Group paper: Communities of Practice and Core Values
Communities of Practice and Core Values[J1]
Alexander Case
Archie Hill
Dori Hargrove
Laura Harris
David Landeryou
Linda Mann
Denise Robinson
John Thorson
George Mason University
Abstract
This paper explores the concept of communities of practice (CoPs) through the lens of the core values of the College of Education and Human Development at George Mason University (CEHD). These core values, ethical leadership, collaboration, social justice, innovation and research-based practice, provide a framework for scholarship and research within the CEHD. Examples of research exemplifying each core value are provided. Further, the added element of passion as a defining characteristic of CoPs is explored. Reflections and implication of both core values and passion for doctoral students entering the community of practice of the CEHD are given.
Communities of Practice and Core Values
Communities of practice (CoPs) are “groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn to do it better as they interact regularly” (Wenger, 2006, para.2) Through CoPs the knowledge and practice of a field, or area of expertise, is developed and furthered within a particular group. Three characteristics differentiate CoPs from other professional and social groups: the community members have a shared domain of interest, they comprise a community of learners and they are practitioners who apply what they have learned (Wenger, 2006, para. 4-6). A successful CoP has the potential of working as a change agent in the development of knowledge and practice within a given field. [J2] As new PhD students, we have been legitimate peripheral participants within the College of Education and Human Development (CEHD) at George Mason University. This has allowed us the opportunity to observe how professors within the college develop and grow scholarship within their area of expertise. We have observed the University’s commitment to the development of successful CoPs through the integration of the college’s core values. These values of ethical leadership, collaboration, social justice, innovation and research-based practice are embodied and expressed, in myriad ways, through the scholarship of each member within the CoP that is the College of Education and Human Development (Core Values, 2010). In addition, we believe that members confront their own areas of expertise with passion. The professional enthusiasm generated fuels the University to make it an exciting place to learn.
Core Values
Ethical Leadership
Ethical Leadership, a core value within the CEHD is an “essential component denoting ability and willingness to help lead professional practice to higher levels” (Core values, 2010, para. 3). Ethical leadership was demonstrated by Wood [J3] (2007) who explored whether learning communities truly bring the practice of teaching to higher levels. Her research demonstrated that schools struggle with the establishment of Teachers’ Learning Communities, more widely known as Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) due to the lack of public schools’ efforts to promote teacher empowerment. In order for PLC’s to be successful, teachers must take control of their work, share knowledge and expertise, and take more responsibility for student learning. Unfortunately, these roles and responsibilities sometimes conflict with established norms and school cultures.
However, Wood’s work showed promise that PLC’s do create an opportunity for ethical leadership. Principals commented that collaboration builds leadership; when teachers collaborate and discuss their professional problems and expertise they develop a sense of efficacy. The superintendent echoed the Principals’ positions stating she “could think of no better way to foster leadership than building strong learning communities in every school” (p. 702).
Learning communities hold promise in successfully leading the teaching profession to higher levels. PLCs success must be, “truly internalized by individual teachers and embedded in the professional culture of schools” (Wood, 2007, p. 737).Collaboration
The value of collaboration espoused by the CEHD promotes shared responsibility and “genuine partnerships with individuals, families, community agencies, school, business, foundations, and other groups at the local, regional, national, and international levels” (Core values, 2010, para. 2). At the school and district levels, Wood (2007) used collaboration as the focus of her multi-year study of PLCs. Her research brought together the school district, Lucent Technologies Foundation, The Philanthropy Institute, and the National School Reform Faculty in an effort to support teachers as they worked to improve their practice through Learning Communities.
The work of Burns, Kidd, Nasser, Assaf and Reid embodied the value of collaboration [J4] both within a community of practice and through the implementation of their research. Their partnership with Head Start programs investigated culturally responsive practice both at the local and national levels. Burns et al. sought to improve not only the performance of teachers, but also the lives of the children and families enrolled in the programs. Assaf, Burns, Kidd and Muccio (2009) found, to their surprise, that discussions of race and ethnicity generated “hegemonic group dynamics, none of which were demonstrated during conversations around inclusion of children with disabilities” (p. 2) and wondered “if experienced, veteran Head Start teachers could so easily be silenced, how do parents and young children retain their own voice when confronted with such overt/covert oppression” (p. 1). Their research will be presented at the 2011 American Educational Research Association (AERA) annual meeting where they will provide other practitioners some insight in answering this question.
