Emulating Communities of Practice Online as Part of Teacher Professional Development: Successes, Pitfalls and Possibilities

Introduction In educational contexts, nurturing communities of practice (CoPs) as part of teacher development initiatives has been slower than in other trade and professional fields (Shlager & Fusco, 2003), but a growing literature in the area is representative of the phenomenons rising popularity. The use of online affordances to support and nurture CoPs has gained particular attention. Successes at emulating aspects of CoPs in teacher professional development (TPD) are evident, but institutions formal approaches continue to act as deterrents to the informal learning inherent in CoPs. This paper builds a case for the support of online CoPs in teacher education and suggests that limitations can be overcome by proposing an alternative to traditional course-centric models of teacher professional development. The Case for CoPs in Teacher Professional Development (TPD) Widespread educational reforms and advancements in internet-based technologies in the past few decades have forced educational institutions to rethink how they approach teacher education and professional development (Chalmers & Keown, 2006), but there has typically been a great disconnect between the support provided by institutions and the actual needs of teachers (Schlager and Fusco, 2003). Efforts focusing too heavily on traditional means of teacher education have often done little towards significantly improving classroom practices (Hawkes & Romiszowski, 2001; Feldman & Weiss, 2010). Schlager and Fusco (2003) argue that TPD consists of more than simple workshops, courses and in-service training sessions, but rather Professional development is viewed as a career-long, context-specific, continuous endeavor that is guided by standards, grounded in the teachers own work, focused on student learning, and tailored to the teachers stage of career development. (p. 205) Chalmers and Keown (2006) maintain that TPD should be a broader activity inexorably linked with lifelong learning in what they call the continuing intellectual development of a professional teacher (p. 143). Their convictions are based on the work of Bell and Gilbert (1996) who argue that effective TPD supports the development of individual teachers not only professionally, but also personally and socially. Newly constructed knowledge about what it means to be a teacher must be actuated through a process of teachers redefining themselves conceptually, emotionally, and socially within the profession as a whole. Feldman and Weiss (2010) attribute TPD failures to inadequacies in supporting this redefinition of self, as significant change in how one teaches can only come about as a result of some realization about oneself as a teacher, and the resulting changes in identity (p. 33). Thus, the personal and social dimensions of TPD play a crucial role and must not be ignored.

Building Communities of Practice

In a profession where individuals have a tendency to work in relative isolation and are typically protective of their work (Hawkes & Romiszowski, 2001; Schlager & Fusco, 2003; Sheehy, 2008), this paradigm shift becomes a challenge. Traditional forms of TPD (courses, workshops, seminars) may provide some arenas for social interaction, but instruction typically focuses heavily on the delivery of content and techniques, not allowing for the transformative learning processes to happen. Lave and Wengers (1991) theories of communities of practice have been seen by some as a panacea for the inefficacies apparent in conventional TPD (Sheehy, 2008). While finding interest in the notions of situated learning and apprenticeship, Lave and Wenger (1991) explored how people acquired knowledge and skills throughout their daily lives and found that individuals mastery of their profession occurred through participation in the sociocultural practices of a community (p. 29). Brown and Duguid (2000, p. 127) concluded that practice is an effective teacher and the community of practice an ideal learning environment (quoted in Schlager and Fusco, 2003, p. 203). Communities of practice (CoPs) can be defined as groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002, p. 4). Monaghan (2011) summarizes six characteristics of CoPs as they relate to employees in the workplace: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Self-forming and self-governing Members share a common interest or passion for a particular topic Members are involved in the creation of new knowledge Learning occurs in a real-time context Communities of practice can occur in any area of an individuals life A community of practice facilitates the development of shared meaning and identity formation for professionals (p. 430)

The last point elucidates nicely the element seen as pivotal to effective professional development and change, that of identity formation. Lave and Wenger (1991) saw learning and a sense of identity as inseparable aspects of the same phenomenon, and: Knowing [as] inherent in the growth and transformation of identities and [] located in the relations among practitioners, their practice, the artifacts of that practice, and the social organization and political economy of communities of practice. (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 122) Throughout their lives, adults accumulate various forms of educational, social and workrelated life experiences and knowledge (Stone, 2011). Thus, in an organization, much knowledge is distributed amongst its workforce. Through mediation, new insights, new ideas, and new artifacts emerge and transform the soft, tacit knowledge of individuals into the reified, explicit knowledge of the community (Hartnell-young, 2006; Fischer & Sugimoto, 2006; Wenger et al. 2002). Wenger (1998, cited in Hartnell-young, 2006, p. 464) saw this social production of meaning as the practice itself and the source of Pierre Bourgoin December, 2011

