Communities of Practice

I had previously learned about communities of practice (CoP) in the first year module ‘The Developing Professional – Working Together to Achieve Social Justice’.  I first of all thought I had a good understanding of CoP, but after reflecting on Sharon’s input, my 1CM1 assignment and some new reading – I realised that my ‘good understanding’ was from a very closed minded point of view.  I had only ever thought about CoP in relation to the 1CM1 module where professionals worked together to achieve a common goal.  I had never thought about it in relation to children being a CoP and when I did, I was really quite shocked I had never thought about it in that way before.  I have had the children work in CoP in the classroom before and fully understood that they were working together to achieve a common goal, I had just never realised that they were working in a CoP, so this was a nice realisation today.

I am glad my mind has now been opened in relation to CoP as I can now see how a CoP can be applied to many situations.  For example: I am in a CoP with my ICT group as we work together to complete tasks.

Communities of practice are simply “groups of people who share a concern or passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” Wenger, E (2006).  According to Wenger, a CoP begins at the domain (see appendix 1) where mutual engagement is involved by members of the group in a shared task.  They are individually, and collaboratively, focused on the task to which a high level of commitment is required of each member.  In order to make effective collaborative working, it is critical that each member of the group is open minded, a competent social communicator and a good listener in order to avoid the barriers that can delay effective collaborative working (see appendix 2).

The second stage to form a CoP is the community (see appendix 3).  Here a common endeavour is present where members of the group learn from one another through sharing information to help each other during activities and discussions.  I have found this stage of Wenger’s process to be crucial during my experience of working in my ICT group.

The final stage in forming a CoP, according to Wenger, is the practice (see appendix 4).  Here the group has developed a shared repertoire which means they now have a very similar approach to their practice.  From working collaboratively in a CoP, a better result can be created in the end as all members of the group’s expertise can be taken into account.  Consequently, I am very glad to have worked in a CoP as it substantially enhanced our level of output in tasks.

Web projects are a fantastic way for collaborative working in a CoP to take place in the primary classroom.  “There is a general myth that if students use technology, they will spend too much time online and will fail to develop social skills outside of cyberspace.  This won’t happen with a web project!” Green T., Brown A., Robinson L. (2008, p.14).  Web projects lend themselves really well for collaborative learning as there will be a high level of engagement in the children therefore masses of interaction will take place allowing for an effective CoP to develop.

References

Wenger, E. (2006). Communities of Practice: a Brief Introduction. United States of America: Wenger, E.

Available: http://www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm  [Last Accessed: 23/02/10]

Scottish Executive (2006). Changing Lives: Report of the 21^st Century Social Work Review. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Publications.

Available: www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/02/02094408/16  [Last accessed 24/02/10].

Rawson (2003). Going inter-professional. London: Routledge.

Scottish Government (2008). Curriculum for Excellence: Principles for curriculum design. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

Available:http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/understandingthecurriculum/howisthecurriculumstructured/principles/index.asp  [Last accessed: 10.2.12]

Green T., Brown A., Robinson L. (2008). Making the most of the web in your classroom: A teachers guide to blogs, podcasts, wikis, pages, and sites. London: Corwin Press.

Appendices

Appendix 1:

“The domain: It has an identity defined by a shared domain of interest. Membership therefore implies a commitment to the domain, and therefore a shared competence that distinguishes members from other people.”  Wenger, E (ewenger.com).

For example: a group of engineers working on similar problems or a network of surgeons exploring novel techniques.  Wenger, E (2006).

Appendix 2:

Barriers to Effective Collaboration:

Poor communication skills and language difficulties

Conflicting power relationship

Ideological differences

Role confusions                               Rawson (2003).

Appendix 3:

“The community: In pursuing their interest in their domain, members engage in joint activities and discussions, help each other, and share information. They build relationships that enable them to learn from each other. A website in itself is not a community of practice. Having the same job or the same title does not make for a community of practice unless members interact and learn together.”  Wenger, E (2006).

For example: a group of accountants in an accounts department cannot be classed as a community of practice unless they collaborate one with another, rather than completing their individual required tasks only.

Appendix 4:

“The practice: A community of practice is not merely a community of interest--people who like certain kinds of movies, for instance. Members of a community of practice are practitioners. They develop a shared repertoire of resources: experiences, stories, tools, ways of addressing recurring problems—in short a shared practice. This takes time and sustained interaction.”  Wenger, E (2006).