Hoadley asserts that one of the most
important concepts in social or situated learning theory is the notion of a
Community of Practice (CoP). CoP rely on situated theories of knowledge;
consisting of groups of informally bound people, who share an interest or
a passion, and who increase their knowledge in this area through discussion and
shared experiences. When working well, CoP create a body of shared
expertise and promote best practices in the area of interest.
I belong to a landscape of professional communities including Virtual
Learning Networks, Professional Learning Networks, and I am actively involved
in our Community of Learning. However, according to Wenger-Trayner (2011), three elements are
crucial in distinguishing a Community of Practice from other groups and
communities:
I believe the Google
Educator Group New Zealand (GEGNZ) undoubtedly meets these
requirements.
The Domain: GEGNZ is an independently run community of over 1700 New Zealand Educators who are invited to participate and collaborate with the intention to learn, share, inspire and empower each other; Changing the world of technology and education in New Zealand. GEGNZ members support each other’s learning in a variety of ways, but at its core, the group has emerged to provide a CoP where members can learn more about how technology can be best used within education to support student learning outcomes and increase engagement.
The Community: Members are located throughout the country and hold different roles within their schools, but all have a common interest in teaching and learning. As Bates (2014) has identified, CoP are not dependent on any particular medium, and GEGNZ members regularly meet and contribute online and kanohi kit e kanohi (face to face); joining discussions, sharing knowledge, contributing to meets and professional development opportunities that are held once a term and remotely through Google Hangouts. They regularly offer feedback and help each other, supported by the multiple platforms the group has developed to enable the group to explore and create ideas, build meaningful relationships and share materials, resources and expertise.
The Practice: GEGNZ members are actively engaged in the teaching profession, and have recently ranked at the top of the Google Educator Group Professional Development Leaderboard for the second concurrent year. They work together to develop a shared repertoire of resources: experiences, stories, tools, ways of addressing recurring problems as evident on their social networking sites (including the GEGNZ Google+ Group, and Google Apps NZ Primary Facebook Page). Formed in May 2014, this CoP has been developed over time with sustained interaction, supporting members to transform their classrooms, work through their Google Certified Educator Qualifications; become Google Certified Trainers (who provide Professional Development and Training services on Google for Education tools; and also consists of Google Certified Innovators (who are acknowledged as outstanding educators committed to the innovative use of technology to transform classrooms). Recently the community has also grown to include Reference Schools who have opted in to connect with other schools and educators interested in using Google products in their classrooms.
The Domain: GEGNZ is an independently run community of over 1700 New Zealand Educators who are invited to participate and collaborate with the intention to learn, share, inspire and empower each other; Changing the world of technology and education in New Zealand. GEGNZ members support each other’s learning in a variety of ways, but at its core, the group has emerged to provide a CoP where members can learn more about how technology can be best used within education to support student learning outcomes and increase engagement.
The Community: Members are located throughout the country and hold different roles within their schools, but all have a common interest in teaching and learning. As Bates (2014) has identified, CoP are not dependent on any particular medium, and GEGNZ members regularly meet and contribute online and kanohi kit e kanohi (face to face); joining discussions, sharing knowledge, contributing to meets and professional development opportunities that are held once a term and remotely through Google Hangouts. They regularly offer feedback and help each other, supported by the multiple platforms the group has developed to enable the group to explore and create ideas, build meaningful relationships and share materials, resources and expertise.
The Practice: GEGNZ members are actively engaged in the teaching profession, and have recently ranked at the top of the Google Educator Group Professional Development Leaderboard for the second concurrent year. They work together to develop a shared repertoire of resources: experiences, stories, tools, ways of addressing recurring problems as evident on their social networking sites (including the GEGNZ Google+ Group, and Google Apps NZ Primary Facebook Page). Formed in May 2014, this CoP has been developed over time with sustained interaction, supporting members to transform their classrooms, work through their Google Certified Educator Qualifications; become Google Certified Trainers (who provide Professional Development and Training services on Google for Education tools; and also consists of Google Certified Innovators (who are acknowledged as outstanding educators committed to the innovative use of technology to transform classrooms). Recently the community has also grown to include Reference Schools who have opted in to connect with other schools and educators interested in using Google products in their classrooms.
I joined this community in 2014 after attending
#EdChatNZ’s first conference. Being part of this group has transformed my
teaching practice and enabled me to build professional relationships with some
exceptional educators who I now consider it a privilege to call
colleagues. Their support and encouragement lead me to complete my Google
Certified Educator qualifications, conduct a research trial in partnership HP
and Cyclone Education into the potential impact of Digital Tools to support
students with Special Education Needs, be a part of the first Google Education
Group Student Summit, lead workshops at various GEGNZ events, and gave me the
confidence to move into my current role as the Director of eLearning at a large
Intermediate School. Involvement in this CoP has also enabled me to
support other teachers throughout the country, offering my skills, experience
and resources to support them in their professional endeavours. While my
school does not use the Google Apps Suite, instead having chosen to use
Office365, I continue to attend GEGNZ events and offer support via their online
network as often as possible, maintaining and progressing my professional
knowledge, and promoting the outstanding contribution this CoP makes to
education in New Zealand.
