School classrooms: Communities of practice or ecologies of practices?

Mark Boylan

Sheffield Hallam University

Community of Practice Theory is an important and valuable framework to understand

situated learning. The claim is made that it is an "analytical viewpoint on learning"
(Lave and Wenger 1991). As a generalised theory of learning it is proposed that it is
applicable across many different situations including school contexts (Lave and
Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998).

In this paper I focus on the extent to which the theory applies to school classrooms by
considering school mathematics classrooms. Using an analytical frame drawn from
Community of Practice Theory, I consider the nature of participation, power,
enterprise, mutual engagement and sociality, shared repertoire, and identity in school
mathematics classrooms. I contend that the analytical frame of Community of Practice
Theory offers important insights for understanding the nature of classroom interaction
and learning. However, school mathematics classrooms, and by extension, school
classrooms generally are not usually communities of practice. They are better
understood as ecologies of practices within which there is a possibility of developing
some of the features found in communities of practice.

Community of Practice Theory and schooling

Community of Practice Theory (hereafter CoPT) is an important contribution to developing socio-

cultural perspectives on learning (Lave 1996; Lave and Wenger 1991, Wenger 1998). The theory
was developed by considering work based and other informal learning situations. Subsequently, it
has been an influential framework for understanding learning in a wide variety of such contexts:
including the development of professional and vocational communities and non-institutional
informal learning networks and also more generally in organisational and educational theory.
Although developed as an explanatory tool to understand learning, and explicitly not a pedagogical
approach (Lave and Wenger 1991), it has also been taken up as a guide to changing practice: if
learning takes place in communities of practices then it is a natural step to attempt to foster or
support the development of such communities.

In addition the theory has been influential in analysing learning in more formal contexts including
schooling. This is unsurprising given the fact that the claim made for the theory is that it is a
generalised theory of learning and does apply to formal educational settings (Lave 1996; Lave and
Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998).

However, as Lave and Wenger recognised, particular issues might arise in the application of the
theory to such settings (Lave and Wenger 1991). Whilst a number of researchers have applied the
analytical concepts of the theory to understanding individual classrooms as communities of
practice (see for example Boylan 2002; Goos et al 1999; Linehan and McCarthy 2001), more often
reference is made in passing to classrooms as communities of practice and there is a risk that
school classrooms are identified as and referred to as communities of practice in an unreflective
way.

1
In this paper I argue that CoPT does offer powerful analytical and research tools to understand
classroom interactions, learning and identity formation. However, hose who have used the theory
to understand such situations and value insights that flow from CoPT have done so with
reservations and found difficulties in transferring it directly to schooling (see for example Boylan
2004; Lemke 1997; Linehan and McCarthy 2000, 2001; Lerman 2000; Adler 1998). My central aim
here is to investigate the extent to which school classrooms are similar to and different from
communities of practice.

Here, I take the case of school mathematics classrooms and review both CoPT and research in
school mathematics contexts that offer insights into its applicability. Possibly because of Lave's
earlier work on situated cognition that focused on formal and informal mathematical practices (Lave
1988), CoPT has influenced the thinking of many mathematics educational researchers (see for
example Boaler 1997; Boaler and Greeno 2002; Boaler, Winbourne and Zevenbergen 2000;
Boylan 2001; 2004; Burton 2002; Goos, Galbraith and Renshaw 1999; Graven 2004; Winbourne
and Watson 1998; Watson 1998).

Whilst analytical concepts developed from CoPT are a valuable means to investigate patterns of
identity and participation school mathematics but application of these concepts also suggests that
school mathematics classrooms are not, normally, communities of practice. The theoretical
discussion presented here is based largely on a review of relevant literature but is also grounded in
an extensive empirical study of classroom practices reported elsewhere (Boylan 2004).

In discussing the applicability of the theory I believe it is helpful to distinguish between two aspects
of the theory. Firstly, learning as participation in communities of practice as a theory of learning
and identity, that represents a distinct philosophy, or as Lave and Wenger put it an “analytical
perspective” (1991, page 37).

We should emphasise, therefore, that legitimate peripheral participation is not itself an

educational form, much less a pedagogical strategy or a teaching technique. It is an
analytical viewpoint on learning, a way of understanding learning. We hope to make
clear as we proceed that learning through legitimate peripheral participation takes
place no matter which educational form provides a context for learning, or whether
there is any intentional educational form at all (Lave and Wenger 1991, page 40).

As such it is an epistemological and ontological account of the nature of knowing and being in the
world. Metaphorically, it is about the fabric our worlds are made of. Secondly, it is a sociological
description of the forms of participation and the nature of the groupings, the communities of
practice, that emerge through the reproduction and evolution of social practices. It is about what
patterns may emerge on the fabric (Boylan 2004). Here I am primarily concerned with
communities of practice as a description of the nature of participation and how classroom
communities are best characterised.

The theory outlined

CoPT was developed by considering a wide range of apprenticeship learning situations, from
traditional tailors through to participation in communities such as alcoholics anonymous. CoPT
asserts that learning is best understood as not only arising from, but crucially, as being
participation in social practices. These social practices are situated in particular contexts that are
socially and culturally legitimated by those that engage in and develop the particular practices: the
community of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991).

