|
Learning In Communities
of Practice: Karen Goodnough Faculty of Education, |
||||||||||||||||
|
In this volume, several authors address different
aspects of scientific literacy ranging from considerations of the nature of
scientific literacy to descriptions of barriers to fostering high levels of
scientific literacy. In addition to considering these issues, educators need
to be concerned with how K-12 teachers are supported in helping their
students develop high levels of scientific literacy. Teachers need
opportunities and encouragement to engage in a variety of professional
development initiatives (workshops, teacher inquiry, networks, study groups,
curriculum development groups, etc.) that will meet their personal and
professional learning needs, as well the needs of schools and school
districts. One strategy being promoted to foster teacher learning and
educational change is the formation of communities
practices. In this article, I describe an action research community of practice, Science Across the Curriculum. I use seven design principles proposed by Wenger, McDermott, and Synder (2002) to reflect on how the participants in Science Across the Curriculum, a school-university partnership between the Eastern School District and the Faculty of Education, Memorial University, evolved into a community of practice. Fostering Communities of Practice The notion of a community of practice is premised on a social theory of learning proposed by Wenger (1998) that views learning as social participation in “the practices of a social community and the constructing of identities in relation to these communities” (p. 4-5). Communities of practice are “groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 4). Communities of practice are ubiquitous and individuals are often members of many communities of practice. Through thoughtful attention to creating learning environments that value and support learning, these authors believe communities of practice can be cultivated. Table 1 provides a brief overview
of the design principles that need to be considered when cultivating communities
of practice. The authors caution that these principles are not meant to be
prescriptive. Rather, they do suggest that the principles may guide the
establishment and functioning of communities of practice through attending to
the shared domain of the community (its goals and work), the operation of the
community (ways of operating and building relationships), and the practices
of the community (the development of knowledge and expertise that is
available to community members and others affected by the community). Table 1. Design principles for cultivating a community of practice
(Wenger et al., 2002)
The Context of the Project Science Across the Curriculum started in September 2004 and is ongoing* . In the first year of the project, 12 teachers (three primary, two elementary, six junior high, and one high school), two district program specialists, two student research assistants, and I adopted action research as a strategy to foster teacher learning. The district program specialists, research assistants, and I assumed a variety of roles, including facilitating teacher learning about action research and providing group and individual support as teachers conceptualized and implemented action research projects. Teachers engaged in systematic inquiry into practice through cycles of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting. Six whole-group planning meetings were devoted to planning and reflecting, while school-based teams of teachers met on three days throughout the year to plan their individual projects. Teachers designed and implemented plans of action that focussed on a range of topics, including using WebCT ™ (a web-based course management system) to support face-to-face science teaching, structuring student-centred learning through guided inquiry, and motivating students in learning science through the adoption of constructivist learning principles. Science Across the Curriculum has two major foci; fostering teacher learning and generating knowledge about communities of practice, teacher learning, and school-university partnerships. The specific objectives of the overall project are: (1) to support K-12 teachers in developing a better understanding of how to foster inquiry-based science teaching and learning and how to interpret science and technology learning outcomes; (2) to foster teacher confidence in and excitement about teaching science; (3) to document how groups of teacher researchers through face-to-face and on-line learning environments develop into communities of practice; (4) to develop an understanding of the nature of collaborative partnerships and to identify the elements that contribute to the success of collaborative partnerships; and (5) to better inform decision making that impacts policies adopted by the school district with respect to professional development training and curriculum development and implementation. The research focus of the project draws from the qualitative, ethnographic tradition (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Wolcott, 1988) and uses a range of data methods and sources, including participant observation, documents (lesson plans and other teacher-generated materials), electronic journals (generated by all participants), and audio-taped interviews (conducted at the beginning and end of the project). Many elements of the research design were emergent and data collection and analysis occurred very early in the process. In analysing the data, a grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) approach was adopted to code raw data, generate categories, and establish broader categories based on emerging themes. Designing for Success In designing for success, I reflect on each of the seven design principles as they emerged in our own research community of practice (see Table 1). As one of the facilitators of the group and an experienced facilitator of action research, I share insights garnered in the first year of the project. These design principles are continuing to inform how the action research community of practice is evolving and functioning in the second year of the project. Design for evolution A range of action research models and
approaches have emerged to reflect the varying purposes of action research,
as well as the varying roles of teachers in such research (e.g. Calhoun,
1994; Noffke, 1997; Rearick
& Feldman, 1999). In this project, the orientation is
mutual-collaborative/practical-deliberative-interpretative (Grundy, 1982; Holter & Schwartz-Barcott,
1993). In other words, all aspects of the project were negotiated among group
members. Although I initiated the project, as a group we negotiated agendas,
planning meetings, and learning activities. Each school-based team determined
the nature of their research question and how they would implement their
research projects. There was shared decision-making and ongoing attention was
given to how the group was functioning and the needs of the group.
