The role demands of teaching and the novice

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Chapter 3 Theoretical framework

Experience is not so much what happens to us as what we make of what happens to us (Aldous Huxley)

Introduction

This chapter discusses Wenger’s Communities of Practice (CoP) social learning theory, the theoretical framework that informed this study and was used to attach meaning to the data collected on the induction experiences of newly qualified primary school teachers. The theory was considered appropriate for this study because of its potential to facilitate an understanding of the experiences of NQTs and how the experiences impact on teacher learning and professional development. The chapter examines, among other things, the evolvement of the CoP theory, its main principles and how it can be related to teacher induction.

Defining Communities of Practice

The CoP perspective has attracted interest from several academic disciplines and occupational backgrounds, for example, organisational studies (where it has been used particularly in knowledge management) and education (Kimble, 2006; Wenger, 2006; Cox, 2005). According to Kimble (2006), the reason for the popularity of the concept is that the combination of the socio-cultural model and social constructivist theory of learning that it adopts in relation to the process of the creation and reproduction of knowledge is functional and applicable to different settings and groups. Its feasibility and popularity has resulted in the term acquiring varied and, at times, conflicting interpretations.
An array of definitions has been given for a CoP. A community of practice was initially defined as a group of people who share an interest, a craft or a practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). But this definition has been refined as the concept evolved. For example, Wenger, McDermott & Snyder (2002:4) describe a CoP as a group 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 on-going basis.” The main attributes of CoPs are that members regularly interact, share knowledge, find solutions to common problems, exchange work related stories, experiences and frustrations and collaborate with each other to create joint knowledge related beliefs and values of the community (Li, Grimshaw, Nielsen, Judd, Coyte & Graham, 2009; Allee, 2000), thus fostering the development of shared identity among members. CoPs are primarily independent groups outside the formal organisation (though not totally divorced from institutional structures), and are propelled by the need to address the concerns of the members. They are self-organising groups, composed of individuals who have interacted over a long period and have developed bonds based on their work role and what they have learned through reciprocal involvement in these roles (Wenger, 2006). In short, the main characteristics of a community of practice are shared interests, shared identity and collaboration. The latter allows for exchange of ideas and fostering in members interest in being part of a community.
Wenger (1998:122) argues that not all social configurations are CoPs and what distinguish these other groups (for example, project teams, task force or social networks) from CoPs are the relations among members, goals, artefacts, institutions or historical and geographical origins. Some of the groups referred to above would, for example, place significance on quantity of interactions rather than quality of interactions as is characteristic in CoPs (Holmes 1999) and, unlike the latter, are not self-directed and self-motivated. The main goal of a CoP is to create, expand and exchange knowledge and to improve practice. Communities of Practice focus on a specific area of knowledge and with time, accrue expertise in that area (Hildreth & Kimble, 2000). They cultivate a common practice by interacting over problems and solutions and can accumulate a common arsenal of knowledge (Cox, 2005). Membership develops in the course of an activity rather than being constituted to perform a task. Also, CoPs are distinguished by their ability to transmit tacit knowledge, that is, know-how that is not easily articulated, the kind of knowledge that people possess without them being aware of it. The knowledge can only manifest itself in practice through interaction (Goffin & Koners, 2011). Effective transfer of this knowledge requires extensive personal contact, regular interaction and mutual trust. For new teachers, CoPs are repositories of craft knowledge, which Barth (2001) defines as the massive collection of experiences and learning those who work under the schoolhouse inevitably accrue. Experienced teachers in schools where novices find themselves in would have such knowledge.