Learning is thus characterised as a process of changing participation, from initial peripheral

participation of the apprentice or, more generally, newcomer to the practices to the fuller
participation available to a 'master' or old timer in the practices. This process is referred to as

2
legitimate peripheral participation; a term that emphasises both that participation must be socially
warranted or legitimised by the existing practitioners and that, there is a trajectory of participation
of greater ability to engage in the practices. In his fuller description of a community of practice,
Etienne Wenger identifies three essential features: mutual engagement a joint enterprise, and a
shared repertoire (Wenger 1998).

A precondition for a community of practice is mutual or shared engagement in practices. Although

this mutual engagement does not require participants to be geographically located it does require
regular interaction. Such engagement extends beyond the core practices of the group to include
those that support engagement in these, for example practices related to community maintenance.
Members of a community of practice are engaged in a joint enterprise. A community's enterprise
may or may not be institutionally defined. However, where the enterprise is institutionally defined,
this is subject to local redefinition by “the participants in the very purpose of pursuing it. It is their
negotiated response to their situation” and so is local and situated (Wenger 1998, page 77).
Engaging in practice over a period of time develops a shared repertoire of practices,
understandings, routines, actions, and artefacts (Wenger 1998).

A further key aspect of CoPT is the way in which engagement in practice is linked to the creation
and maintenance of identity. Participation in communities of practice is not only about learning to
do, but as a part of doing, it is about learning to be (Lave and Wenger 1991); Lave and Wenger’s
theory supports a view of learning and education as an identity project. The term community is not
intended to convey necessarily and sense of collaboration or harmony not that the existence of the
community is recognised by the participants (Wenger 1998).

School mathematics

Socio-cultural perspectives on learning from a variety of theoretical standpoints have supported a

reconceptualisation of the nature of mathematical activity in classrooms. In the past it may have
been supposed that school mathematics classrooms were where children learnt part of a unified
and universal body of mathematical knowledge. However, there is a growing recognition amongst
mathematics educators that the practices of school mathematics are particular contextualised set
of practices that are related to but distinct from other mathematical practices, for example those
found in work contexts or those of professional mathematicians (Burton 2002; Ernest 1998).

The practices of 'usual school mathematics' (Boylan 2004) found in most classrooms, at least in
the UK and US have been described by many researchers and educators both in the UK (for
example Boaler 1997a, 2000; Boaler, Wiliam and Zevenbergen 2000, Boylan 2004, Ernest 1998)
and in the US (see for example Anderson 1997; Cobb et al 1992; Gregg 1995). The nature of
these practices, being pervasive and persistent, is likely to be familiar to readers of this paper from
their own experience of learning mathematics in schools.

The pedagogical practices that dominate are periods of teacher exposition or demonstration during
which interaction with pupils is generally in the form of either testing or 'funnelling' (Wood 1994)
closed questions. Teacher exposition generally focuses on closed questions or problems that are
similar to those found in summative assessments. Pupils then practice similar questions often
individually, with further explanation from the teacher. The mathematical practices that form the
curriculum content are externally determined through national or similar curricular which are
assessed through statutory assessment. These practices tend to be taught as discrete and
decontextualised units of information or algorithms to be followed. As such most school
mathematics teaching represents a 'transmission' orientation (Askew et al 1997).

Clearly, not all mathematics teaching and learning is like this. Both in the UK and US there have
long been alternative practices, for example emphasising pupil inquiry, open mathematical tasks,
pupil discussion, and social construction of knowledge. At times these alternative practices have

3
been institutionally legitimised for example, by the US reform movement. However, in spite of this
in most secondary school classrooms the practices of usual school mathematics continue in some
form or another. Clearly, the exact nature of practices found in particular settings requires a more
complex description than possible in this overview with many classrooms exhibiting features of
both the traditional transmission orientation and alternative practices. Similarly, pupil experience
and response to these practices varies dependent on the complex social positioning of pupils as
well as the practices themselves, but for many school mathematics is a negative experience
marked by disengagement and alienation (Boaler 2000, Nardi and Steward 2003).

Insights of Community of Practice Theory in school mathematics

Before turning to limitations with the theory it is important to recognise the many insights it offers in
the context of school mathematics. Firstly, it shifts the focus from teaching to learning and the
practices the learner engages in (Adler 1998). Secondly, it recharacterises the role of the teacher
as not primarily being a holder of knowledge but an expert in the practices of a subject based
community. The teacher exemplifies for the learner how to legitimately participate in these
practices. Thirdly, as a situated theory of learning it helps to explains the issue of a lack of
‘transfer’ of knowledge from school to non-school contexts (see Evans 2000; Lave 1988; Lerman
1999, for a discussion of this issue).