Building Communities of Practice

coherence of a community. The constant renegotiation of meaning and co-construction of knowledge through shared repertoire, mutual engagement, and joint enterprise form the communitys culture. These ideas are very much in tune with socio-constructivist views where learning is mediated through interaction and is inseparable from the socio-cultural context in which it happens (Clark, Dodds & Coll, 2008; Kop & Hill, 2008). According to their ways of engaging with the culture of a CoP, individuals experience different learning trajectories that shape their professional identities. Newcomers become enculturated in a CoP as they engage with its members and increasingly participate in its activities, a trajectory Lave and Wenger (1991) dubbed legitimate peripheral participation. When a community evolves, the legacies left behind by its elders and the attributes brought forth by its neophytes reshape its culture and allow for the formation of new identities. The development cycles that reproduce [] communities of practice, the relations of newcomers to those who are adept, and the way in which division of labor articulate different kinds of communities of practice in communities in the larger sense all shape the identities that may be constructed, and with them, knowledgeable, skillful activity. (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 70) Thus, CoPs endow organizations with a natural, self-perpetuating form of knowledge management and professional development. The field of education, however, has been slower off the mark at adopting the concept of CoPs within its frameworks (Schlager & Fusco, 2003; Wenger, 2000). But some institutions are catching on. The online environment is offering particularly attractive affordances and participation in online CoPs for academic and professional development purposes is on the rise (Karam & Majumder, 2010). Online Affordances While CoPs require time and space to operate in, professional development efforts must still meet the needs of individuals who lead busy, complex lives in ever more distributed working environments. Luckily, information and communication technologies (ICTs) have the power to transform traditional pedagogy by providing new affordances for convenient networking, communication, interaction and collaboration (Kwan, McNaught, Tsang, Wang & Li, 2011book; Laferrire, Tramblay, Allaire & Hamel, 2007; Szeto, 2011; Sivy & DiPietro, 2011). With the onset of the 21st Century, CoPs have now started to operate unimpeded from the limitations of time and space through Web-mediated learning environments to create virtual learning communities (Chalmers & Keown, 2006). The design of constructivist learning environments underpinning notions of CoPs (Hodgkinson-Williams, Slay & Siebrger, 2008) has often made use of an LMS (Learning Management System) such as Blackboard, Moodle... These online platforms provide educators with the software necessary to effectively manage courses while giving learners affordances conducive to community learning; e.g. synchronous chat, asynchronous messaging and discussion forums, collaborative wikis, blogging Successes

Pierre Bourgoin

December, 2011

Building Communities of Practice

Successful community building through an LMS is evidenced in the studies of WaltonenMoore, Stuart, Newton, Oswald and Varonis (2006) where teachers on a developmental course moved from being virtual strangers to a cohesive learning community over a sixweek period. They identified six stages of online community development by examining the general characteristics of postings on the LMS (WebCT) threaded discussion boards. In their specific cohort, members gradually gained trust and reliance for one another and sought professional cooperation to finally apply course content to their professional lives. They concluded that online threaded discussion forums lead to forms of talk which are conducive to the social construction of knowledge and to higher level thinking. Reporting on an ongoing study of in-service teachers supplementing their professional development through an online CoP, Chalmers & Keown (2006) present evidence that individuals professional, personal and social goals were being met and that their constructivist models were well suited to many forms of lifelong learning (p. 154). Hartnell-young (2006) also reported success on teachers using technology to broaden their CoPs across school boundaries and transfer constructivist approaches to learning within their own teaching. This supports observations that teachers who actively participate in CoPs are also more likely to use constructivist and collaborative instructional strategies in their classrooms (Shlager & Fusco, 2003, p. 206). In another study centered on teachers enrolled in an online professional development program through an LMS, Mackey and Evans (2011) identified three characteristics of CoPs evident in their cohort, namely: shared understandings and repertoire, sense of mutual engagement, and activities resembling joint enterprise (p. 7). However, their study also revealed that members motives for participation were pragmatic in nature as their contributions were driven by assessment and course completion requirements. Members focused on their own learning needs and were not looking for social engagement or sustained connections with others in the online environment (p. 8). Pitfalls A number of limitations make emulating CoPs under formal PD conditions a difficult endeavor. As seen in Mackey and Evans (2011) study above, the interaction viewed as central to the socio-constructivist forms of learning present in CoPs usually results in forms of forced participation in discussion forums. Gulati (2008) has been very critical of this in what he calls the Normalising influence of participatory requirements (p. 186). He contends that teacher-led activities and questions through the formal structuring and compulsory requirements typical of online courses make false assumptions about constructivism and limits the opportunities for democratic knowledge construction (p. 187). In contrast, CoPs invite different levels of participation and even see peripheral activities as essential dimensions in their existence (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002). It has also been argued that LMS-supported courses typically center too heavily on simply providing content (Blackall, 2005; Ozkan & McKenzie, 2008), thus further alienating professionals from their practice. In this course-centric model of teacher Pierre Bourgoin December, 2011