The term ‘community of practice’ was first coined by Lave and Wenger (1991) in their landmark work on apprentice midwives, tailors, butchers and quartermasters and refined by Wenger (1998). The term was initially used to describe how newcomers to a community would adapt to its sociocultural practices. Lave and Wenger’s (1991) work on situated cognition focused on two main concepts, namely, situated learning, particularly in the workplace and the concept of legitimate peripheral participation. Situated learning is a concept that defines learning through apprenticeship. Learning of this nature is grounded in social contexts and emanates from shared work practices and interactions between the novice and the expert during which the former acquires work habits and behaviours of experts (Li et al., 2009). A CoP, in this respect, is a tool for replication of existing knowledge through involvement with significant others in ‘practice’ and, basically, a process of socialisation into knowledge and a community (Kimble, 2006; Cox, 2005). Learning in such a context is seen as social and largely a product of experience and participation in the community and in practice (Lave and Wenger (1991).
Lave and Wenger (1991) suggest that CoPs develop gradually from a process of legitimate peripheral participation (Smith, 2003). They use the concept legitimate peripheral participation (LPP) to illustrate the influence of context on human social activities on origination of practice, meaning and identity and the journey from novice to expert. In defining LPP, Lave and Wenger (1991) explain that newcomers to a group or community initially spend some time at its periphery, performing simple tasks, learning their new role and also learning about the operations of the group. But the newcomers progressively move from legitimate peripheral participation to full participation as they become more adept and are drawn into more complex tasks, activities and processes of the community, to achieve expert status after which they can also mentor newcomers (Li et al., 2009). According to Lave and Wenger (1991:29), “…learners inevitably participate in communities of practitioners and …the mastery of knowledge and skill require newcomers to move toward full participation in sociocultural practices of a community”. It is through participation in the communities of practices that, for example, new teachers increasingly learn, develop and construct meaning and understanding of the profession, as well as their teacher identities as they learn to think, act and speak in ways that make sense in the community. In this respect, teacher induction “should be understood as a way of increasing participation in the practice of teaching, and through this participation, a process of becoming knowledgeable in and about teaching” (Adler, 2000:37 in Borko).
The two main concepts that emerge from Lave and Wenger’s initial work on communities of practice, therefore, are situated learning and legitimate peripheral participation, both of which characterise learning as a process of enculturation and construction (Borko, 2004). Their proposed model challenged the dominant cognitivist views on how and where learning occurs as illustrated in Table 3.1 below.
The model proposed by Lave and Wenger (1991) represents a departure from conceptualisation of learning as individual and transmission of discrete abstract knowledge as perceived by cognitivists such as Piaget (1963) to social constructivist models (for example, by Dewey (1966) and Vygotsky (1934) which view learning as social and situated. The former conceptualisation of learning neglects the tacit dimension of workplace practice (Handley, Sturdy, Finchman & Clark, 2006). In constructivist models, knowledge is viewed as being socially constructed. Similarly, the model suggested by Lave and Wenger (1991) requires beginning teachers to be actively involved in constructing knowledge within CoPs (Handley et al., 2006; Britton et al., 2000).
The concept of communities of practice was further extended by Wenger (1998) on the basis of situated learning and by borrowing theoretical aspects from education, sociology and social learning (Li, et al., 2009). Wenger (1998) gives the concept a more specific definition which Hodkinson and Hodkinson (2004) think is more applicable to school teachers as it suggests a small field of focus. He describes communities of practice as groups of people who share a passion or concern for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (Wenger, 1998). His work is located in the social theory of learning perspective, whose main focus is learning as a social process and in practice. Wenger argues that learning is primarily a social process which cannot be divorced from the context in which it occurs. He maintains that we become who we are through social interactions in practice. Learning, therefore, is regarded as a social phenomenon located in the context of the lived experience and participation in the world rather than “an individual process, that has a beginning and an end, that is best separated from the rest of our activities and that is a result of teaching” (Wenger, 1998:3). The core concepts of Wenger’s (1998) theory, which are discussed below, give some insights into what learning within a community of practice entails.