Fourthly, it recognises the intimate connection between the ‘subject’ practices and the pedagogical
practices and therefore helps us to understand why different pedagogies not only influence the
amount that is learned but also what is learned. The acquisition (Lave 1993) or representational
model (Seely, Brown and Duguid 1989) of learning in school contexts distinguishes between what
the students are to learn or to ‘acquire’, and the means by which this learning occurs. A division is
made between subject and pedagogy. Furthermore other activities that take place in the
classroom are seen as only tangentially relevant. These activities include: how people enter the
room; who speaks and when; how do they gain attention to speak and who chooses who will talk;
how are people addressed; how people sit; how are the various artefacts customarily present used;
what happens if the normal social practices are breached; and myriad other forms of practice. On
the acquisition model, such practices may influence the amount of, for example, mathematics
learnt but they do not influence what the mathematics is that is learnt. From a community of
practice perspective the pedagogical practices are intimately bound to the students' learning. Such
a view helps to explain qualitative differences in learning that occurs in, for example, open and
closed mathematics teaching practices (Boaler 1997).

Fifthly, it highlights the extent to which educators are not imparting knowledge nor even only
helping their students to engage in particular social practices but rather to become particular types
of human beings. Thus it opens avenues of inquiry to understand learners' patterns of
identification and non-identification with schools mathematics (see for example, Boaler 2000,
Boaler and Greeno 2002)

Thus, CoPT offers an analytical frame to understand the nature of interaction and learning in
school mathematics classrooms. Here I focus on the following connected themes: participation,
enterprise, nature of engagement and sociality; repertoire; and identity. These different themes
serve as a means to exemplify and explicate a core reason why a school mathematics classroom
is not generally a community of practice: the lack of agency in terms of mathematical and
pedagogical practices of pupils.

Participation in practice

The community of practice model, based on the metaphor or actuality of apprenticeship learning
identifies three basic positions that participants take up. These can be referred to in the following
way: master/old-timer/expert, journeyman/established-member/adept, and apprentice/

4
newcomer/novice. However, it is clear that the basic positions in a classroom are not like this,
there is generally a single teacher and a relatively large number of pupils. Moreover, the trajectory
of participation of the student is not to become a teacher (Adler 1998; Lemke 1997; Lerman 1998).

Central to coming to be a full member of a community of practice is the notion of peripheral

participation. Peripheral participation

… provides an approximation of full participation that gives exposure to actual

practice. It can be achieved in various ways, including lessened intensity,
lessened risk, special assistance, lessened cost of error, close supervision or
lessened production pressures…(Wenger 1998, page 100)

It might be thought that the way in which procedures in school mathematics are articulated as
fragments algorithms are examples of the 'close supervision' or 'special assistance' that Wenger
refers to above, however the essence of school mathematics is to participate in these practices.
They are not necessarily preparation for anything beyond them.

Moreover, many studies have shown that school mathematics is an arena of 'risk' for participants in
terms of anxiety, sense of self esteem, and personal and public shame (see for example Anderson
and Boylan 2000; Boylan, Lawton and Povey 2001; Boylan 2004; Boaler 1997; Boaler, Wiliam and
Brown 2000; Nardi and Steward 2003). A phenomenological study of participation found that a
crucial factor in enabling participation was security of identity (Ashworth 1997). If anything school
mathematics practices represent an area of heightened risk for many learners. This risk,
particularly in relation to sense of identity (Boaler and Greeno 2002) may act as a barrier to
participation.

In Lave and Wengers' early account of CoPT (Lave and Wenger 1991) a linear dimension is given
for the nature of participation of non-participation, peripheral participation and full participation. In
Wenger's later account (1998) this is expanded to include concepts such as marginality as leading
to a particular form of non participatin and a greater number of trajectories: a trajectory that
remains peripheral, inbound and outbound trajectories, insider trajectories and boundary
trajectories. These are potentially useful in exploring the complex positioning of pupils in
classrooms.

In particular, drawing on Wenger's discussion of marginality and Hodges description of

marginalisation from a community of practice (Hodges 1998), I propose the term 'marginal
participation' to describe the nature of participation for pupils in school mathematics (Boylan 2004).
Participation is marginal because the students are not involved in the production of the practices.
The term marginal portrays the pupils experience as 'outsiders' to the practices that underlie
descriptions of the alienation of many pupils from mathematics (Boaler 2000).

However, in Wenger's and Hodges discussion of marginality it is a possible position that may be
taken up or be imposed as a form of non-participation, I contend that the nature of school
mathematics practice means that all pupils are marginal participants.

Power

School classrooms are certainly like communities of practice in having asymmetrical relations of
power between participants. The power relationships in a classroom formally at least have binary
structure, teacher-pupil, which lacks the complexity of the different positions and trajectories within
classic communities of practice. This is not to say that in a school classroom the teacher has a
monopoly on power, matters are more complex then this in the moment to moment interactions in
classrooms (Boylan 2001; 2004, Linehan and McCarthy 2001). However, in a classroom, unless
adopting more democratic practices, the teacher's power over the students and the lack of a

5
trajectory for this to change, means that the situation is very different from communities of practice
in other contexts.

Unlike work based or informal communities of practice, in which participation is voluntary (leaving
aside the issue of economic necessity) participation in school mathematics as in other practices is
coerced (Lerman 1998). This coercion happens on many levels, from the compulsory nature of
schooling and curriculum to the day to day coercion to take part in classroom practices in particular
ways (to work individually, to put one's hand before answering etc). In any community of practice
there is arguably an aspect of pressure to conform to the practices of the community or risk having
the legitimacy to participate withdrawn either informally or formally.

