![\"Bank](\"http:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/teachinginadigitalage\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/29\/2014\/09\/Women-executives-2.jpg\")
<\/a> Figure 4.6.1\u00a0<\/a> Figure 4.6.1\u00a0Bank of America's Vital Voices program lin<\/a>ks women executives of small and medium sized enterprises from around the worldCommunities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly.<\/em><\/p>\n Wenger, 2015<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n\n The basic premise behind communities of practice is simple: we all learn in everyday life from the communities in which we find ourselves. Communities of practice are everywhere. Nearly everyone\u00a0belongs to some community of practice, whether it is through our\u00a0working colleagues or associates, our profession or trade, or our leisure interests, such as a book club. Wenger (2000<\/a>) argues that\u00a0a community of practice is different from a community of interest or a geographical community in that it involves a shared practice:\u00a0ways of doing things that are shared to some significant extent among members.<\/p>\n\n ...communities of practice affect performance..[This] is important in part because of their potential to overcome the inherent problems of a slow-moving traditional hierarchy in a fast-moving virtual economy. Communities also appear to be an effective way for organizations to handle unstructured problems and to share knowledge outside of the traditional structural\u00a0boundaries. In addition, the community concept is acknowledged to be a means of developing and maintaining long-term organizational memory.<\/em><\/p>\n Brown and Duguid (2000<\/a>) describe a community of practice developed around\u00a0the Xerox customer service representatives who repaired the machines in the field. The Xerox reps began exchanging tips and tricks over informal meetings at\u00a0breakfast or lunch and eventually Xerox saw the value of these interactions and created the Eureka project to allow these interactions to be shared across the global network of representatives. The Eureka database has been estimated to have saved the corporation $100 million.\u00a0Companies such as Google and Apple\u00a0are encouraging communities of practice through the sharing of knowledge across their many specialist staff.<\/p>\n\n Technology provides a wide range of tools that can support communities of practice, as indicated by\u00a0Wenger (2014<\/a>) in the diagram below:<\/p>\n\n\n[caption id=\"attachment_28\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"755\"] Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002<\/a>) have identified seven key design principles for creating effective and self-sustaining communities of practice, related specifically to the management of the community, although\u00a0the ultimate success of a community of practice\u00a0will be determined by the activities of the\u00a0members of the community themselves. Designers of a community of practice need to:<\/p>\n\n Subsequent research has identified a number of critical factors that influence the effectiveness of\u00a0participants in\u00a0communities of practice, These include being:<\/p>\n\n EDUCAUSE has developed a\u00a0step-by-step guide<\/a> for designing and\u00a0cultivating communities of practice in higher education (Cambridge, Kaplan and Suter, 2005<\/a>).<\/p>\nLastly, research on other related sectors, such as collaborative learning or MOOCs, can inform the design and development of communities of practice. For instance, communities of practice need to balance between structure and chaos: too much structure and many participants are likely to feel constrained in what they need to discuss; too little structure and participants can quickly lose interest or become overwhelmed.\n\nMany of the other findings about group and online behaviour, such as the need to respect others, observing online etiquette, and preventing certain individuals from dominating the discussion, are all likely to apply. However, because many communities of practice are by definition self-regulating, establishing rules of conduct and even more so enforcing them\u00a0is really a responsibility of\u00a0the participants themselves.\n In conclusion, it\u00a0is clear is that in an increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous world,\u00a0and given\u00a0the openness of the Internet, the social media tools now available, and the need for sharing of knowledge on a global scale, virtual communities of practice will become even more common and important. Smart educators and trainers\u00a0will look to see how they can harness the strength of this design model, particularly for lifelong learning. However,\u00a0merely lumping together large numbers of people with a common interest is unlikely to lead to\u00a0effective learning.\u00a0\u00a0Attention needs to be paid to those design principles that lead to effective communities of practice.