Social Justice
As a core value, social justice “embodies essential principles of equity and access to all opportunities in society in accordance with democratic principles and respect for all persons and points of view” (Core values, 2010, para.6). This value was exemplified by the work of Osterling, Ndura-Ouédraogo, and Acosta. These practitioners and scholars of social justice are from areas of conflict around the world: Peru, Burundi, and El Salvador, respectively. Through their research they explored the role of higher education in becoming a change agent within their societies. Osterling et al. emphasized social justice by exposing teachers to societal issues that impact education and create an intellectual community that encourages education professionals to work together to transform society for the common good. [J5] For institutions of higher education to become effective agents of change, they must develop strategies and secure valued resources to overcome “conflict, oppression or war that have impeded the pursuit of higher education for social justice and peace” (Acosta, Ndura-Ouedraogo & Osterling, 2010, p. 1). The degree of achieving social justice varies across contexts. In the case of Antioch College in Ohio, “alumni, faculty and students successfully resisted the closure of one of the most progressive liberal arts colleges in the United States” due to tensions resulting from competing ideologies (p. 1). In Burundi and El Salvador, alumni, faculty and students are confronted with the “struggles and promises resulting from the establishment of two post-civil war private universities” (p. 1).
CEHD has made strides toward their goal of achieving social justice. The College’s expanding emphasis on social issues such as race, ethnicity, social status, gender and students with special needs along with a “commitment to increasing the diversity of teachers” are but a few initiatives that are underway in an effort to achieve their goal of social justice (Core Values, 2010, para 4).
Innovation
Only innovation can account for studies as seemingly disparate as those involving communities of practice in a virtual world and eye-gaze tracking emanating from the same college. Innovation in the CEHD represents a commitment “to seeking new ways to advance knowledge, solve problems, improve our professional practice and expand on our successes” (Core values, 2010, para. 4). Innovation is a critical aspect of the development of research and is paramount in the advancement of knowledge and practice. It is this core value that informs the research of Sprague and Kayler who use the world of gaming to explore CoPs, and Brigham who created a machine to track eye movements in a study of students’ problem solving abilities.
Sprague and Kayler took the innovative approach of exploring the impact of the virtual world and specifically the gaming culture on educational practice. They found that while there is great potential for connecting with students immersed in this culture that teachers would need to overcome some of the stereotypes and perceptions of gamers to facilitate a better understanding.
Brigham not only presented an innovative approach, but also brought in the source of the innovation, the eye-gaze tracking machine. The idea that we can gain in-depth insight into an individual’s problem solving approach is creative enough, but to be able to do it through the analysis of their eye- gaze behavior is revolutionary. Brigham was able to bring the novice observers into his world of eye-gaze technology and make a compelling case for its educational application. Research-based Practice
Underpinning the CoP concept is the notion of research-based practice and collective inquiry. Research-based practice is a critical component in the five core values of the college. A philosophy of sound research-based practice is the foundation of well-respected scholarship (Core values, 2010, para.5). The philosophical groundwork that all researchers must explore was outlined by Norton in her discussion of how research interests are established and the impact of them on research design. Research design and methodology were a logical transition in the discussion of Burns, Kidd, and Nasser’s work in Head Start programs and their Sustaining Effective Pedagogy (SEP) professional development model.
Norton was among the most striking presentations to the leadership and policy group because of its excellent blending of history, philosophy, and research based practice. Using polar/parallel constructs, Norton led the class through her personal evolution as a researcher. We journeyed with her as she compared her beliefs relative to her mother and father, providing detail on her philosophical voyage from Hegel to Kuhn, and finally weaving both macro and micro trends in educational thinking to her current research interests in collaboration-centered peer conversation as it applies to online learning design (Norton and Hathaway, 2009, p. 749).
