Page 75 and 76: Davisson (1984), Lumsden and Scott
- Page 77 and 78: directive in that it guides choices
- Page 79 and 80: economic discourse, the economics p
- Page 81 and 82: • Understand and promote the impo
- Page 83 and 84: 2.7 CONCLUSION This chapter began b
- Page 85 and 86: (Walford 2001; Anderson 1999). With
- Page 87 and 88: • It places value on the research
- Page 89 and 90: The main research question in this
- Page 91 and 92: Lave and Wenger emphasise the centr
- Page 93 and 94: 3.3.2 The Work ofWenger (1998): Com
- Page 95 and 96: agree with the way it takes place o
- Page 97 and 98: Figure 3.3: Refined intersection of
- Page 99 and 100: eflecting. The ability of a communi
- Page 101 and 102: object to something that in reality
- Page 103 and 104: practice is not just an aggregate o
- Page 105 and 106: system or institution and the influ
- Page 107 and 108: 3.3.2.4 Learning Practice has to be
- Page 109 and 110: new possibilities for meaning. Brok
- Page 111 and 112: These characteristics indicate that
- Page 113: engage with one another and acknowl
- Page 117 and 118: who were regarded as peripheral. A
- Page 119 and 120: Ideally I would have wanted teacher
- Page 121 and 122: they represent key ingredients in s
- Page 123 and 124: that the Wenger framework presents
- Page 125 and 126: more useful and effective than part
- Page 127 and 128: 3.6 CONCLUSION This chapter provide
- Page 129 and 130: • While my professional input int
- Page 131 and 132: • Cycle ofhypothesis and theory b
- Page 133 and 134: observer played themselves out. A c
- Page 135 and 136: organised events and linked communi
- Page 137 and 138: In keeping with ethnographic princi
- Page 139 and 140: In this qualitative study, my inter
- Page 141 and 142: collection. He questions whether co
- Page 143 and 144: physical context, the complex body
- Page 145 and 146: completed, final text: rather, they
- Page 147 and 148: the teacher over classroom events (
- Page 149: 'connoisseurship'. I realised that
- Page 152 and 153: In this study, the criteria for the
- Page 154 and 155: In Chapter One I described the sequ
- Page 156 and 157: tactic by indicating to research pa
- Page 158 and 159: On the occasions that I delivered b
- Page 160 and 161: "Confidentiality involves a clear u
- Page 163 and 164: were cordial and professional. The
A structural model <strong>of</strong>a community <strong>of</strong>practice is proposed. It suggests that a community<br />
<strong>of</strong>practice is a comb<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>of</strong>three fundamental elements, namely, a doma<strong>in</strong>, a<br />
community and practice (Wenger et al2002).<br />
3.3.3.1 Doma<strong>in</strong><br />
The concept doma<strong>in</strong> is an extension <strong>of</strong>what Wenger previously referred to as 'jo<strong>in</strong>t<br />
enterprise' (Wenger 1998). Doma<strong>in</strong> refers to the core bus<strong>in</strong>ess or set <strong>of</strong>issues or common<br />
ground that creates the identity <strong>of</strong>the community <strong>of</strong>practice. It is what <strong>in</strong>spires members<br />
to participate and contribute to the community <strong>of</strong>practice by guid<strong>in</strong>g their learn<strong>in</strong>g and<br />
giv<strong>in</strong>g mean<strong>in</strong>g to their actions. Members decide what is worth shar<strong>in</strong>g and which<br />
activities to pursue. They become accountable to a body <strong>of</strong>knowledge and to the<br />
development <strong>of</strong>a practice. Members decide what matters. The doma<strong>in</strong> therefore guides<br />
the way they organize their knowledge. "What creates ... common ground, the doma<strong>in</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
a community is its raison d'etre" (Wenger et al 2002:31).<br />
3.3.3.2 <strong>Community</strong><br />
Here, Wenger's concept <strong>of</strong> 'mutual engagement' (Wenger 1998) is presented as the<br />
concept 'community'. It is described as creat<strong>in</strong>g the 'social fabric <strong>of</strong>learn<strong>in</strong>g' (Wenger et<br />
al2002:28) and refers to regular <strong>in</strong>teractions and valuable relations that are based on<br />
mutual respect and trust. <strong>Learn<strong>in</strong>g</strong> is a matter <strong>of</strong>belong<strong>in</strong>g. Communities <strong>of</strong>practice can<br />
take on various sizes, but requires a 'critical mass' <strong>of</strong>people (ibid.). Participation is<br />
voluntary. The success <strong>of</strong> a community <strong>of</strong>practice depends on the energy that the<br />
community generates and distributed <strong>in</strong>ternal leadership. Recognized experts help<br />
legitimise the community's existence but may not necessarily be the one's who br<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
community together. Every community develops a unique atmosphere that could either<br />
be <strong>in</strong>tense, or laid back, formal or <strong>in</strong>formal and either hierarchical or democratic. The<br />
focus however is on collective <strong>in</strong>quiry (Wenger et al2002).<br />
100
Change language