<\/p>\n\n <\/p>\n The design of teaching often integrates different theories of learning. Communities of practice are\u00a0one of the ways in which experiential learning, social constructivism, and connectivism can be\u00a0combined, illustrating the limitations of trying to rigidly classify learning theories. Practice tends to be more complex.<\/p>\n Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly.<\/em><\/p>\n Wenger, 2015<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n The basic premise behind communities of practice is simple: we all learn in everyday life from the communities in which we find ourselves. Communities of practice are everywhere. Nearly everyone\u00a0belongs to some community of practice, whether it is through our\u00a0working colleagues or associates, our profession or trade, or our leisure interests, such as a book club. Wenger (2000<\/a>) argues that\u00a0a community of practice is different from a community of interest or a geographical community in that it involves a shared practice:\u00a0ways of doing things that are shared to some significant extent among members.<\/p>\n Wenger argues that there are three crucial characteristics of a community of practice:<\/p>\n Wenger (2000<\/a>) has argued that although individuals learn through participation in a community of practice, more important is the generation of newer or deeper levels of knowledge through the sum of the group activity. If the community of practice\u00a0is centered around business processes, for instance, this can be of considerable benefit to an organization. Smith (2003) notes that:<\/p>\n …communities of practice affect performance..[This] is important in part because of their potential to overcome the inherent problems of a slow-moving traditional hierarchy in a fast-moving virtual economy. Communities also appear to be an effective way for organizations to handle unstructured problems and to share knowledge outside of the traditional structural\u00a0boundaries. In addition, the community concept is acknowledged to be a means of developing and maintaining long-term organizational memory.<\/em><\/p>\n Brown and Duguid (2000<\/a>) describe a community of practice developed around\u00a0the Xerox customer service representatives who repaired the machines in the field. The Xerox reps began exchanging tips and tricks over informal meetings at\u00a0breakfast or lunch and eventually Xerox saw the value of these interactions and created the Eureka project to allow these interactions to be shared across the global network of representatives. The Eureka database has been estimated to have saved the corporation $100 million.\u00a0Companies such as Google and Apple\u00a0are encouraging communities of practice through the sharing of knowledge across their many specialist staff.<\/p>\n Technology provides a wide range of tools that can support communities of practice, as indicated by\u00a0Wenger (2014<\/a>) in the diagram below:<\/p>\n Most communities of practice have no formal design and tend to be self-organising systems.\u00a0They have a natural life cycle, and come to an end when they no longer serve the needs of the community. However, there is now a body of theory and research that has identified actions that can help sustain and improve the effectiveness of communities of practice.<\/p>\n Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002<\/a>) have identified seven key design principles for creating effective and self-sustaining communities of practice, related specifically to the management of the community, although\u00a0the ultimate success of a community of practice\u00a0will be determined by the activities of the\u00a0members of the community themselves. Designers of a community of practice need to:<\/p>\n Subsequent research has identified a number of critical factors that influence the effectiveness of\u00a0participants in\u00a0communities of practice, These include being:<\/p>\n EDUCAUSE has developed a\u00a0step-by-step guide<\/a> for designing and\u00a0cultivating communities of practice in higher education (Cambridge, Kaplan and Suter, 2005<\/a>).<\/p>\n Lastly, research on other related sectors, such as collaborative learning or MOOCs, can inform the design and development of communities of practice. For instance, communities of practice need to balance between structure and chaos: too much structure and many participants are likely to feel constrained in what they need to discuss; too little structure and participants can quickly lose interest or become overwhelmed.<\/p>\n Many of the other findings about group and online behaviour, such as the need to respect others, observing online etiquette, and preventing certain individuals from dominating the discussion, are all likely to apply. However, because many communities of practice are by definition self-regulating, establishing rules of conduct and even more so enforcing them\u00a0is really a responsibility of\u00a0the participants themselves.