The panel of Burns et al. offered a detailed discussion about their SEP professional development model, and its effect on Head Start teachers’ beliefs and intentional teaching practices. Yet its utility was not simply highlighting collaboration, but also the research design and methodology embraced within the school and the meaningful connections to education research via the AERA and its specialized offerings as a learning network. Their work provides an important example of efficacious educational research practice balanced within the construct of CoPs.
Passion
A well-functioning CoP must possess the three characteristics of a shared domain, a community of learners, and the potential to be a change agent of interest. At the University these characteristics are coupled with the core values of the College of Education and Human Development. However, according to Wenger (2006), in order to achieve great success, passion or enthusiasm is a required element. Without the energy and drive that can found within enthusiastic members, devoted to a particular cause or area of interest, any well-meaning community of practice is doomed to achieve average results at best[J6] . This element of passionate enthusiasm was often displayed in class by the various professors. While it is no surprise that each professor was deeply involved and passionate about a particular field of research, some were particularly inspirational. One could easily be swept up in Brigham’s frenetic pace and varied areas of expertise. Wood was equally persuasive with her passion for research related to professional learning communities in schools today. Osterling, et al. presented an intense enthusiasm for social justice challenging the status quo around the world. Their enthusiasm was self-perpetuating with each member of the CoP feeding off the energy of the others. This dynamic allows CoPs to continue functioning on a high level due to the support that the members provide each other through their mutual enthusiasm.
Reflection and Implications
As legitimate peripheral participants in the George Mason PhD in Education CoP, we have had the opportunity to experience the familial environment of this community. EDUC 805 has enabled us to start learning about the expectations that GMU has for all of its doctoral students. With the examples that the professors displayed, we have had the opportunity to see firsthand how a well-functioning CoP operates. It is not just that members share a domain of interest, act as a community of learners, and apply what they have learned but that they also have enthusiasm for all aspects of the CoP. The professors have also given us greater insight into the core values of the College of Education. These values are essential for doctoral students to internalize if they hope to master the skills necessary to complete George Mason’s PhD program. As we master those core values and as we find our own enthusiasm for domains of interest, we can progress from the periphery toward the center of a CoP and become the lifelong learners that are the hallmark of true educators.
References
Acosta, B. D., Ndura-Ouedraogo, E. & Osterling, J. P. (2010, September). Transforming traditional higher education paradigms in post-conflict environments: four case studies. Paper presented at the meeting of Research and Scholarship in Education at George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
Assaf, M., Burns, M. S., Kidd, J.K., & Muccio, L.S. (2009). Hegemonic processes in head start. Presentation proposal submitted to the American Educational Research Association.
Core Values, (2010), para. 2. http://cehd.gmu/values/collaboration. Retrieved November 13, 2010.
Core values, (2010). http://cehd.gmu.edu/values/. Retrieved November 22, 2010.
Core values, (2010), para. 6. http://cehd.gmu.edu/values/social_justice/. Retrieved November 6, 2010
Core values, (2010), para. 3. http://cehd.gmu.edu/values/ethical_leadership/. Retrieved November 6, 2010.
Core values, (2010), para. 5. http://cehd.gmu.edu/values/ethical_leadership/. Retrieved November 15, 2010.
Norton, P. and Hathaway D. (2009). “Online conversations with peers and with an expert mentor: is there a difference?” Proposal for conference presentation.
Sprague, D., & Kayler, M. (2010). “You want me to do what? : Exploring K-12 teachers’ experiences with virtual gaming. AERA proposal, 2011 presented at George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
Tai, R., Leohr, J.F., Brigham, F. (2006). An exploration of the use of eye-gaze tracking to study problem-solving on standardized science assessments. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 29,( 2), pp. 183–20.
Wenger, E., (2006). Communities’ of practice. http:/www.ewenger.com/theory/. Retrieved November 13, 2010.
Wood, D. (2007). Teachers learning communities: Catalyst for change or a new infrastructure for the status quo? Teachers College Record, 109, 699-739.
[J1]Wow. An excellent paper, well-organized and interesting. I like how you structured the paper around the core values and then brought the discussion back to passion at the end. Really a pleasure to read.