A particularly important aspect of this coercion relates to the creation of the a class community in
the first place. Although in any communities of practice we can expect a sense of 'throwness'
(Heidegger 2000/1926), for the participants, the development of the community is generally organic
with people joining and leaving over time, and practice and participation having a history. The
grouping in a school class regime is created by an act of power over the student participants
through assessment processes.

Enterprises in school mathematics

In the community of practice model, the community develops around the existence of a joint
enterprise. As has been noted an obvious difficulty in applying the theory to classroom contexts is
that the enterprises of students and teacher are clearly different (Adler 1998; Lemke 1997; Lerman
1998). This is the case for both the formally constituted or recognised enterprises of students and
teachers and those that may be inferred from the manner in which students and teachers engage
in practices and reports they give of their motivations to engage with the practices in particular
ways.

The enterprise of the students is, ostensibly, to become proficient in the practices of school
mathematics. The enterprise of the teacher is for the pupils to become proficient in these practices.
There is clearly an overlap between these enterprises and they are not in opposition to each other.
However, the nature of these enterprises is clearly different from those that occur in the learning
environments upon which the community of practice model is based. In such contexts, the
enterprise of the community is extrinsic to the learning of new comers to the community. All
members of a community work together in enterprise and it is through this mutual engagement that
learning occurs as an emergent feature of practice.

If we look beyond the formally recognised enterprises of the community, we expect to find a
multiplicity of enterprises that are important in influencing patterns of participation: put simply
learning school mathematics is not necessarily the main concern of students in mathematics
classrooms (Lerman 2000). In accounts given by students in one study of teacher questioning
practices in a school mathematics classroom, learning mathematics was found to be relatively
unimportant as an enterprise governing participation in questioning interactions. Other enterprises
included various forms of identity projects related to students' self-perception and desire to be seen
in certain ways by teacher and other students, avoidance of emotional discomfort, and resistance
to the practices of school mathematics (Boylan 2004).

Mutual engagement and sociality

A Community of Practice necessitates mutual engagement in the practices. As Wenger makes

clear mutuality does not necessarily imply harmonious relationships (Wenger 1998), and so the
conflicts found in classrooms do not in themselves mean that mutual engagement does not exist.
In an obvious sense all participants in a school classroom are engaged in practices together.

6
However, what is lacking is the shared sense of belonging that might be expected in a community
of practice.

in the usual school mathematics classroom there is a lack of mutuality between teacher and
students' or between the students and each other. Although students spend a significant amount
of time together each week given the individual nature of school mathematics practices at least in
the UK, the level of interaction between pupils outside of immediate friendship groups can be low.
The type of informal social practices of collegiality and of mutual support are limited. Clearly this
will vary depending on the context. In small community schools, students knowledge of each other
may be greater as student are more likely to have experienced 'growing up together'. However, in
one large inner city 11-18 comprehensive, 14 year olds who had been taught together since
September, described in January how they did not even know the names of everyone in their
mathematics class and how this led to a lack of trust which was a barrier to participation in
classroom discussion (Boylan 2004).

The nature of assessment practices in school mathematics acts as an obstacle to mutual

engagement. In other communities of practice, the old timers or experts within the community may
also assess newcomers or novices competency and thus their right to continued legitimate
participation. However, this happens as part of engagement in joint enterprises and to ensure that
these enterprises are successful. In a school mathematics classroom this is a central to the role of
the teacher and to their membership of external communities and many of the practices that
teacher and students take part in are aimed at such assessment or ranking of students. Given the
close relationship between curriculum and assessment it is arguable that the type of mathematical
practices encountered in school classrooms are those that can be tested. Arguably, from a
structural perspective the purpose of usual school mathematics is to act as a key gatekeeper in
social reproduction. The practice of 'ranking' pervades school mathematics classrooms to the
extent that it is not only a question of the teacher contributing to the ranking of students but
importantly students ranking of each other (Boylan 2004). This acts as further barrier to mutual
engagement.

In a classic community of practice the learning relationship is 'triadic' (Lemke 1997). This triadic
relationship creates a complex web of interactions and engagement both between community
members positioned in of these three ways in the community and between members in different
positions. It is through these interactions that both participant and community learning and occur.
In usual school mathematics classrooms students primary learning relationship is only with the
teacher and they generally experience isolation and separation from each other rather than a
sense of shared or collaborative engagement (Boaler 1997; Boylan 2004).

I have focused here on the mutuality of engagement, however the extent to which pupils are really
engaged in school mathematics at all is questionable as one student in a study by Jo Boaler puts
succinctly:

…well actually as soon as the classroom starts you don’t really know anything, ‘cause
you’ve switched off. You walk in and you think, ‘Oh another boring lesson’ and you’re
off. As soon as you’ve walked out, you’ve forgotten about that lesson. (Year 11
student, quoted in Boaler 1997, page 34)

Shared repertoire

In any social grouping in which meaningful communication takes place we can expect, explicit or
tacit understanding of shared language and practices. The shared repertoire of a community of
practice is identified by Wenger as having two important features: a historical development and
local production of meaning. Engaging in practice over a period of time develops a shared
repertoire that:

7
 …includes routines, words, tools, ways of doing things, stories, gestures, symbols,
genres, action, or concepts that the community has produced or adopted in the course
of its existence, and which have become part of its practice. (Wenger 1998, page 83)

The purpose of school mathematics is to transmit a set of given school mathematical practices that
are established through legal and policy frameworks. The fact that most of the practices of the
practice of school mathematics have been generated externally, does not in itself distinguish it
from communities of practice as "it is not necessary that a repertoire be completely locally
produced" (Wenger 1998, page 126). However, "if there is hardly any local production of
negotiable resources, and if hardly any specific points of reference or artefacts are being created in
that context, then one would start to wonder whether there is really something that the people
involved in are doing together" (Wenger 1998, page 126). This is just such the case in usual
school mathematics.