Core concepts of Wenger’s theory

The core concepts of Wenger’s theory are meaning, community, practice and identity. These are essential for social participation to be described as learning. The four elements (meaning, practice, community and identity) are vital as they are transposable in their relationship to learning. These concepts are intricately linked to learning as shown in the proposed model in figure 3.1.
The diagram shows that central to learning is the development of meaning, practice, identity and a sense of belonging, i.e. community. The core concepts, which are explained below, shed light on what new teacher learning involves.
Meaning: Individuals within communities continuously try to derive and negotiate meaning from their experiences. Meaning is mainly achieved through interaction of two elements: participation and reification. Participation implies active involvement of individuals within the community and the resultant relationships with other members and the emergence of identity (Handley, et al., 2006). Reification represents the processes and artefacts employed by a community to concretise practices and abstract ideas and through which negotiated meanings are shared. According to Wenger (1998), the dual components of participation and reification complement and enable learning.
Community denotes the social groups within which the individual takes on worthy activities and demonstrates competencies. Mclaughin (1993:81), cited by Westheimer (2008), says that the metaphor ‘community’ draws attention to norms and beliefs of practice, collegial relations, shared goals, occasions for collaboration, problems of mutual support and collaboration. It is a source of cohesion. A community is fostered through mutual engagement, involvement in a joint enterprise, and a shared way of doing things or shared repertoire. Wenger (1998) identifies the aforesaid aspects as the three features that distinguish a community of practice from a mere group. Figure 3.2 illustrates the elements of each dimension and how the dimensions are interrelated.
The first dimension, mutual engagement, describes the way in which members of an organisation develop norms and collaborative relationships which bond them as a social entity or community. This requires active participation of members in joint ventures in order to negotiate shared understandings and to foster community cohesion. Philips (2012) observes that among secondary school teachers, the concept mutual engagement is illustrated by general norms of teaching such as the standards to which they are accountable as they make pedagogic decisions and judgements. Joint enterprise refers to the shared initiatives that members engage in as they respond to an organisation’s needs and common goals. The joint enterprise for a school community would be, for example, that of raising pupil achievement. Yet another illustration of joint enterprise would be that of the teaching of English across the curriculum where it is the (joint) responsibility of every teacher to teach the subject. Shared repertoire is the set of communal processes and resources produced by a community as part of its practice and used to negotiate meanings. The shared repertoire has literal and symbolic meanings and these include routines, words, tools, ways of doing things, stories, gestures, symbols, genres, actions, or concepts (Cobb, McClain, Silva, Lambert, & Dean, 2003; Smith, 2003; Wenger, 1998). In a teacher community, this repertoire includes such things as standardised ways of interpreting and using teaching material and resources to achieve the desired learning outcomes (Cobb, et al., 2003). The above dimensions (mutual engagement, joint enterprise and shared repertoire), therefore, characterise a CoP.
Practice: Learning also occurs through practice which encompasses the continuous establishment of long-term relationships, the accruing of stories, and refinement of products and artefacts. Practice implies “doing in a historical and social context that gives structure and meaning to what we do” (Wenger, 1998:47). Practice, in a nutshell, means doing and is reinforced through interaction by the people involved. In relation to learning to teach, practice implies development of competencies, habits and customs (Lampert, 2010). It also denotes application of theoretical knowledge in school and classrooms where teachers and pupils interact. The theory-practice dilemma that literature (Bainbridge, 2011; Nahal, 2010; Veenman, 1984) refers to can be addressed through learning in and from practice.
Identity: Relates to mediated experiences of membership within a community, what Wenger (1998:215) refers to as the “negotiation of our experiences in a process of becoming, or not becoming, a certain person.” Wenger (1998) identifies five possible meanings of the term identity as follows:
• identity as negotiated experience;
• identity as community membership;
• identity as a learning trajectory;
• identity as a nexus of multi-membership; and
• identity as a relation between the local and the global.
Accordingly, learning is more than acquisition of knowledge and practice, but also entails a process of appreciating who one is and to which communities one is a member and is accepted, i.e. one’s identity. The nature of an individual’s participation in a workplace community influences one’s perception of self. In the context of teacher induction, conceptions about one’s professional identity would influence how one teaches, his or her development as a teacher and outlook about the profession (Tickle, 2000).
The four concepts of theory discussed above (community, practice, meaning and identity), according to Wenger (1998), collectively give some insights into the operations of a CoP and the implications for learning. He posits that practice and identity sustain the community and, therefore, learning (Henderson, 2012). The core concepts of Wenger’s theory are used in this thesis to examine what the NQTs learn from induction experiences.
Wenger (1998) suggests fourteen indicators which can be used to identify a community of practice. These are:
• jargon and communication short cuts;
• rapid flow of information among members;
• sustained mutual relationships;
• shared ways of engaging in doing things;
• local lore, shared stories and inside jokes;
• absence of introductory preambles;
• ability to assess appropriateness of actions or products;
• specific tools, representations, and other artefacts;
• quick set up of problem to be discussed;
• acknowledging each other’s knowledge and its relevance;
• mutually defining identities;
• peculiar styles distinguish membership; and
• shared discourse reflecting a certain perspective on the world.
It is, therefore, possible to verify the existence of communities of practice in schools using the above indicators as benchmarks. These indicators may be used to differentiate a CoP from what Grossman, Wineburg and Woolworth (2001) call pseudo-community, which is characterised by superficial levels of concurrence during conversations among members Westheimer (2008) notes that while such characterisation may be considered a simplification of communities of practice as it portrays them as static, it however, facilitates the creation of a coherent framework for appreciating teacher professional communities in practice.
The main concepts of the CoP theory which have been discussed in detail in the preceding pages are summarised in the next section.