<\/p>\n Communities of practice\u00a0are a powerful manifestation of informal learning. They\u00a0generally\u00a0evolve naturally to address commonly shared interests and problems. By their nature, they tend to exist outside formal educational organisations. Participants are not usually looking for formal qualifications, but to address issues in their life and to be better at what they do. Furthermore, communities of practice\u00a0are not dependent on any particular medium; participants may meet face-to-face socially or at work, or they can participate in online or virtual communities of practice.<\/p>\n It should be\u00a0noted\u00a0that communities of practice can be very effective in a digital\u00a0world, where the working context is volatile, complex, uncertain and ambiguous. A large part of the lifelong learning market will become occupied by communities of practice and self-learning, through collaborative learning, sharing of knowledge and experience, and crowd-sourcing new ideas and development. Such informal learning provision will be particularly valuable for non-governmental or charitable organizations, such as the Red Cross, Greenpeace or UNICEF, or local government, looking for ways to engage communities in their areas of operation.<\/p>\n These communities of learners will be open and free, and hence will provide a competitive alternative to the high priced lifelong learning programs being offered by research universities. This will put pressure on universities and colleges to provide more flexible arrangements for recognition of informal learning, in order to hold on to their current monopoly of post-secondary accreditation.<\/p>\n One\u00a0of the significant\u00a0developments in recent years has been the use of massive open online courses (MOOCs)\u00a0for\u00a0developing online communities of practice. MOOCs are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5, but it is worth discussing here the connection between MOOCs and communities of practice. The more instructionist xMOOCs are not really developed as\u00a0communities of practice, because they use mainly a transmissive pedagogy, from experts to those considered less expert.<\/p>\n In comparison, connectivist MOOCs are an ideal way to bring together specialists scattered around the world to focus on\u00a0a common interest or domain. Connectivist MOOCs are much closer to being virtual communities of practice,\u00a0in that they put much more emphasis on sharing knowledge between more or less equal participants. However, current connectivist MOOCs\u00a0do not always incorporate what research indicates are best practices for developing communities of practice, and those wanting to establish a virtual community of practice at the moment\u00a0need some kind of MOOC provider to get them started and give them access to the necessary MOOC software.<\/p>\n Although communities of practice are likely to become more rather than less important in a digital age,\u00a0it is probably a mistake to think of them as\u00a0a replacement for traditional forms of education. There is no single, ‘right’ approach to the design of teaching. Different groups have different needs. Communities of practice\u00a0are more of an alternative for certain kinds of learners, such as lifelong learners, and\u00a0are likely to work best when participants already have some domain knowledge and can contribute personally and in a constructive manner – which suggests the need for at least some form of prior general education or training for those participating\u00a0in effective communities of practice.<\/p>\n In conclusion, it\u00a0is clear is that in an increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous world,\u00a0and given\u00a0the openness of the Internet, the social media tools now available, and the need for sharing of knowledge on a global scale, virtual communities of practice will become even more common and important. Smart educators and trainers\u00a0will look to see how they can harness the strength of this design model, particularly for lifelong learning. However,\u00a0merely lumping together large numbers of people with a common interest is unlikely to lead to\u00a0effective learning.\u00a0\u00a0Attention needs to be paid to those design principles that lead to effective communities of practice.<\/p>\n Brown, J. and\u00a0Duguid, P.\u00a0(2000)\u00a0Balancing act: How to capture knowledge without killing it<\/em>\u00a0<\/a>Harvard Business Review<\/i>.