Further, it is not just that the practices are imported that undermines the notion that they are truly a
shared repertoire. Stephen Lerman draws on Bernstein’s (1996) concept of pedagogic discourse
to point out the way in which the school mathematics is an ideological recontextualisation of other
mathematical practices and the way in which this acts against the creation of communities of
practice (Lerman 1998). Arguably the purpose of school mathematics in the curriculum is in some
ways to simply reproduce these practices. At least some of the mathematics is in the curriculum, I
believe, because it always has been. In any case the reproduction is ensured by a national regime
of assessment of students, teachers and schools. Further, there is, I believe, a dialectical
relationship between the curriculum and mathematical practices and the pedagogic practices. The
restricted and restrictive pedagogic and other social practices act as a filter for the mathematical
practices engaged in. If a particular set of mathematical practices does not appear to be possible
to compartmentalise or teach by exposition and practice then it is unlikely to appear in the
curriculum. Or it is recontexualised so it can be taught in such a way divorcing it from the way in
which mathematics is used in practice outside of schools (see Lave 1988 for examples).

In school mathematics students and to an extent the teacher acquiesce to a repertoire of

mathematics practices delivered to them rather than help to constitute them through a process of
negotiation and reification that is found in a community of practice (Wenger 1998). This does not
mean that a classroom community does not develop aspects of a shared repertoire. We do find
some of the features that Wenger suggests are defining features of a community of practice such
as: quick set up of dialogue as a process of on going conversation, shared jokes, knowing laughter,
jargon and shortcuts to communication (Wenger 1998, page 130-131). However, these tend to be
in relation to those practices related to the social maintenances of the community, not to what
might be taken to be the core enterprise of the community - school mathematical practices. Indeed,
arguably it is part of the teacher's function in such a pedagogy to ensure only the 'correct' terms
and 'best' methods are used and so learnt by the students.

Identity

The linking of practice and identity is one of the most powerful aspects of CoPT. Both in early
formulations (Lave and Wenger 1991) and later extensions of the theory (Wenger 1998) the
relationship between learning to do and learning to be is emphasised.

As has been noted participation and so identity formation is not an automatic or necessary feature
of being part of a social group. There exists a possibility of non-participation and dis-identification
(Hodges 1998). In school mathematics there is a growing body of literature that points to the way
in which different patterns of participation and the historical and social location of students means
that there students have multiple identificatory possibilities with school mathematics and as
learners of mathematics ( see for example Boaler 1997, Boaler 2000; Boaler and Greeno 2002;
Boylan 2004; Nardi and Steward 2003, Mendick 2002) In some of these accounts CoPT itself and

8
other social cultural perspectives, underpin explanation of the different ways that learners do or do
not adopt identities in relation to mathematical practices. Jo Boaler and James Greeno argue that
part of being successful at school mathematics requires identification with the teacher and with the
‘figured’ world of school mathematics (Boaler and Greeno 2000). Thus, in a community of practice
identity is seen as developing in and through relation to practice, in a school mathematics
classroom, there way in which the participant positions themselves in relation to the practices is
important in the development of identity.

In a secondary school mathematics context in the UK, even in the first year of school, pupils come
with already highly established identities related to mathematics. This involves a high level of
awareness of their rank in the classroom, both in terms of mathematics and other identity issues
(Boylan 2004). Thus the pupils are already positioned in relation to each other and the question of
'rank' pervades the practices of school mathematics (Boylan 2004). Whereas in informal learning
situations the trajectory of identity is towards being full participants, in school the key trajectories of
identity are not towards being a mathematician or even a school mathematician but towards
'success' or 'failure', to being 'good' or 'bad' at mathematics. Once these identities are established
they tend to be self reinforcing and determine the nature of the mathematical practices and the
pedagogical practices that are available to the learner through setting practices (Boaler, Wiliam
and Brown 2000).

Local communities of practice

It is not necessarily the case that school classrooms cannot be communities of practice. Indeed,
descriptions of alternative practices to usual school mathematics suggest that in situations where
practices are centred on collaborative learning and co-construction of understanding formations
similar to the community of practice model do arise and shared repertoires develop (see for
example, Angier and Povey 1999; Goos et al 1999; Cobb, Wood and Yackel 1992; Cobb and
Yackel 1998).

