The first blog post from a “newcomer” to the world of open ed!
[I need to understand] How to better reconcile the role of sustained interaction and the concept of community inherent in Lave and Wenger’s idea of CoP’s with relation to an open course like #csclintro.
[An elaboration of the problem]
The importance of developing relations over time and participating in sustained interaction is mentioned multiple times in the Edutech summary of CoPs and situated learning:
#1. Members are involved in a set of relationships over time (Lave and Wenger 1991: 98) and communities develop around things that matter to people (Wenger 1998).
#2. In a nutshell: 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 (Wenger, 2007)
#3. These practices are thus the property of a kind of community created over time by the sustained pursuit of a shared enterprise. It makes sense, therefore to call these kinds of communities communities of practice. (Wenger 1998: 45)
#4 ‘Members of a community of practice are practitioners. They develop a shared repertoire of resources: experiences, stories, tools, ways of addressing recurring problems—in short a shared practice. This takes time and sustained interaction’ (Wenger, 2007.).
My trouble over this emphasis on time is wrapped up in what it means to be a community. For starters, what do we mean when we say community? How might this concept change when applied to different groups of learners operating in different types of environments? How long does it take for a ‘community’ to form? And how do we reposition the idea of community within networked environments [does that question even make sense?!]
For Lave and Wenger, interactions are the means by which community is built—that is to say relationships are formed, trust is cultivated, and learning happens. So, is a group of people a ‘community’ by default if they gather around shared interests, or do they grow to become one? In his first set of #csclintro notes Nate writes that “a ‘textbook’ is a more natural outgrowth of the development of learning through a course rather than something that you start with”. I can’t help feeling the same way about community, notably with respect to a classroom or an online course where membership is fairly short-term—there are (to varying degrees) “established” practices which people can participate in as well as an environment in which to engage these practices, however the relationships and trust need to emerge as members interact over time.
I’m very new to the world of open education—most of my past experience has been with less than satisfactory online course modules where posting a certain number of notes was more often than not a somewhat annoying prerequisite for participation marks, and where I cannot truly say I felt any “sense” of community, either at the beginning nor at the end of these courses. However, I understand that some people might be entering into this course with pre-established relationships (built up by virtue of connections already made and nurtured out there on the web)—in this case, maybe I am just expressing the anxiety of a “newcomer” that is beginning to participate on the margins of a larger community that has been growing and emerging and that I don’t quite understand…?
I’m left thinking here about Nate’s comments describing the relationships of Americans as a network rather than a CoP, and I am reminded of Benedict Anderson’s idea of “imagined communities” and how this might relate??
I have no developed thoughts on this, yet would like work out a deeper understanding of the possible relationships, distinctions and connections between ‘nodes’, ‘networks’. ‘niches’ and ‘communities’.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
It hadn’t occurred to me to think of the community of an online course the same way as the artifacts produced (like my idea of a textbook). A community is what you build through learning together if you’re successful. Though with such a short class and the lack of a continuing commitment to each other beyond the 8 weeks, I think the connections that do persist down the road will look more like a “network” than “community of practice.” The Twitter follows, RSS subscriptions, maybe even emails are the electronic evidence of this. If others have pre-established connections to each other going into this course, I’d think of them as in my network. (e.g. Stian sent me IMs telling me about the course to get me interested).
Also, as someone who’s taken a few online courses in this style, your feelings about engaging (on Blackboard etc.) with a required number of comments, are very familiar. That’s how a lot of people, including myself, feel about online education attempts by the institutions. The community there feels forced, stilted. Here, I don’t have to make this comment–you didn’t have to read my blog posts. Traditionally, the “meat” of the work you do for a college class is embedded in private artifacts between you and a professor. Here, the main work is out on our own blogs, our own spaces. I think that makes building connections over the course content feel a little more natural.
I think it is correct to look at a “shared passion for something they do” (process) and I think the comment from Nate that you quoted should be flagged up clearly somewhere: “a ‘textbook’ is a more natural outgrowth of the development of learning through a course rather than something that you start with” (outcomes).
But I think the whole CoP idea puts the cart before horse. It’s a descriptive term but it doesn’t seem prescriptive. While it’s true that there are some point of advice on how to implement a successful community of practice, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_practice#Actions_to_cultivate_a_successful_community_of_practice“ the real “whys” are going to come from within the use group!! Accordingly I think the question is: what are we aiming for? Ironically (?) that might lead us down the CoP path — but just as ironically, it might not. It doesn’t really matter whether we happen to match the description of a CoP or not.
I agree with you, Joe, in that it is not necessarily useful to become hung up the issue of whether or not we “fit” into the mold of a CoP. What actually interests me more is how can this model help us articulate concepts and ideas that can be effectively applied to the question you pose in the piratepad (“how can CSCL and collaborative learning be helpful for students?”) What attributes of the CoP model are flexible and ‘transferable’ to our purposes, which would be better to abandon or challenge? I plan to dig into the Engeström paper you provided to develop a response to this question.
Also — I suppose by “our purposes” I mean both my own and the group’s — though I don’t know yet how to reconcile the two! (Which is what you’ve already got started on, so thanks!)
I’ll clarify here, but also on the piratepad – my own “purpose” is focused on how collaborative learning can make students’ experiences with history more meaningful. I find this especially challenging since the bulk of research in history education focuses on individual learning (or learning in dyads). I would really love to hear ideas and feedback on this as the course goes on.
I’m also really interested to see how we evolve as a group, and how this course itself can become a useful artifact for others. Stian and I had ideas on this, but it would be great to get this conversation going on the piratepad.
i tried to use the RSS-FEED but feed site displays me some XML errors…
i’m trying to work on this, not sure what the problem is!