A
[J2]yes
[J3]She’s a great example
[J4]Yes
[J5]Good point
[J6]Very good
Alexander Case
Archie Hill
Dori Hargrove
Laura Harris
David Landeryou
Linda Mann
Denise Robinson
John Thorson
George Mason University
Abstract
This paper explores the concept of communities of practice (CoPs) through the lens of the core values of the College of Education and Human Development at George Mason University (CEHD). These core values, ethical leadership, collaboration, social justice, innovation and research-based practice, provide a framework for scholarship and research within the CEHD. Examples of research exemplifying each core value are provided. Further, the added element of passion as a defining characteristic of CoPs is explored. Reflections and implication of both core values and passion for doctoral students entering the community of practice of the CEHD are given.
Communities of Practice and Core Values
Communities of practice (CoPs) are “groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn to do it better as they interact regularly” (Wenger, 2006, para.2) Through CoPs the knowledge and practice of a field, or area of expertise, is developed and furthered within a particular group. Three characteristics differentiate CoPs from other professional and social groups: the community members have a shared domain of interest, they comprise a community of learners and they are practitioners who apply what they have learned (Wenger, 2006, para. 4-6). A successful CoP has the potential of working as a change agent in the development of knowledge and practice within a given field. [J2] As new PhD students, we have been legitimate peripheral participants within the College of Education and Human Development (CEHD) at George Mason University. This has allowed us the opportunity to observe how professors within the college develop and grow scholarship within their area of expertise. We have observed the University’s commitment to the development of successful CoPs through the integration of the college’s core values. These values of ethical leadership, collaboration, social justice, innovation and research-based practice are embodied and expressed, in myriad ways, through the scholarship of each member within the CoP that is the College of Education and Human Development (Core Values, 2010). In addition, we believe that members confront their own areas of expertise with passion. The professional enthusiasm generated fuels the University to make it an exciting place to learn.
Core Values
Ethical Leadership
Ethical Leadership, a core value within the CEHD is an “essential component denoting ability and willingness to help lead professional practice to higher levels” (Core values, 2010, para. 3). Ethical leadership was demonstrated by Wood [J3] (2007) who explored whether learning communities truly bring the practice of teaching to higher levels. Her research demonstrated that schools struggle with the establishment of Teachers’ Learning Communities, more widely known as Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) due to the lack of public schools’ efforts to promote teacher empowerment. In order for PLC’s to be successful, teachers must take control of their work, share knowledge and expertise, and take more responsibility for student learning. Unfortunately, these roles and responsibilities sometimes conflict with established norms and school cultures.
However, Wood’s work showed promise that PLC’s do create an opportunity for ethical leadership. Principals commented that collaboration builds leadership; when teachers collaborate and discuss their professional problems and expertise they develop a sense of efficacy. The superintendent echoed the Principals’ positions stating she “could think of no better way to foster leadership than building strong learning communities in every school” (p. 702).
Learning communities hold promise in successfully leading the teaching profession to higher levels. PLCs success must be, “truly internalized by individual teachers and embedded in the professional culture of schools” (Wood, 2007, p. 737).Collaboration
The value of collaboration espoused by the CEHD promotes shared responsibility and “genuine partnerships with individuals, families, community agencies, school, business, foundations, and other groups at the local, regional, national, and international levels” (Core values, 2010, para. 2). At the school and district levels, Wood (2007) used collaboration as the focus of her multi-year study of PLCs. Her research brought together the school district, Lucent Technologies Foundation, The Philanthropy Institute, and the National School Reform Faculty in an effort to support teachers as they worked to improve their practice through Learning Communities.
The work of Burns, Kidd, Nasser, Assaf and Reid embodied the value of collaboration [J4] both within a community of practice and through the implementation of their research. Their partnership with Head Start programs investigated culturally responsive practice both at the local and national levels. Burns et al. sought to improve not only the performance of teachers, but also the lives of the children and families enrolled in the programs. Assaf, Burns, Kidd and Muccio (2009) found, to their surprise, that discussions of race and ethnicity generated “hegemonic group dynamics, none of which were demonstrated during conversations around inclusion of children with disabilities” (p. 2) and wondered “if experienced, veteran Head Start teachers could so easily be silenced, how do parents and young children retain their own voice when confronted with such overt/covert oppression” (p. 1). Their research will be presented at the 2011 American Educational Research Association (AERA) annual meeting where they will provide other practitioners some insight in answering this question.