Moreover, even in classrooms embedded in the dominant forms of school mathematics, there are
situations in mathematics classrooms where, the enterprise of all participants appears to coincide,
the teacher and students engage in exploring mathematical problems together and in developing
mathematical knowledge. Peter Winbourne and Anne Watson identify the development of 'local
communities of mathematical practice':

Such communities may be local in terms of time as well as space: they are local in
terms of people’s lives; in terms of the normal practices of the school and classrooms;
in terms of the membership of the practice; they might ‘appear’ in a classroom only for
a lesson and much time might elapse before they are reconstituted (although it may be
possible to detect the subtle effects of the echo that remains after their passing in the
trace of learners’ trajectories or the development of other practices) (Winbourne and
Watson 1998, page 94/95).

They give examples of such local communities of practice and summarise the features that they
believe are necessary to constitute a local community of practice:

1. pupils see themselves as functioning mathematically and, for these pupils, it

makes sense for them to see their ‘being mathematical’ as an essential part of who
they are within the lesson;
2. through the activities and roles assumed there is a public recognition of developing
competence within the lesson;
3. learners see themselves as working purposefully together towards the
achievement of a common understanding;
4. there are shared ways of behaving, language, habits, values, and tool use;

9
 5. the lesson is essentially constituted by the active participation of the students and
teacher;
6. learners and teachers could, for a while, see themselves as engaged in the same
activity. (Winbourne and Watson 1998, page 103)

Their description of the nature of a local mathematical community of practice, based on empirical
observation in mathematics classrooms prefigures Wenger’s later detailed description of mutual
engagement, joint enterprise and shared repertoire that he proposes define a community of
practice. Such local communities of practice where sustained overtime can lead to learning taking
place in a way where participants are mutually engaged and school classrooms take on features of
communities of practice (see for example Angier and Povey 1999 for a description of such a
situation). Here the teacher acts more as a 'broker' (Wenger 1998), who, for example, supports
the development of local meanings and a shared repertoire but also introduced the community to
the accepted language and practices of the wider mathematics community.

Regimes of school mathematics practices and ecologies of practices

Community of Practice Theory has sufficient flexibility in its analytical constructs that it may be
possible to adapt it to 'fit' the situation in school mathematics classrooms and to explain the
apparent differences that I have described here. One possibility is to consider the individual
teacher as effectively an outsider to the class community and the class as community of practice
with an enterprise of learning 'to be school mathematics students'. The teacher can then be viewed
only as member of community of practice of maths teachers and as a particular type of 'boundary
agent' in relation to the class (Wenger 1998). Such a format useful to understand certain features
that take place with school classrooms in terms of relationships between students: some students
are good at being school students, others take the place of novice. However, here community of
practice is clearly being used as a metaphor or as an analytical frame that can be moved as view
point or area of focus or study shifts, rather than an ontological category. In seeking to develop a
generalised theory of learning, I believe that Lave and Wenger, having identified the centrality of
practice, are mistaken in supposing that communities of practice are the only form in which
learning in and through practice occurs.

Contu and Wilmott argue that situated learning theory should emphasise the idea of practice rather
than community:

Different sets of practices, located in different space-time contexts, are recognized to

generate different and competing conceptions of the degree of consensus, diversity,
or conflict amongst those who identify themselves, or are identified by others as
“communities.” Those who focus upon communities of practice (e.g. Wenger 1998),
in contrast, are inclined to locate “practices” or “behaviour” primarily in the context of
a unitary – and managerially more appealing – conception of “community” or indeed,
“organization”. This emphasis tends to inhibit consideration of the social location of
“community” and “organization” members with a wider set of institutional
relationships. (Contu and Wilmott 2003, page 287 original emphasis)

Contu and Wilmott are concerned with the need to recognise the importance of social difference
and the buying and selling of labour in workplace contexts. Yet the same criticism applies even
more forcefully in the ideological and compulsory education system.

I have argued that school mathematics classroom differ from communities of practice in important
respects. These differences are sufficiently significant to require an alternative means to describe
the type of formations found within school mathematics. I propose the term 'regimes of school
mathematics practices' (Boylan 2004). A regime of practices has the following features in school
mathematics (in distinction to a community of practice):

10
 • Coerced formation of the school group
• Coerced participation in practice
• A given set of practices that is not open to local negotiation
• A system with strong boundaries that is not responsive to other local systems and networks
• Practices which have a regulatory or disciplinary intent
• Separation and lack of mutuality within the community. Experience of separation and
individualisation.
• Disparate enterprises
• Toleration of practices rather than real engagement
• Marginal participation
• Fixed hierarchies and limited, regularised trajectories of participation
• Authoritarian relationships between participants
• Identities of rank rather than participation. Alienation.
• Relatively static; reproductive rather than productive

Jo Boaler and James Greeno (2002) use the term 'ecologies of participation' to describe the type of
practices that students' participate in and the students relationships to these practices (Boaler and
Greeno 2000). Their notion of ecologies of participation uses categories developed by Holland and
associates to discuss social systems in terms of figured worlds, positional identity and authoring
(Holland et al 1998). They contrast ecologies of participation that arise from teaching based on
discussion and ecologies based on didactic teaching (what I term here usual school mathematics)
and the consequences for identity and learning that flow from this.

Jay Lemke, in discussing Lave and Wenger’s theory proposes one way to reconceptualise the
process of learning and the social formations that arise from it and within which learning is
embedded by thinking in terms of ecosocial systems (Lemke 1997):

What is so special about ecosocial systems among all other possible ecosystems is not
that they contain us and our things, but that our behaviour within the system, and so
the overall dynamics of the system as a whole, depends not just on the principles that
govern the flow of matter and energy in all ecosystems, but also on what those flows
mean for us (Lemke 1997, page 40).