<\/p>\n Cambridge, D., Kaplan, S. and Suter, V. (2005)\u00a0Community of Practice Design Guide<\/span><\/em>\u00a0<\/span><\/a>L<\/span>ouisville\u00a0\u00a0CO: EDUCAUSE<\/span><\/p>\n Smith, M. K. (2003) ‘Communities of practice’, the encyclopedia of informal education<\/em>, accessed 26 September, 2014,\u00a0but no longer in press<\/p>\n Wenger, E. (2000) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity<\/em><\/a> Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press<\/p>\n Wenger, E. (2015) Communities of practice: a brief introduction<\/a>, accessed 29 June, 2023<\/p>\n Wenger, E, McDermott, R., and\u00a0Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice (Hardcover)<\/i><\/a>. Harvard Business Press; 1 edition.<\/p>\n Wenger, E., Trayner, B. and de Laat, M. (2011) Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: a conceptual framework<\/em><\/a> Heerlen NL: The Open University of the Netherlands<\/p>\n This document presents a conceptual foundation for promoting and assessing value creation in\u00a0communities and networks. By value creation we mean the value of the learning enabled by\u00a0community involvement and networking.<\/p>\n For an interesting critique of this paper, see:<\/p>\n Dingyloudi, F. and Strijbos, J. (2015)\u00a0Examining value creation in a community of learning practice: Methodological reflections on story-telling and story-reading Seminar.net<\/a><\/em>, Vol. 11, No.3<\/p>\n 1. Can you identify a community of practice to which you belong? Is it successful and does it meet the key design principles outlined above?<\/p>\n 2. Could you think of a way to develop a community of practice that would support your work as a teacher?<\/p>\n 3. Is there anything special you would need to do to make an online community of practice succeed that would not be necessary in a face-to-face community?<\/p>\n For my (not very deep) thoughts on these questions, click on the podcast below.<\/p>\n4.6.2.2 What are communities of practice?<\/h3>\n
4.6.2.3 Characteristics<\/h3>\nWenger argues that there are three crucial characteristics of a community of practice:\n
\n \t
4.6.2.4 Innovation and change<\/h3>\nWenger (2000<\/a>) has argued that although individuals learn through participation in a community of practice, more important is the generation of newer or deeper levels of knowledge through the sum of the group activity. If the community of practice\u00a0is centered around business processes, for instance, this can be of considerable benefit to an organization. Smith (2003) notes that:\n
2.6.2.5 Technologies<\/h3>\n
![\"Figure](\"https:\/\/openstudio.pub\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/22\/2025\/05\/Communities-of-practice-2.jpg\")
<\/a> Figure 4.6.2 Tools that support communities of practice
Image: Wenger, 2014[\/caption]\n4.6.3 Designing effective communities of practice<\/h2>\nMost communities of practice have no formal design and tend to be self-organising systems.\u00a0They have a natural life cycle, and come to an end when they no longer serve the needs of the community. However, there is now a body of theory and research that has identified actions that can help sustain and improve the effectiveness of communities of practice.\n
\n \t
\n \t
4.6.4 Critical factors for success<\/h2>\n
\n \t
4.6.5 Learning through communities of practice in a digital age<\/h2>\nCommunities of practice\u00a0are a powerful manifestation of informal learning. They\u00a0generally\u00a0evolve naturally to address commonly shared interests and problems. By their nature, they tend to exist outside formal educational organisations. Participants are not usually looking for formal qualifications, but to address issues in their life and to be better at what they do. Furthermore, communities of practice\u00a0are not dependent on any particular medium; participants may meet face-to-face socially or at work, or they can participate in online or virtual communities of practice.\n\nIt should be\u00a0noted\u00a0that communities of practice can be very effective in a digital\u00a0world, where the working context is volatile, complex, uncertain and ambiguous. A large part of the lifelong learning market will become occupied by communities of practice and self-learning, through collaborative learning, sharing of knowledge and experience, and crowd-sourcing new ideas and development. Such informal learning provision will be particularly valuable for non-governmental or charitable organizations, such as the Red Cross, Greenpeace or UNICEF, or local government, looking for ways to engage communities in their areas of operation.\n\nThese communities of learners will be open and free, and hence will provide a competitive alternative to the high priced lifelong learning programs being offered by research universities. This will put pressure on universities and colleges to provide more flexible arrangements for recognition of informal learning, in order to hold on to their current monopoly of post-secondary accreditation.\n\nOne\u00a0of the significant\u00a0developments in recent years has been the use of massive open online courses (MOOCs)\u00a0for\u00a0developing online communities of practice. MOOCs are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5, but it is worth discussing here the connection between MOOCs and communities of practice. The more instructionist xMOOCs are not really developed as\u00a0communities of practice, because they use mainly a transmissive pedagogy, from experts to those considered less expert.