My experience is supported by Bates (2014) who notes that CoP can be very
effective in a digital world, especially as lifelong learning becomes
increasingly self-directed, through collaborative learning, sharing of
knowledge and experience, and crowd-sourcing new ideas and
development. The evolution of the Internet, the social media tools now
available, and the need for sharing of knowledge on a global scale, is driving
the development of virtual CoP – and I am thankful for this beyond words!
CoPs are not the solution to everything though, and they do not replace teams
and other professional networks. Each has its own place in the ecology of
the learning system, providing different types of social learning spaces that
open up new opportunities for developing learning capability (Wenger-Trayner, 2015).
Reflective Questions for Discussion:
Reflective Questions for Discussion:
- How have/could your Community of Practice evolve with technology?
- How might technology be used to support the continuation of your Community of Practice?
- With the rise of social networking groups, what level of participation in an online community constitutes legitimate membership of an online Community of Practice?
- Can you have a genuine Community of Practice if participation within the group is mandated or compulsory?
- Bates (2014) suggests that most Communities of Practice have no formal design and tend to be self-organising systems. He advises they have a natural life cycle, and come to an end when they no longer serve the needs of the community. How can you help sustain and improve the effectiveness of your Community of Practice to overcome this challenge?
Indeed, Ellie, you have forcefully justified, with evidence that you belong to a wonderful, productive and vibrant CoP. One of my queries is: can CoP be a 'formal' body too? According to Bates (you stated), 'they have a natural cycle'. I am still not sure why all these 'CoP' thinkers try to avoid 'formal' communities as valid CoP - just a thought!
ReplyDeleteI will be looking forward to read more blogs on this CoP issue.
Absolutely! Communities of Practice can be both formal or informal in nature. Wenger-Trayner (2015) acknowledge that while some self organised communities are very effective, most communities need some cultivation to be sure that the time members dedicate is of benefit. There are many occasions within CoPs where decisions need to be made, guidelines need to be implemented, strategic conversations need to be had etc at different times.
DeleteI do wonder however, and ask reflectively above, if participation in a CoP is mandated or compulsory (which is only really applicable in a formal CoP) - can you have a genuine CoP, and how effective would it be?
My thinking is that if participation is enforced, members' commitment to the domain is no longer optional, although it could still take place within a shared area of interest (for example education); and although members can engage with the community, I would question what is fueling their participation in this case, and what effect this has on the effectiveness of the CoP.
The more I consider the depth of your question, the more it enforces for me that those CoPs that I belong to that were started informally, and that I have chosen to participate in are much more effective on influencing my practice. I believe this relates to the desire to delve deeper into an area of practice that really interests me, and as such, I am much more invested in my own contributions, and also the contributions of others. This is certainly how GEGNZ started, however once a CoP has such a large following across so many different platforms, I would argue that it becomes too challenging to remain informal.
DeleteI think there is a huge amount that can be learnt from such communities and it would be really interesting to research and compare the effectiveness of those CoPs that started informally (and either continue to be, or have had to implement some more formal structures) to those that were started as a formal CoP - such as the MoE's Communities of Learning Initiative. I suspect that those which are quietly facilitated and optional, rather than strongly lead and compulsory, would be more effective in influencing practice.
Mandatory vs Voluntary - I am influenced heavily by observing the practice of leaders around me, their styles, approaches and philosophy around the idea of mandatory vs voluntary. They share a belief that leadership is responsive to the members of the group and leaders act as facilitators rather than dictators. Knox (2009) looks at cultivating a community of practice and states that "value is the key to the life of a community of practice as participation is voluntary - don't try to plant corn if the community wants cabbage" and goes on to say "communities thrive because they add value to their organisation". It suggests members are empowered by the belief that they are valuable contributors. I have witnessed both successful and unsuccessful CoPs, dependent on the facilitators ability to lead and drive the groups. However, under this regime, it has been a timely process. What does a mandatory CoP look like? Is there an opportunity to contribute in this formal setting? Can there be both formal and informal components? Can there be sub communities? Just a few thoughts to your discussion.
DeleteI believe that you can have both informal and formally mandated COPs. Surely it comes down to what happens within and how it grows? One would hope that those that have been formally mandated still hold meaning for those in them. Being active would depend upon how relevant they become to you as an individual and your practice.... do they inspire contribution? Are you motivated to contribute? is it relevant? Is it easy to access? Is it safe to contribute? If you don't feel connected to any of these maybe the COP will die or not grow as intended. That would happen whether mandated or informal.