Understanding groups of people engaged in social practices as ecosocial systems allows insights
of systems and activity network theory to be applied to understanding learning situations. In
particular Lemke points to the way in which such insights suggest that whilst some learning
situations will correspond to the simple community of practice model many, particularly those in
schools, will not: "To understand these more complex cases, we need a model of networks of
linked or interdependent activities and CoPs [communities of practices] within a complex ecosocial
system" (Lemke 1997, page 43).

One way of reconceptualising or extending CoPT is to consider learning as taking place in

'ecologies of practices' (Boylan 2004) The term ecologies places the interaction of the particular
ecology focused on with the wider ecology of practices that it exists as part of and as distinct from.
It also points to the variety of types of social groupings that can emerge through participation in
practice. Community of practices can then be seen as one that is prevalent in certain situations
and where particular types of practices are engaged in. Wenger himself describes a particular type
of community of practice where learning is the enterprise of the community: a learning community
(Wenger 1998).

A richer description of the types of social groupings and forms of practice that occur in school
classrooms also helps to explain the way in which embryonic communities of practice can develop
around non-participation in the formal practices of the classroom. During research into the pupil

11
experience of changing social practices in one mathematics classroom, a complex set of practices
were observed that involved a group of pupils in the classroom. These practices centered around
the what was initially observed as 'banging' on desks, but through discussion with pupils involved
was found to be a relatively sophisticated set of practices which in the pupils terms involved
'drumming' or 'singing with hands'. Within this group of students a joint enterprise, mutual
engagement, shared enterprise and even a trajectory of participation from peripheral to full
participation could be identified (Boylan 2004). Wenger argues that non-participation important to
understanding trajectories of participation and identity and identifies a number of different features
of non-participation or purposes it can serve: compromise between individuals and the community
practices to serve their personal needs, as a strategy to assert an identity distinct from the
community, or as cover to avoid consequences of full engagement in the practices. Wenger's
account is echoed in the reasons the boys gave for their development of the practices of
'drumming', however what we find in this institutional situation is that this particular form of non-
participation is developed into an embryonic community of practice or an informal network in
opposition to the practices of school mathematics.

Essentially, I am arguing for widening the number of descriptions of types of ecologies of practices
that are found in learning situations. These descriptions include, local community of practices,
regimes of practices, learning communities and communities of practice. In the context of
schooling the term 'community of practice' is something for mathematics educators (and pupils) to
work towards developing rather than a description which really fits with what commonly exists and
in the main have to be created in opposition to the dominant regime of schooling.

Conclusion

School mathematics, of the form discussed here, is perhaps a worst case scenario for applying
CoPT. It may well be the case that other school subjects have pedagogical practices which mean
that they are more similar to communities of practice. However, these would be empirical questions.
If school mathematics classrooms are not communities of practices then the universal claims for
the theory as a theory of learning are challenged. Nevertheless, the concepts developed by Lave
and Wenger (1991) and developed later by Wenger (1998) may be used not only as a model to
enquire as to whether or not a social grouping is a community of practice but also if it is not a
community of practice into the nature of the social grouping that does exist.

References

Adler, Jill. (1998) "Lights and limits: Recontextualising Lave and Wenger to theorise knowledge of
teaching and of learning school mathematics." In Situated Cognition and the Learning of
Mathematics, ed. Anne Watson, 161-177. Oxford: Centre for Mathematics Education,
University of Oxford Department of Educational Studies.
Anderson, S.E. (1997) "Worldmath curriculum: Fighting eurocentrism in mathematics." In
Ethnomathematics: Challenging Eurocentrism in Mathematics Education, ed. Arthur Powell
and Marilyn Frankenstein, 291-306. New York: SUNY Press.
Angier, Corinne, and Hilary Povey. (1999) "One teacher and a class of school students: their
perception of the culture of their mathematics classroom and its construction." Educational
Review 51, no. 2: 147-160.
Ashworth, Peter. (1997) "The Meaning of Participation." Journal of Phenomenological Psychology
28, no. 1: 82-103.
Askew, Mike, Margeret Brown, Valerie Rhodes, David Johnson, and Dylan Wiliam. (1997)
Effective Teachers of Numeracy. London: Kings College.
Bernstein, Basil. (1996) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique.
London: Taylor Francis.
Boaler, Jo. (1997) Experiencing School Mathematics: Teaching Styles, Sex and Setting.
Buckingham: Open University.