Underlying principles of the CoP framework

The CoP framework is concerned with workplace learning. The framework relates learning to practice and context and focuses on individual learning and identity construction. It defines learning in terms of participation within a community of similar-minded people (Grossman et al., 2001; Wenger, 1998; Lave & Wenger, 1991). The theory proposes that learning is an outcome of belonging to a community of practice. A community of practice, therefore, can be described as a forum for social learning in which, as people interact in quest of initiatives and develop relations with each other, they learn. The collective learning results in the development of their practice in a variety of ways, for example, through problem-solving, seeking experiences of others, mapping knowledge and identifying gaps.
The theory examines the make-up of communities of practice and the process of learning within them. The key tenets of the CoP theory are:
• learning is primarily a social endeavour and an outcome of participation in practices of the communities that one holds membership to;
• learning is central to human identity (Wenger, 1998) and the process of participation results in identity formation. Construction of shared identities is an on-going process and is achieved through involvement in and supporting the practice of their communities. The need to become central participants in a CoP spurs members to learn;
• knowledge is inherent in communities of practice, i.e. in their shared norms, values, beliefs and other ways of doing things. Real knowledge is to be found in the actions, social relations and expertise of the communities;
• learning and membership to a community are interdependent. The process of learning is accompanied by identity transformation and a change in the way one relates within the group;
• knowledge cannot be detached from practice, one cannot know without doing;
• the capacity to contribute creates a potential for learning. The context in which one participates represents a powerful learning environment; and
• the context and activities in which people learn become a fundamental part of what they learn (Borko, 2004) [paraphrased].
The CoP framework is an important tool for exploring learning that occurs among early career teachers. The perspective provides an understanding of the nature of experiences and interactions which constitute teacher learning and identity formation (Westheimer, 2008). The next section attempts to relate the CoP model to teacher induction.