Building Communities of Practice

training, Schlager and Fusco (2003) maintain that training (and technology that supports a training model of learning) tends to pull professionals away from their practice, focusing on information about a practice rather than on how to put that knowledge into practice (p. 203). Conversely, in CoPs, the communitys domain is defined by the community and evolves with it as a result of the immediate issues and problems members face (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002). Professional development efforts also need to leverage the natural capacity of CoPs to self-sustain, reproduce and evolve (Schlager & Fusco, 2003). Formal online courses are inherently finite in nature and do not allow for the full specifications of CoPs to be realized (DeShryver, Mishra, Koehler & Francis, 2009). Once the course is over, so is the community... Constructivist approaches to learning require time as individuals gradually work through new meanings, reflect, share, discuss and debate within the setting of a gradual and progressively forming community (Chalmers & Keown, 2006). In a CoP, critical is the forming of deep relationships over time that help create members common history and shape their communal and differentiated identities (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002). Furthermore, the online infrastructure itself must allow for members of a CoP to build and manage their professional identity, find and collaborate with one another, and function in multiple roles (Schlager & Fusco, 2003, p. 213). Formal online course designs often support hierarchical divisions of labor with members occupying the static roles of students uncharacteristic of CoPs. Schlager and Fusco (2003) assert that popular LMS designs do not support the social structures that promote community learning processes (p. 213). This inadvertent resorting back to behaviorist-type pedagogies in the design of online learning environments (Gulati, 2008; Nunes & McPherson, 2007) may be accounted for by the level of formality typically believed necessary in TPD interventions. However, if formality acts as a deterrent for the type of informal learning so vehemently advocated for in CoPs (Laferrire et al., 2007; Sheehy, 2008), should these beliefs be maintained? Possibilities Despite the fact that the online tools in themselves do not constitute the actual CoP (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002), the online space in which participants interact remains central to the success of the community (Chalmers & Keown, 2006). Sivy and DiPietro (2011) observed an innovative stage in the evolution of internet-based learning commencing in 2008. Online education took a virtual turn where LMS technologies started being coupled with the use of social networking sites (SNSs) to enhance the development of community and capitalize on the benefits of social presence. Although the LMS itself contains many elements of SNSs (Caudill, 2011), fostering a sense of community there continues to prove difficult as the technology has mainly been developed to support formal teaching needs (Ebner, Schn, Taraghi, Drachsler, & Tsang, 2011; Karabulut, Braet, Lindstrom & Niederhauser, 2009). The true architecture of a CoP is far better reflected in the structure of SNSs than in that of the LMS a CoP is, in essence, a social network of individuals. Pierre Bourgoin December, 2011

Building Communities of Practice

The development of online CoPs through SNSs in vocational education provides a salient opportunity for the merging of formal and informal work-related learning practices (Karam & Majudmer, 2010). Teachers may be compelled to use the strong networking capabilities and community building affordances of SNSs (DeShryver et al., 2009; Ozkan & McKenzie, 2008; Yuen & Yuen, 2008) to maintain CoPs and determine their own professional development needs. It has been argued that, in vocational education, selfdetermined learning practices may provide solutions to hitherto failures in traditional professional development (Hase & Kenyon, 2000, 2003). But to meet formalities often characteristic of institutional performance management schemes, traditional assessment paradigms must also change. Hase and Kenyon (2003) have advocated that this be a negotiated matter where assessment becomes more of a learning experience rather than a means to measure attainment (2003, para. 12). Online social networking is also becoming associated with 21st Century literacies and the skills seen as essential for survival in todays rapidly changing world (McLoughlin, 2011). If TPD efforts are to truly address the need for lifelong learning, working with online social networks, or Web 2.0 applications (Caudill, 2011), becomes a must. Not to mention that teachers themselves are responsible for transferring literacy skills to generations of other learners and must therefore be adepts at learning in socially networked ways. Conclusion Institution-led support of online CoPs as part of TPD is a worthy venture. A certain level of formality may be an inescapable consequence of these incentives, but programs that better lend themselves to CoPs and better reflect adult teachers inclinations for selfdetermined learning could resolve some of the pitfalls evident in course-centric models of TPD. Allowing teachers to carve their own developmental paths through online social networking may provide solutions. This obviously makes strong assumptions about the self-determined readiness of learners (Chu & Tsai, 2009; Romero, Geleano & Molina, 2009), thus action research into the implementation of online social network-driven TPD would help in determining the effectiveness of, and necessary support measures for, such approaches.