Social Justice
As a core value, social justice “embodies essential principles of equity and access to all opportunities in society in accordance with democratic principles and respect for all persons and points of view” (Core values, 2010, para.6). This value was exemplified by the work of Osterling, Ndura-Ouédraogo, and Acosta. These practitioners and scholars of social justice are from areas of conflict around the world: Peru, Burundi, and El Salvador, respectively. Through their research they explored the role of higher education in becoming a change agent within their societies. Osterling et al. emphasized social justice by exposing teachers to societal issues that impact education and create an intellectual community that encourages education professionals to work together to transform society for the common good. [J5] For institutions of higher education to become effective agents of change, they must develop strategies and secure valued resources to overcome “conflict, oppression or war that have impeded the pursuit of higher education for social justice and peace” (Acosta, Ndura-Ouedraogo & Osterling, 2010, p. 1). The degree of achieving social justice varies across contexts. In the case of Antioch College in Ohio, “alumni, faculty and students successfully resisted the closure of one of the most progressive liberal arts colleges in the United States” due to tensions resulting from competing ideologies (p. 1). In Burundi and El Salvador, alumni, faculty and students are confronted with the “struggles and promises resulting from the establishment of two post-civil war private universities” (p. 1).
CEHD has made strides toward their goal of achieving social justice. The College’s expanding emphasis on social issues such as race, ethnicity, social status, gender and students with special needs along with a “commitment to increasing the diversity of teachers” are but a few initiatives that are underway in an effort to achieve their goal of social justice (Core Values, 2010, para 4).
Innovation
Only innovation can account for studies as seemingly disparate as those involving communities of practice in a virtual world and eye-gaze tracking emanating from the same college. Innovation in the CEHD represents a commitment “to seeking new ways to advance knowledge, solve problems, improve our professional practice and expand on our successes” (Core values, 2010, para. 4). Innovation is a critical aspect of the development of research and is paramount in the advancement of knowledge and practice. It is this core value that informs the research of Sprague and Kayler who use the world of gaming to explore CoPs, and Brigham who created a machine to track eye movements in a study of students’ problem solving abilities.
Sprague and Kayler took the innovative approach of exploring the impact of the virtual world and specifically the gaming culture on educational practice. They found that while there is great potential for connecting with students immersed in this culture that teachers would need to overcome some of the stereotypes and perceptions of gamers to facilitate a better understanding.
Brigham not only presented an innovative approach, but also brought in the source of the innovation, the eye-gaze tracking machine. The idea that we can gain in-depth insight into an individual’s problem solving approach is creative enough, but to be able to do it through the analysis of their eye- gaze behavior is revolutionary. Brigham was able to bring the novice observers into his world of eye-gaze technology and make a compelling case for its educational application. Research-based Practice
Underpinning the CoP concept is the notion of research-based practice and collective inquiry. Research-based practice is a critical component in the five core values of the college. A philosophy of sound research-based practice is the foundation of well-respected scholarship (Core values, 2010, para.5). The philosophical groundwork that all researchers must explore was outlined by Norton in her discussion of how research interests are established and the impact of them on research design. Research design and methodology were a logical transition in the discussion of Burns, Kidd, and Nasser’s work in Head Start programs and their Sustaining Effective Pedagogy (SEP) professional development model.
Norton was among the most striking presentations to the leadership and policy group because of its excellent blending of history, philosophy, and research based practice. Using polar/parallel constructs, Norton led the class through her personal evolution as a researcher. We journeyed with her as she compared her beliefs relative to her mother and father, providing detail on her philosophical voyage from Hegel to Kuhn, and finally weaving both macro and micro trends in educational thinking to her current research interests in collaboration-centered peer conversation as it applies to online learning design (Norton and Hathaway, 2009, p. 749).