Relating CoP theory to teacher induction

The CoP theoretical framework has been applied to various fields. Wenger (2006) says that the concept communities of practice has impacted on theory and practice in a variety of fields and singles out education as one such field where the theory is being used, especially for professional development. The potential of communities of practice in fostering knowledge sharing (Stewart, 1996), fostering innovation and serving as the foundation of key competencies (Brown & Duguid, 1991), and sustaining transferring of best practices (Wenger & Snyder, 2000) is widely acknowledged. With particular reference to schools, the advantages of workplace learning include accommodation of different needs and learning styles, ability to tap into collective knowledge and the natural promotion of collaboration and school renewal (Imants & Klaas, 2009). These are pertinent issues in teacher learning, thus making the CoP framework relevant for analysing induction experiences of NQTs.
Schools can be considered as CoPs since they exhibit some of the features specified in the definitions by Lave and Wenger (1991) and Wenger (1998). For example, schools provide constant proximity amongst members. The school, as an organisation and CoP, serves as a forum for supporting the learning and development of beginning teachers as professionals (Imants, 2003; Lave & Wenger, 1991).
The findings of some of the studies summarised in this section illustrate that literature that utilises a community of practice framework in the context of teacher learning and professional development and the importance of context in teacher learning is in existence.
A study by Grossman et al (2001) revealed that a teacher community offers a continuous context for teacher learning. The new teacher, during induction, does not only learn the professional skills, but also the culture and learning to become, that is, identity formation. Like the apprentices studied by Lave and Wenger (1991), NQTs would, during induction also learn the skills associated with the job of teaching such as curriculum delivery and lesson planning as well as more subtle skills and social aspects needed to progress from a novice to an expert. These are the very aspects that the CoP model emphasises. Teacher induction is therefore about learning in practice and developing shared thinking about teaching and learning what the teacher community within the school considers essential. For that reason, literature on teacher induction alludes to the importance of appropriate contextual fundamentals that support the new teacher adequately (McCormack & Thomas, 2003; Flores, 2001) and there has been an emphasis on the need for collegiality and collaboration in order to foster a culture of learning among teachers (Barth, 2006).
Hodkinson and Hodkinson (2004) conducted a study in England on how teachers learn and their findings established the following:
• that teachers’ learning is largely located in their identities, dispositions and their relationship with each other;
• the social relations within departments largely explained the differences in learning practices between them;
• the identities and dispositions of individual teachers explained the social relations within departments; and
• the working practices and learning approaches of those teachers were influenced (both enabled and constrained) by the departmental (school) cultures.
These findings confirm the claim by Lave and Wenger (1991) that learning is social and relational. Another study by Cuddapah and Clayton (2011) investigated how a cohort could be used as a resource for new teacher support. They found that the experiences in the cohort, which was basically composed of NQTs, supported the participants in shaping their practice, meaning making, identity formation and building a sense of becoming or community. They concluded that Wenger’s (1998) theory provides some valuable insights into the use of the cohort structure for the professional development of novices and that the cohort gives new teachers a third space from which to learn.
These studies demonstrate the applicability of the CoP framework to issues of teacher professional development and therefore, to this study. However, the framework has some limitations which should be acknowledged in the process of its application and these are as discussed in the next section.

Table of Contents
Dedication
Acknowledgements
Abstract
Chapter 1: Introducing the problem
1.1 Background to the problem
1.2 Statement of the problem
1.3 Research questions
1.4 Aim of the study
1.5 Significance of the study
1.6 Research methodology overview
1.7 Delimitations of the study
1.8 Limitations of the study
1.9 Assumptions of the study
1.10 Definition of terms
1.11 Structure of the thesis
Chapter 2: Review of related literature
2.1 Introduction
2.2 The concept of teacher induction
2.3 The role demands of teaching and the novice
2.4. Models of teacher development
2.5 The influence of the school culture on teacher learning
2.6 Induction as teacher socialisation
2.7 Induction supports for beginning teachers
2.8 Research perspectives on the experiences of NQTs
2.9 Research perspectives on teacher induction in Africa
2.10 Conclusion
Chapter 3: Theoretical framework
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Defining Communities of Practice
3.3 Core concepts of Wenger’s CoP theory
3.4 Underlying principles of Communities of Practice Theory
3.5 Relating CoP theory to teacher induction
3.6 Critique of CoP theory
3.7 Conclusion
Chapter 4: Research methodology
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Research paradigm
4.3 Research design
4.4 A description of the study population
4.5 The sample and sampling
4.6 Research instruments
4.7 Data collection procedures
4.8 Data analysis process
4.9 Trustworthiness of data
4.10 Ethical considerations
4.11 Conclusion
Chapter 5: Research results
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Results
5.3 Adapting to the new environment
5.4 Experiences of low intensity support strategies
5.5 Experiences of high intensity support strategies
5.6 Concerns of NQTs
5.7 Reflections of NQTs on induction experiences
5.8 Summary of results
Chapter 6: Discussion of results
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Nature and scope of induction experiences
6.3 Influences on the nature of induction
6.4 Conceptualisation of schools of role in induction
6.5 Lessons derived by NQTs from induction
6.6 Areas that require greater attention during induction
6.7 Persistent issues and challenges in teacher induction
6.8 Conclusion
Chapter 7: Summary, conclusions and recommendations
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Summary
7.3 Conclusions and Recommendations
7.4 Recommendations for further research
7.5 Conclusion
REFERENCES
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT