 Why Research Community of Practice?
Predicated on the belief that practices and meanings are only fully contextualized
within the context of their authentic use, many educators are looking towards
communities as learning environments. While Lave (1993, 1997; Lave
& Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) has brought the most focused attention
to the concept of communities of practice, this has been done through an
anthropological perspective, with an examination of practices in everyday
society. With respect to fostering the development of contexts for
learning in schools we are still in our infancy in terms of understanding
the potential of, and in terms of understanding what constitutes, a community.
Regardless, there have been numerous efforts to introduce the concept of
community into educational practice (Brown & Campione, 1990; Lipman,
1988; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1993, Roth, 1998). However, we
feel that continued research on learning occurring within the context of
a community of practice is necessary. It is with this goal in mind
that we are undertaking research on the COT program here at Indiana University.
Perspective on Learning. In adopting
a learning framework from which to explain the learning potential of participating
within a community of practice, we draw on the work of the anthropologist
Etienne Wenger. In Wenger's framework he proposes a social theory
of learning that integrates practice, meaning, identity, and community
as necessary components of learning and of knowing (see Figure 1).
Although each of these components is listed and can be discussed separately,
issues of identity, community, practice, and negotiated meanings all contribute
to context and, therefore, all reciprocally interact. This social
view of learning involves whole persons, and is a process of constructing
practice, meaning, and identity all in relation to a community of practice
(Barab & Duffy, in press; Lave, 1993, 1997; Lemke, 1997; Walkerdine,
1997; Wenger, 1998). This further suggests a reformulation of what
it means to known and learn, from a dualist representational theory separating
knowing from that which is known, to one that couples practice and meaning
within context, suggesting dialectic, opposed to dualistic, relations among
practice, meaning, and context. It is within the interaction that
practice, meaning, identity, and community emerge and evolve—all of which
interactively constitute context.
|