Pierre Bourgoin

December, 2011

Building Communities of Practice

References Blackall, L. (2005). Digital literacy: How it affects teaching practices and networked learning futures. Retrieved on September 17, 2011, from knowledgetree.flexiblelearning.net.au/edition07/.../c_blackall.pdf Caudill, J. (2011). Media-rich Social Networks: Open Source Solutions to Media Creation. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp. 187-194). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved August 30, 2011, from http://www.editlib.org/p/36256 Chalmers, L. & Keown, P. (2006). Communities of practice and professional development. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 25(2), 139-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370500510793 Chu, R. J-C. & Tsai, C-C. (2009). Self-directed learning readiness, internet self-efficacy and preferences towards constructivist internet-based learning environments among higher-aged adults. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 489501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00324.x Clark, J., Dodd, D. & Coll, R.K. (2008). Border crossing and enculturation into higher education science and engineering learning communities. Research in Science & Technological Education, 26(3), 323-334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635140802276793 DeSchryver, M., Mishra, P., Koehleer, M. & Francis, A. (2009). Moodle vs. Facebook: Does using Facebook for Discussions in an Online Course Enhance Perceived Social Presence and Student Interaction? In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 329-336). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved August 30, 2011, from http://www.editlib.org/p/30612 Ebner, M., Schn, S., Taraghi, B., Drachsler, H. & Tsang, P. (2011). First steps towards an integrated personal learning environment at the university level. In R. Kwan, C. McNaught, P. Tsang, F.L.W. Kam & C. Li (Eds.), Enhancing Learning Through Technology (pp.22-36). Berlin: Springer. Feldman, A. & Weiss, T. (2010). Understanding change in teachers ways of being through collaborative action research: A cultural-historical activity theory analysis. Educational Action Research, 18(1), 29-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650790903484517 Fischer, G. & Sugimoto, M. (2006). Supporting self-directed learners and learning communities with sociotechnical environments. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1), 3164. World Scientific Publishing Pierre Bourgoin December, 2011

Building Communities of Practice

Company & Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education. Retrieved on August 29, 2001, from l3d.cs.colorado.edu/~gerhard/papers/final-RPTEL.pdf Gulati, S. (2008). Compulsory participation in online discussions: Is this constructivism or normalisation of learning? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(2), 183-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703290801950427 Hartnell-Young, E. (2006). Teachers roles and professional learning in communities of practice supported by technology in schools. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 461-480. Retrieved August 30, 2011, from http://www.editlib.org/p/5927 Hase, S. & Kenyon, C. (2000) From andragogy to heutagogy. UltiBASE Articles. Retrieved August 16, 2011, from http://ultibase.rmit.edu.au/Articles/dec00/hase2.htm Hase, S. & Kenyon, C. (2003). Heutagogy and developing capable people and capable workplaces: strategies for dealing with complexity. Proceedings of The Changing Face of Work and Learning conference, Alberta, 25-27 September, University of Alberta. Retrieved August 16, 2011, from www.wln.ualberta.ca/papers/pdf/17.pdf Hawkes, M. & Romiszowski, A. (2001). Examining the reflective outcomes of asynchronous computer-mediated communication on inservice teacher development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 285-308. Retrieved August 30, 2011, from http://www.editlib.org/p/8425 Hodgkinson-Williams, C., Slay, H. & Siebrger, I. (2008). Developing communities of practice within and outside higher education institutions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(3), 433442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00841.x Karabulut, A., Braet, D., Lindstrom, D. & Niederhauser, D. (2009). Student level of commitment and engagement with ning as a learning management system. In C. D. Maddux (Ed.), Research Highlights in Technology and Teacher Education 2009 (pp. 125-132). Chesapeake, USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Karam, A.M. & Dutt Majumder, H. (2010). Time: A Significant Opportunity Cost of Social Networking and Participating in Online Communities of Practice. In J. Sanchez & K. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2010 (pp. 2556-2561). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved on September 17, 2011, from http://www.editlib.org/p/35930