\n\nIn comparison, connectivist MOOCs are an ideal way to bring together specialists scattered around the world to focus on\u00a0a common interest or domain. Connectivist MOOCs are much closer to being virtual communities of practice,\u00a0in that they put much more emphasis on sharing knowledge between more or less equal participants. However, current connectivist MOOCs\u00a0do not always incorporate what research indicates are best practices for developing communities of practice, and those wanting to establish a virtual community of practice at the moment\u00a0need some kind of MOOC provider to get them started and give them access to the necessary MOOC software.\n\nAlthough communities of practice are likely to become more rather than less important in a digital age,\u00a0it is probably a mistake to think of them as\u00a0a replacement for traditional forms of education. There is no single, 'right' approach to the design of teaching. Different groups have different needs. Communities of practice\u00a0are more of an alternative for certain kinds of learners, such as lifelong learners, and\u00a0are likely to work best when participants already have some domain knowledge and can contribute personally and in a constructive manner - which suggests the need for at least some form of prior general education or training for those participating\u00a0in effective communities of practice.\n
References<\/h2>\nBrown, J. and\u00a0Duguid, P.\u00a0(2000)\u00a0Balancing act: How to capture knowledge without killing it<\/em>\u00a0<\/a>Harvard Business Review<\/i>.\n\nCambridge, D., Kaplan, S. and Suter, V. (2005)\u00a0Community of Practice Design Guide<\/span><\/em>\u00a0<\/span><\/a>L<\/span>ouisville\u00a0\u00a0CO: EDUCAUSE<\/span>\n\nSmith, M. K. (2003) 'Communities of practice', the encyclopedia of informal education<\/em>, accessed 26 September, 2014,\u00a0but no longer in press\n\nWenger, E. (2000) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity<\/em><\/a> Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press\n\nWenger, E. (2015) Communities of practice: a brief introduction<\/a>, accessed 29 June, 2023\n\nWenger, E, McDermott, R., and\u00a0Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice (Hardcover)<\/i><\/a>. Harvard Business Press; 1 edition.\n
Update and further reading<\/h2>\nWenger, E., Trayner, B. and de Laat, M. (2011) Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: a conceptual framework<\/em><\/a> Heerlen NL: The Open University of the Netherlands\n\nThis document presents a conceptual foundation for promoting and assessing value creation in\u00a0communities and networks. By value creation we mean the value of the learning enabled by\u00a0community involvement and networking.\n\nFor an interesting critique of this paper, see:\n\nDingyloudi, F. and Strijbos, J. (2015)\u00a0Examining value creation in a community of learning practice: Methodological reflections on story-telling and story-reading Seminar.net<\/a><\/em>, Vol. 11, No.3\n
\nActivity 4.6 Making communities of practice work<\/h3>\n1. Can you identify a community of practice to which you belong? Is it successful and does it meet the key design principles outlined above?\n\n2. Could you think of a way to develop a community of practice that would support your work as a teacher?\n\n3. Is there anything special you would need to do to make an online community of practice succeed that would not be necessary in a face-to-face community?\n\nFor my (not very deep) thoughts on these questions, click on the podcast below.\n\n[audio mp3=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/tonybates\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1475\/2021\/08\/CoP-2019-07-30-4.33-PM.mp3\"][\/audio]\n\n<\/div>","rendered":"
![\"Bank](\"https:\/\/openstudio.pub\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/22\/2014\/09\/Women-executives-2.jpg\")
<\/a>
Image: \u00a9 Belfast Telegraph, 2014<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n4.6.1 The theories behind communities of practice<\/h2>\n
4.6.2 What are communities of practice?<\/h2>\n
4.6.2.1 Definition:<\/h3>\n
4.6.2.2 What are communities of practice?<\/h3>\n
4.6.2.3 Characteristics<\/h3>\n
\n
4.6.2.4 Innovation and change<\/h3>\n
2.6.2.5 Technologies<\/h3>\n
<\/a>
Image: Wenger, 2014<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n4.6.3 Designing effective communities of practice<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
4.6.4 Critical factors for success<\/h2>\n
\n
4.6.5 Learning through communities of practice in a digital age<\/h2>\n
References<\/h2>\n
Update and further reading<\/h2>\n
\nActivity 4.6 Making communities of practice work<\/h3>\n