Community of Practice

For this module, I chose to research the community of practice (CoP) learning model. I find this interesting because we had implemented a CoP within our company, simply by chance, which is part of the definition of a CoP. Two things get me excited about that.

First, I love it that the education I am receiving right now is relevant, right now. When making the decision to return to school, one of the questions posed to me was, would it be a wise investment that would assist me in reaching my career goals. Every time I am able to draw a parallel between what is happening in my textbook to what is happening in my office, I believe that is a definitive yes. Understanding theory and the ‘why’ to everything thing I do helps me to make better choices in the future.

I work for a technology company that provides training and support for a multitude of properties across the U.S. and in the Carribbean. In addition to training and support, our company partners with a local university to provide internships to computer science and information technology students. The community of practice implemented within our company is made up of full-time web developers who serve as experts and student interns. I created the following diagram of the community of practice to demonstrate how interns progress through the process.

 

 

Graphical representation of a community of practice – Melissa St. Laurent

The president of our company recently shared a PowerPoint presentation from a colleague that outlined the differences between big technology companies, big companies with technology and startups. This immediately brought to mind Andriessen’s archetypes (2005).

Archetypes of knowledge groups

Cluster Name	Connectivity	Institutionalization	Example of group	From the speakers deck
Interest groups	low	low	Shared interest, little or no cohesion
Informal networks	moderate	low	Communities of interest, Wenger Network of professionals, Brown	Startups?
Informal communities	high	low	Communities of practice, Lave & Wenger	Morris Technology
Strategic communities	high	high	Corporate project teams	Big Technology Companies
Communities	low	high	Delphi participants	Big Companies with Technology

Afterward, I had the opportunity to share with him, the above diagrams and some of the highlights from Hoadley (2012)  in chapter 12 overview. Pleased with the parallel between the two, he is now arranging a forum to discuss communities of practice on a larger scale.

Another example of relevance occurred this evening. While traveling with colleagues a discussion of skill set development surfaced. In this conversation, an example of an intern was given who lacked the knowledge to complete specific tasks. I was able to share the necessity for the availability of experts, scaffolding and other key aspects of the community of practice model.

This brings me to the second reason I get excited. By sharing the relevant knowledge taken from this course with my boss and peers, I am now an active participant in a knowledge share.  I am not naïve enough to believe that the CoP model is the answer to all my training. To impose that would be contrary to much of the research presented in my annotated bibliography.

References:

Andriessen, J. H. E. (2005). Archetypes of knowledge communities. Communities and Technologies, 191–213.

Hoadley, C. (2012). What is a community of practice and how can we support it? In Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed., pp. 286–299). Routledge.

Social Development Theory

Module 2 Reflection
Melissa St. Laurent
504 – Spring 2013

I found this module of particular interest. It is very enlightening to learn about the theories that underlie many of the activities in which we participate throughout or own education, both formal and informal, as well as the activities that we assign as instructors. As Horton pointed out in his article, Lev goes to college: Reflections on implementing Vygotsky’s ideas in higher education, many of these learning theories are already in use despite the fact that many have no idea of the source (2008).

The journal article, Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective (Ertmer & Newby, 1993), was an absolute gem. This article brought to the forefront several critical questions that I will now incorporate in all future trainings. It is critical to understand the limitations of the technology, the diversity of the learners, and the acceptability of the material in relation to the goal of the instruction.

Every response given to the question why the study of learning theories is relevant to the instructional designer resonated with me (Ertmer & Newby,  1993, p. 51).

1. Learning theories are a source of VERIFIED instructional strategies, tactics & techniques.
2. Learning theories provide the foundation for INTELLIGENT and REASONED strategy selection.
3. Integration of the selected strategy within the instructional CONTEXT is critical.
4. Learning theories allow for reliable PREDICTION when time and resources are limited.

Perhaps the greatest advice given within the article was that although it is crucial for designers to understand the history of the learning theories, it is acceptable to cherry pick aspects from multiple theories, based on evaluation of the learners and the end goal. This concept is referred to as systematic eclecticism. (Ertmer & Newby,  1993, p. 70). There is not always one theory that meets all the needs presents. This is not a permission to dismiss the historical value of the theories, quite the contrary.  According to Ertmer and Newby (1993, p. 69), “…to be an eclectic, one must know a lot, not a little, about the theories being combined.”

This is my first journey into learning theory. In my work, I have implemented many aspects of the articles I have read for this assignment, with varying degrees of success. Throughout the reading for this topic, I was able to draw many parallels to my current practice. I have created forms of practice fields and communities of practice outlined in situative learning during the implementation of software. I continually use the aspects of the social development theory everyday as I assist employees through hands on training activities.  My implementation tactics were eclectic, but only by chance.

The problem with that is, I am a control freak. I do not like leaving things to chance. I understand that not all things are in my control but, being armed with the knowledge will afford me the opportunity to make educated decisions regarding strategy.

View this document on Scribd