12
Boaler, Jo. (2000) "Mathematics from another world: Traditional communities and the alienation of
learners." Journal of Mathematical Behaviour 18, no. 3: 379-397.
Boaler, Jo, Dylan Wiliam, and Margaret Brown. (2000) "Students' experiences of ability grouping -
disaffection, polarisation and the construction of failure." British Educational Journal 26, no.
5: 631-648.
Boaler, Jo, Dylan Wiliam, and Robyn Zervenbergen. (2000). "The construction of identity in
secondary mathematics education." A paper delivered at the Second Mathematics
Education and Society (MES2), Montechorro, Portugal, 192-202.
Boylan, Mark (2004) Questioning (in) school mathematics: Lifeworlds and ecologies of practice
PhD Thesis. Sheffield Hallam University
Boylan, Mark, Peter Lawton, and Hilary Povey. (2001). ""I'd be more likely to speak in class if...":
Some students ideas about increasing participation in whole class interactions. "." A paper
delivered at the 25th Conference of The International Group for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education (PME), Utrecht, Netherlands: 2, 201-208.
Boylan, Mark. (2002). "Teacher questioning in communities of political practice." A paper delivered
at The Third International Mathematics Education and Society Conference (MES3),
Helsingor, Denmark: 1, 182-191.
Burton Leone. (2002) "Recognising commonalities and reconciling differences in mathematics
education" Educational Studies in Mathematics 157-175
Burton, Leone, and Hilary Povey. (1999) "Learners as authors in the mathematics classroom." In
Learning Mathematics from Hierarchies to Networks, ed. Leone Burton, 232-245. London:
Falmer.
Cobb, Paul, and Erna Yackel. (1998) "A constructivist perspective on the culture of the
mathematics classroom." In The Culture of the Mathematics Classroom, ed. Falk Seeger,
Jorg Voigt, and Ute Waschescio, 158-190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cobb, Paul, Terry Wood, Erna Yackel, and Betsy McNeal. (1992) "Characteristics of classroom
mathematical traditions: an interactional analysis." American Educational Research Journal
29, no. 3: 573-604.
Ernest, Paul. (1998) "The culture of the mathematics classroom and the relations between
personal and public knowledge: An epistemological perspective." In The Culture of the
Mathematics Classroom, ed. Falk Seeger, Jorg Voigt, and Ute Waschescio, 245-268.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Evans, Jeff. (2000) Adults' Mathematical Thinking and Emotions: A Study of Numerate Practices.
London: Routledge Falmer.
Goos, Merilyn, Peter Galbraith, and Peter Renshaw. (1999) "Establishing a community of
practice." In Learning Mathematics from Hierarchies to Networks, ed. Leone Burton, 36-61.
London: Falmer.
Graven, Mellony (2004) "Investigating mathematics teacher learning within an in-service
community of practice: the centrality of confidence" Educational Studies in Mathematics 57:
177-211
Gregg, Jeff. (1995) "The tensions and contradictions of the school mathematics tradition." Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education 20, no. 5: 442-446.
Heidegger, Martin. (2000/1926) Being and Time. Translated by Macquarrie, John
Hodges, Dianne. (1998) "Participation as dis-identification with/in a community of practice." Mind,
Culture and Activity 5, no. 4: 272-290.
Holland, Dorothy, William Lachicotte, Debra Skinner, and Carole Cain. (1998) Identity and Agency
in Cultural Worlds. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press.
Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, Jean. (1988) Cognition in Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, Jean. (1996) "Teaching as learning." Mind, Culture and Activity 3, no. 3: 149-164.
Lemke, Jay. (1997) "Cognition, context, and learning: A social semiotic perspective." In Situated
Cognition: Social, Semiotic, and Psychological Perspectives, ed. David Kirshner and James
Whitson, 37-56. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

13
Lerman, Stephen. (1998) "Learning as social practice: An appreciative critique." In Situated
Cognition and the Learning of Mathematics, ed. Anne Watson, 33-42. Oxford: Centre for
Mathematics Education, University of Oxford Department of Educational Studies.
Lerman, Stephen. (1999) "Culturally situated knowledge and the problem of transfer in the
learning of mathematics." In Learning Mathematics: From Hierarchies to Networks, ed.
Leone Burton, 93-107. London: Falmer.
Linehan, Carol, and John McCarthy. (2000) "Positioning in practice: Understanding participation in
the social world." Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 30, no. 4: 435-453.
Linehan, Carol, and John McCarthy. (2001) "Reviewing the "community of practice" metaphor: An
analysis of control relations in a primary school classroom." Mind, Culture and Activity 8, no.
2: 129-147.
Nardi, Elena, and Susan Steward. (2003) "Is mathematics T.I.R.E.D? A profile of quiet disaffection
in the secondary mathematics classroom." British Educational Research Journal 29, no. 3:
345-367.
Seely Brown, J, and P. Duguid. (1991) Organisational learning and communities of practice: Toward a
unified view of working, learning and innovation. Accessed November 2000. Available from
http://www.parc.xerox.com/ops/members/brown/papers/orglearning.htm.
Watson, Anne, ed. (1998) Situated Cognition and the Learning of Mathematics. Oxford: Centre for
Mathematics Education Research, University of Oxford Department of Educational Studies.
Watson, Anne. (2003) "Uses of unison responses in mathematics classrooms." In Research in
Mathematics Education: Volume 4, ed. Jan Winter and Sue Pope, 35-49. London: British
Society for Research into Learning Mathematics.
Wenger, Etienne. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Winbourne, Peter, and Anne Watson. (1998a) "Participating in learning mathematics through
shared local practices in classrooms." In Situated Cognition and the Learning of
Mathematics, ed. Anne Watson, 93-104. Oxford: Centre for Mathematics Education,
University of Oxford Department of Educational Studies.

14