Establishing shared ownership of the process was paramount. As one teacher
commented, AThrough teacher networking I was not
only putting my ideas and thoughts down on paper, but I was also sharing them
and getting regular feedback. This proved to be a wonderful experience for
all of us.@ Over time, the meetings of the action
research group allowed the development of more informal professional
networking amongst group members. Open a dialogue between inside and
outside perspectives Although all members of the action research
group were K-12 teachers or had been practicing teachers, insiders and
outsiders resided within the group. As a group member from an academic
setting, I was able to provide funding, time, and energy to help a group of
teachers engage in a new approach to teacher
development. Ongoing whole-group and small-group discussions and
conversations allowed us to share our concerns about our work and our unique
perspectives. At an early whole-group meeting, teachers identified several
challenges that impact their daily teaching lives, such as a lack of
resources, large class sizes, and student diversity. At the end of the first year, all participants strongly endorsed the approach to action research adopted in the project, while acknowledging the challenges associated with teacher inquiry (e.g. time-consuming, energy-intensive). The project provided a forum to foster adult learning, while supporting the research goals of the project. Invite different levels of participation This community of practice, like many communities of practice, engaged members in different ways. Not all members were at the core of the community and members had different roles. While the research assistants and I assumed a myriad of roles ranging from facilitators of the process to providing feedback at all stages of the research, we did not design and implement action research projects. As well, the program specialists provided support to the project in many ways, but did not attend all planning meetings; nor did they provide school-based support. However, their involvement and contribution to the project in terms of connecting to broader district initiatives and events, assisting with the coordination of the project, and being involved in some of the planning activities were invaluable and necessary. Different levels of participation enhanced the functioning of the community. Develop both public and private
space A range of events and activities contributed to creating opportunities to foster both group rapport and the growth of individual relationships. Regular meetings of the group occurred on a monthly basis, supported by online e-mail communication between meetings. On several occasions, school-based teams would meet at their schools to plan, reflect, and analyze data as they implemented their projects. The research assistants and I attended some of these meetings, offering different forms of support based on the needs of each school-based team. All teachers reported that they grew professionally as a result of these diverse experiences. One teacher aptly described the results of having both public and private spaces for learning: "As I reflect, I know I have grown professionally from this experience. Working closely with my school colleagues and colleagues from other schools has also been a very necessary part of this process. There is gratification in knowing that others who work with you everyday can share in your growth as a teacher." Focus on value Initially, the value of our community of practice was not evident to all members. ARather than trying to determine [its] expected value in advance, communities need to create events, activities, and relationships that help their potential emerge and enable them to discover new ways to harvest it@ (Wenger, McDermott, & Synder, 2002, Section 5, para. 2). Indeed, the value of the project was emergent, and as a facilitator of the project, I encouraged group members to reflect on the value of all learning activities. For example, in an early whole-group planning session, I asked teachers to consider eight wonderings (possible areas from which research questions may emerge) proposed by Dana and Yendol-Silva (2003). These wonderings (helping an individual child, improving and enriching the curriculum, developing content knowledge, experimenting with teaching approaches and techniques, exploring the relationship between personal beliefs and classroom practice, examining how personal and professional identities intersect, advocating social justice, and exploring the relationship between teaching and the learning context) were derived from the authors= examination of over 100 teacher inquiry projects. The teachers found that examining these wonderings in the context of their own teaching proved to be invaluable in helping them identify research foci. From a broader perspective, our ongoing planning meetings provided opportunities for the community to re-evaluate its goals and to share ongoing insights, thus contributing to a more explicit focus on the value of community activities and events. As a facilitator of action research, in conjunction with the research assistants and district program specialists, we engaged in second-order inquiry (Elliot, 1991), analyzing and reflecting on how our own actions were influencing the project. Combine