The panel of Burns et al. offered a detailed discussion about their SEP professional development model, and its effect on Head Start teachers’ beliefs and intentional teaching practices. Yet its utility was not simply highlighting collaboration, but also the research design and methodology embraced within the school and the meaningful connections to education research via the AERA and its specialized offerings as a learning network. Their work provides an important example of efficacious educational research practice balanced within the construct of CoPs.
Passion
A well-functioning CoP must possess the three characteristics of a shared domain, a community of learners, and the potential to be a change agent of interest. At the University these characteristics are coupled with the core values of the College of Education and Human Development. However, according to Wenger (2006), in order to achieve great success, passion or enthusiasm is a required element. Without the energy and drive that can found within enthusiastic members, devoted to a particular cause or area of interest, any well-meaning community of practice is doomed to achieve average results at best[J6] . This element of passionate enthusiasm was often displayed in class by the various professors. While it is no surprise that each professor was deeply involved and passionate about a particular field of research, some were particularly inspirational. One could easily be swept up in Brigham’s frenetic pace and varied areas of expertise. Wood was equally persuasive with her passion for research related to professional learning communities in schools today. Osterling, et al. presented an intense enthusiasm for social justice challenging the status quo around the world. Their enthusiasm was self-perpetuating with each member of the CoP feeding off the energy of the others. This dynamic allows CoPs to continue functioning on a high level due to the support that the members provide each other through their mutual enthusiasm.
Reflection and Implications
As legitimate peripheral participants in the George Mason PhD in Education CoP, we have had the opportunity to experience the familial environment of this community. EDUC 805 has enabled us to start learning about the expectations that GMU has for all of its doctoral students. With the examples that the professors displayed, we have had the opportunity to see firsthand how a well-functioning CoP operates. It is not just that members share a domain of interest, act as a community of learners, and apply what they have learned but that they also have enthusiasm for all aspects of the CoP. The professors have also given us greater insight into the core values of the College of Education. These values are essential for doctoral students to internalize if they hope to master the skills necessary to complete George Mason’s PhD program. As we master those core values and as we find our own enthusiasm for domains of interest, we can progress from the periphery toward the center of a CoP and become the lifelong learners that are the hallmark of true educators.
References
Acosta, B. D., Ndura-Ouedraogo, E. & Osterling, J. P. (2010, September). Transforming traditional higher education paradigms in post-conflict environments: four case studies. Paper presented at the meeting of Research and Scholarship in Education at George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
Assaf, M., Burns, M. S., Kidd, J.K., & Muccio, L.S. (2009). Hegemonic processes in head start. Presentation proposal submitted to the American Educational Research Association.
Core Values, (2010), para. 2. http://cehd.gmu/values/collaboration. Retrieved November 13, 2010.
Core values, (2010). http://cehd.gmu.edu/values/. Retrieved November 22, 2010.
Core values, (2010), para. 6. http://cehd.gmu.edu/values/social_justice/. Retrieved November 6, 2010
Core values, (2010), para. 3. http://cehd.gmu.edu/values/ethical_leadership/. Retrieved November 6, 2010.
Core values, (2010), para. 5. http://cehd.gmu.edu/values/ethical_leadership/. Retrieved November 15, 2010.
Norton, P. and Hathaway D. (2009). “Online conversations with peers and with an expert mentor: is there a difference?” Proposal for conference presentation.
Sprague, D., & Kayler, M. (2010). “You want me to do what? : Exploring K-12 teachers’ experiences with virtual gaming. AERA proposal, 2011 presented at George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
Tai, R., Leohr, J.F., Brigham, F. (2006). An exploration of the use of eye-gaze tracking to study problem-solving on standardized science assessments. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 29,( 2), pp. 183–20.
Wenger, E., (2006). Communities’ of practice. http:/www.ewenger.com/theory/. Retrieved November 13, 2010.
Wood, D. (2007). Teachers learning communities: Catalyst for change or a new infrastructure for the status quo? Teachers College Record, 109, 699-739.
[J1]Wow. An excellent paper, well-organized and interesting. I like how you structured the paper around the core values and then brought the discussion back to passion at the end. Really a pleasure to read.
A
[J2]yes
[J3]She’s a great example
[J4]Yes
[J5]Good point
[J6]Very good