Pierre Bourgoin

December, 2011

Building Communities of Practice

Kop, R. & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3), 1-13. Retrieved September 2, 2011, from www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/523/1103 Kwan, R., McNaught, C., Tsang, P., Kam, F.L.W. & Li, C. (2011). Enhancing learning through technology. Berlin: Springer. Laferriere, T., Tremblay, M., Allaire, S. & Hamel, C. (2007). Networked learning communities online activity, pre-service education and professional development. In T. Bastiaens & S. Carliner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on ELearning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2007 (pp. 1021-1029). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved September 4, 2011, from http://www.editlib.org.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/p/26469 Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mackey, J. & Evans, T. (2011). Interconnecting Networks of Practice for Professional Learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 1-10. Retrieved August 30, 2011, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/873/1682 McLoughlin, C. (2011). What ICT-related skills and capabilities should be considered central to the definition of digital literacy? In T. Bastiaens & M. Ebner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2011 (pp. 471-475). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved on September 19, 2011, from http://www.editlib.org.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/p/37908 Monaghan, C. H. (2011). Communities of practice: A learning strategy for management education. Journal of Management Education, 35(3), 428453. Retrieved August 29, 2011, from http://jme.sagepub.com/content/35/3/428 Nunes, M.B. & McPherson, M. (2007). Why designers cannot be agnostic about pedagogy: The influence of constructivist thinking in design of e-learning for HE. In L.C. Jain, R.A. Tedman & D.K. Tedman (Eds.), Evolution of teaching and learning paradigms in intelligent environments (pp. 7-30). Berlin: Springer. Ozkan, B. & McKenzie, B. (2008). Social networking tools for teacher education. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 2772-2776). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved on August 30, 2011, from http://www.editlib.org/p/27640

Pierre Bourgoin

December, 2011

Building Communities of Practice

10

Romero, D., Galeano, N. & Molina, A. (2009). Mechanisms for assessing and enhancing organisations readiness for collaboration in collaborative networks. International Journal of Production Research, 47(17), 4691-4710. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207540902847280 Schlager, M. S. & Fusco, J. (2003). Teacher professional development, technology, and communities of practice: Are we putting the cart before the horse? The Information Society, 19(3), 203-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01972240309464 Sheehy, G. (2008). The wiki as knowledge repository: Using a wiki in a community of practice to strengthen K-12 education. Tech Trends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 52(6), 55-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-008-0219-9 Sivy, M. & DiPietro, M. (2011). Transitioning to Virtual Teacher Professional Development: Intentionality in a Virtual World Environment. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp. 754-761). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved November 21, 2011, from http://www.editlib.org/p/36367. Stone, T. E. (2011). Knowledge management and the mega-university: Engagement of the adult learner in the Post-Gutenberg Academy. In J. Liebowitz & M. S. Frank (Eds.), Knowledge Management and E-Learning (pp. 11-24). Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press. Szeto, E. (2001). Transforming learning and teaching in higher education: The impact of ICT on pedagogy, peer interaction and support in a networked virtual learning environment. The International Journal of Learning, 17(11), 205-214. Retrieved September 2, 2011, from http://repository.ied.edu.hk/dspace/handle/2260.2/11900 Waltonen-Moore, S., Stuart, D., Newton, E., Oswald, R. & Varonis, E. (2006). From virtual strangers to a cohesive online learning community: The evolution of online group development in a professional development course. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(2), 287-311. Retrieved August 30, 2011, from http://www.editlib.org/p/5686 Wenger, E. (2000). Supporting communities of practice: A survey of community-oriented technologies. Retrieved November 15, 2001, from http://www.ewenger.com/tech/ Wenger, E., McDermott, R. & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston: Harvard Business Press. Yuen, S.C.Y. & Yuen, P. (2008). Social networks in education. In C. Bonk et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2008 (pp. 1408-1412). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved August 30, 2011, from http://www.editlib.org/p/29829

Pierre Bourgoin

December, 2011