familiarity and excitement Communities of practice should be places where members can share ideas and elicit feedback in a comfortable, supportive atmosphere. Our regular planing meetings allowed this comfort to emerge, while our activities related to developing and implementing action research projects were new for most members. Each stage of the action research process required different types of activities and learning. Thus, in the first year, novelty and considerable excitement were generated. The overall experience offered teachers the opportunity to consider their own learning and the learning of their students from new perspectives. This is reflected in several comments made by group members: I feel that having the opportunity to focus on action research, and utilizing a particular teaching practice has provided me with the chance to grow as a teacher. This does not happen as often as we would like. Science teaching was never my favourite. I always thought there should be more inquiry in my students= learning. During this project, I enjoyed seeing the engagement of students and the way they all looked forward to science classes. Yes, I am now more aware of how inquiry works in my science class. Working through the process will enable me to have more success with it again. Therefore, I have a better understanding of the inquiry process and how my students learn. Create rhythm for the community This was a challenge throughout the first year of the project. At times, as the facilitator, I felt I was not as connected to some members of the community as I would have liked. This stemmed from facilitating a large action research project. In the past, most of the groups I facilitated ranged in size from four to six and I had far more interaction with each member on a school-based level, when compared to current community members. Ensuring that all members are engaged, yet not overwhelmed, is part of engaging in second-order inquiry, as mentioned previously. Group members acknowledged the demanding nature of action research, and it was not surprising when three people left the group within the first two months. Originally, we started with 15 members. Overall, the pace for the group varied, being slower at the beginning and picking up momentum during the implementation phase of the teachers’ projects. The rhythm of any community should be determined by community members through explicit evaluation of their activities, while attending to group and individual needs. Future Directions In planning for and assessing community needs in the second year of Science Across the Curriculum, a range of issues is being considered. The community is welcoming nine new action researchers, and two new research assistants. As well, many members of the action research community are not in the immediate university vicinity; thus, the group is relying on asynchronous and synchronous forms of online communication as well as face-to-face meetings. For example, in the first year, all planning meetings were face-to-face. In the second year, face-to-face meetings are still occurring; however, Elluminate LiveTM, a web-based collaboration software which includes two-way audio, a whiteboard, and other tools, is being used to support real-time communication and collaboration. For most group members, the use of these web-based tools is new. We are using the design principles to guide the functioning of the Science Across the Curriculum community of practice in its second year. Although communities of practice should evolve naturally, design principles can be instrumental in "energizing participation" (Wenger et al., 2002). These design principles provide a practical, useful guide for those who initiate or facilitate professional development communities of practice. |
||||||||||||||||
|
References Calhoun, E. (1994). How to use action research in the self-renewing school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Dana, N. F. & Yendol-Silva, D. ( 2003). The
reflective teacher's guide to action research: Learning to teach and teaching
to learn through classroom inquiry. Denzin,
N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative
research: Second edition. Elliott, J. (1991). Action
research for educational change. Grundy, S. (1982). Three modes of action research. Curriculum Perspectives, 2(3), 23-24. Holter, I. & Schwartz-Barcott, D. (1993). Action research: What is it? How can it be used in nursing? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 128, 298-304. Noffke, S. (1997). Professional, personal, and political dimensions of action research. Review of Research in Education, 22, 305-343. Rearick, M.L. & Feldman, A. (1999). Orientations, purposes, and reflection: A framework for understanding action research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 333-349. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative
research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd
ed.). Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and
identity. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Synder, W.
(2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Wenger, E., McDermott, R. & Synder, W.
(2002, March 25). Seven principles for cultivating communities of practice.
Retrieved Wolcott, H. F. (1988). Ethnographic research in education. In R. M. Jaeger (Ed.), Complementary methods for research in education. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.
* Science
Across the Curriculum is a three-year Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
(SSHRC) funded research/teacher development project. |