ReplyDeleteIn this instance I do agree with Bates (2014) in that most self organizing COP have no formal design and come to an end. To be sustainable a "need" and relevance is required. When this is gone then the group will end... in a formal COP success or not would come down to how it is grown and how in touch it is with membership needs. Who is driving it? Etc
Ellie I feel your passion for GEGNZ... and it will continue to grow with people like yourself :)
Interest levels are surely higher when you join something optionally. In most cases you are not forced to enter into CoP's. However, there are expectations when relevant to your job. I would say I no longer enjoy being in the Exec for the History Assoc, but as part of my HOD position I need to be present to know what is going on and for my students to reap any rewards, as such. And I'm not entirely sure that rates as a CoP anyway.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was reading the articles I wondered whether I am less a teacher because my CoP's are somewhat limited. This is mainly because I am not a social 'beast'.
I'm half and half on the effectiveness of formal vs informal CoP's. If I'm understanding this correctly CoP's are all about shared interest, shared activities and shared resources. While it is easier and effective to work with those you choose, in whatever format (online or face to face), there is no reason that a formal, compulsory group cannot have the same working relationship. It may take longer when working with people you wouldn't necessarily choose to work with. One of the comments in the readings is about cultivation of the CoP, surely that can happen within a formal situation. Personally I would prefer the quiet, informal, and definitely optional sort, but I can see how effective the others could be. Possibly a concern in the more formal would be leadership and direction.
ReplyDeleteI have recently been a member of both a formal COP and an informal COP. The formal being in my previous school (just starting a new school now) and it came about due to the structure of the curriculum teams within our rural secondary school. This very much enhanced the COP in what would often be a disjointed group of teachers as we all teach the Technology curriculum, but from a diverse range of subjects. We worked very closely and even all undertook MindLab together. Now I am in a new school where this formal (HOD of technology) structure is not there, and the teachers of the diverse subjects are there own departments. Thankfully I have strong connections within the wider subject association, membership of which is voluntary and the interactions amongst members are more often informal.
DeleteI am interested in your question: Can you have a genuine Community of Practice if participation within the group is mandated or compulsory?
ReplyDeleteThis rings true for me at the moment as I am trying to get some momentum with a group of teachers who teach the same Junior (secondary school) Core class. Trying to get together for a start is proving difficult, with no time allocated within the school programme for a 'meeting'. But then if a meeting is 'called', it becomes less voluntary and more 'work' - just another meeting on the list to go to, rather than a meeting that people go to because of a shared domain and wanting to share ideas and practise. With little input from managers, it is really up the teachers to drive this community forward themselves. My challenge is to help bring these teachers together, without being seen as a 'leader' for the group. It needs to be mutual and a shared experience. It also, I believe, needs to be something that each teacher wants to do; therefore voluntary, in order to be most effective.
I guess the hardest part is starting the group, especially when not wanting a leadership role. Perhaps an invitation to a morning tea, lunch or even after school (we had a high tea to raise money for breast cancer) - on a voluntary basis. BDSC is fortunate to have a cafe attached to our food tech rooms where the hospitality students serve coffee, hot choc and food. This is a great place for these types of informal meetings (obviously with the agreement of the food tech staff). We also have an online social network which isn't really used, and I can't recall the name at the moment unfortunately, but like FB it would be useful for CoP groups.
DeleteIn relation to formal and informal CoPs, I have found that this sometimes comes down the teacher's perception of their role. I have had the pleasure of working with highly motivated people who are constantly looking for opportunities and ways to improve their practice but also those who are happy where they are and struggle to move out of their comfort zone. Trying to get these teachers to commit to extra meetings can be a huge challenge. Many times I've heard how involved our job is already without introducing more but surely if we do what we've always done, we will just keep getting the same result. Having formal CoPs may assist with this challenge but then do you get a high level of engagement if people are made to do it? I'm not sure what the answer is, just an observation. :)
DeleteI've been mulling over the voluntary aspects I've gone back to Knox. If there is a sense of shared purpose (joint-enterprise, Wagner) then a CoP will have more chance of success. Participants of a CoP must see value in the purpose. Voluntary CoPs will only have active participants who see value in the purpose, others just won't turn up. However any CoP will establish a way of working and while this is probably done democratically to maintain the engagement of participants the results will still feel as constraints to some individuals. Hopefully understanding the reasons for decisions will help them accept them. Now, sting in the tail. As teachers we voluntarily go to work at that place with those conditions. Some will be planning a change of employment but for the majority of teachers our schools as CoPs with their sub CoPs are the CoPs we volunteer to join. If enough teachers at the same school agree things could be done a better way they have just formed their own CoP and need to action their ideas.
DeleteKnox, B. (2009, December 4).Cultivating Communities of Practice: Making Them Grow.[video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhMPRZnRFkk
Wenger, E.(2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization,7(2), 225-246.
Snap Ellie! I was wondering the same thing about my CoP and the volunteer nature. Interesting point Kendra about the teaching situation. At school we often volunteer for a CoP as you said, to find a better way of doing things. The question I raised in my blog was, is it still a CoP if you volunteer for a group but the DP has the say over who joins the CoP or not? I am also wondering if other schools work the same when it comes to school CoPs? At your schools can anybody join a CoP such as a literacy group for those interested in ways to improve student literacy, or is it mandated how many teachers from each learning area the SLT are looking for?
Delete